User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/1

Welcome

Feel free to leave me a message. Mglovesfun 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi there Martin! Remember me from ISC? Anyways, great to see you editing here! Cheers, Razorflame 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

interwiki links

Hi! I see you're adding interwiki links to Wiktionnaire. Note that this is unnecessary: there is a bot that does it automatically. You're welcome to do it, but are wasting your time.—msh210℠ 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But the bot doesn't do it instantly either, so they might otherwise appear a day later.Mglovesfun 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

formatting

Just a small point, but glosses from foreign languages into English shouldn't end in full stops. Just the translation(s) alone is fine. Thanks! Ƿidsiþ 11:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, any more tips and I'll gladly read them. Mglovesfun 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you are working with suffixes so much, you might want to think about the available templates. Have a look at the changes I made to publicitaire. Ƿidsiþ 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, cheers. Mglovesfun 11:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Plurals

You may find WT:ACCEL can help you creating French plurals. Conrad.Irwin 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have a proper look later. For anyone reading this page, I'm working from Wiktionary:French frequency lists/1-2000 (etc) to create the most 'common' missing words. Mglovesfun 12:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

fro template

Well, I never do anything with Old French :) Equinox ◑ 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just apologize to anyone who's reading for making a mess of the Old French nouns. Still, that's the thing with a wiki, you can just correct it afterwards!! Mglovesfun 11:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

French help

"If I were to make a minor suggestion, it would be to copy the etymologies from the existing article (tragic/tragique) otherwise the article looks a bit bare." That is true; on the other hand, I don't like duplicating content because if the source ever changes, the copied versions will not. I am now trying to write a "French" ety for words that can stand it (e.g. consomm[er]+ateur), and adding an ety of "See under [English word]" for those that already have a long history of some classical language leading up to the French (and thence to English). Ideally we would represent these etys in some "semantic" way so that they could be generated on the fly, but we are far from that. Equinox ◑ 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

holiness

1. We don't put context tags on alternative spellings, synonyms, related terms etc. because that can put the headword into an associated category. (Similarly, we don't use {{etyl}} for cognates in etymologies.) There is broad agreement that context tags do not belong there. A concrete illustration of the harm is that putting a "US" context on the alternative spelling "labor" in the the entry for "labour" puts "labour" in a "US English" category. I use {{i}}; others use {{qualifier}}. I really should look into any differences in the consequences of using one rather than the other.

   I just found out I was wrong about {{etyl}} it can by used for cognates without bad side effects by having "-" as second parameter. I think you were the only person I may have misled. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2. I like to horizontalize alternative spellings, analogously to synonyms after {{sense}}. It has the effect of increasing the chances that someone will find what they want (usually a definition). Though this is accepted, many don't do it and it is not obligatory. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I kinda think that something like

Homophones

• ate
• eight

Looks a lot better than

Homophones

• ate, eight

But hey, I'm pretty flexible, Mglovesfun 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm driven by my understanding of the usability literature (and my own preferences of course). A separate homophones subheader was voted down. We actually have {{homophones}} which reflects a preferred (not "mandatory") format (I think). It takes but one line for several homophones vs. 1.5 + number of homophones and yields:

• Homophones: ate, eight

As far as I am concerned, I believe that so few users can make use of the phonetic alphabet material (and even the OGG files) that homophones could be the only usable material in our pronunciation section for 80% or more of our non-admin users and more of our unregistered ones. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave a bad example then; I was just talking about horizontal versus vertical. IPA is a bit dangerous anyway because there are so many different ways to prononce words. For example, couldn't and cunt (apologies for the example) can be homophones in Yorkhire because we contract it. Mglovesfun 10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

+en: prefix to topical categories

From Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Category:Palindromes by language:
“Further comment, I'd like to see things like Category:Chess renamed Category:en:Chess because it screws up interwikis quite a lot. Mglovesfun 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)”
–I agree wholeheartedly. If you were to make the case for this change and begin a VOTE on the issue, I would support your endeavour. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin vote?

Hi. You seem to do lots of useful things. If you're interesting in being an administrator, I'd be happy to nominate you and start the voting cogwheels. Equinox ◑ 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Wiktionary:Votes#User:Mglovesfun_for_admin Equinox ◑ 11:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

French inflections

Hi. Do you know, is there any quick easy way to add inflected French forms? Or conjugations? --Rising Sun 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• thanks for ACCEL. For the conjugated forms, I think a lot of these verb forms are easily made. Can this bot still run? --Rising Sun 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

bricole

Are you sure this comes from Italian briccola? The meanings seem quite different. Perhaps the noun (a small piece of something) comes from briciola. SemperBlotto 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

serein

Do you know anything about the etymology of serein; I cannot understand whether it comes from the etymology stated in the English section or from the Latin word serēnus. I noticed serain was on your Old French list to add, which is why I am asking you. Caladon 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The CNRTL website provides an etymology, but I cannot read it, since my French is not good enough; "a) Ca 1170 serein « qui est clair, doux, pur et calme (en parlant des conditions atmosphériques) » (Guillaume de Saint-Pair, Mont Saint-Michel, éd. P. Redlich, 723); 1176 serain « id. » (Chrétien de Troyes, Cligès, éd. A. Micha, 241: serains rime avec premerains); b) 1611 goutte serene (Cotgr.); 2. 1225-30 serin « qui annonce une grande tranquillité d'esprit (en parlant d'un regard, d'un sourire) » (Guillaume de Lorris, Rose, éd. F. Lecoy, 2209). Issu, par substitution de suff., d'apr. le lat. class. serenus « pur, sans nuages, calme, paisible » de l'a. fr. seri « doux, calme » (ca 1140 serrit, Voyage Charlemagne, éd. G. Favati, 371) qui semble remonter au verbe inchoatif serescēre « sécher » (dér. de serenus) devenu serῑscere puis serῑre."

Are you able to work out the correct etymology from that or does it not help? It doesn't seem to mention this part of the etymology stated on serein "from Latin serum (evening), from serus (late)." Caladon 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting this matter out; the page(s) look much better now. Caladon 08:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Occitan

Hi, thanks for your message! (I don't work on fr.wikt for the moment). See you later.Jiròni 11:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ras-le-bol

Hello. Since you are interested in Old French, can you try including the etymology for ras-le-bol. It is among my favorite words in French. --Rising Sun 10:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really got anything more than fr:ras-le-bol. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Merci pour ton offre d'aide. --Antal 21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

my entries' source: Hotlist

Um, what is the question - where am I getting the words to put in, or where am I getting the definitions? I'll give you the answers to both ... I am getting the words off of this list to put in, and as many definitions as I can find I am summarizing out of Webster's Third New International Dictionary copyright 1990 something. (Did you read my conversation with Equinox, who had the same concern about plagiarism? half of it's on Equinox's talk page.) You probably don't, but do you know if anyone else is working through the Hotlist, or is it just me who has the nerve to attempt such a dauntingly monstrous project? I'm only in the 400s of the first page (of 13!! :P) and it is going reeeeeaaaaaaallllllyyyyy slowly. At least I have a whole lifetime before me to get the thing finished... Thanks for the comment! L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

iwikis and templates

Hi! As general policy we do not put iwikis in templates. (they cause small process overhead, and re-rendering every time someone changes an iwiki, to no purpose). They are usually put on the talk/doc page if desired, in a section for them. Robert Ullmann 13:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

oops

whoops, OK, can do. Do I still use the ===Noun=== header with the {{en-proper noun}} template? or is there a Proper Noun header too? Thanks for telling me.  :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't catch that. What did you mean? L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

abayant

Abayer is an obsolete form of aboyer. --Antal 10:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last revertion of template

I'm not sure of the reason behind your action to exclude the interwiki to "Wiktionnaire" with "Français" definitions - as I named it. I'm curious what made you reconsider and undo your inclusion for the "fr:" . Is it because the version for the "en:" is more general, and might perhaps be used in other cases than just articles' pages (discussion pages, etc.)? I'm not certain that the "en:" version can be used for template pages also, or can it? All the best, --Biblbroks 13:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At the request of another administrator (see directly above, well almost). The French template still links to {{rfc}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

whItelist

At WT:WL seconding a nomination is sufficient: you can mark it "approved by" and follow the "rights" link to change the user's group to "autopatroller". (Perhaps you knew this already and deliberately did not do this with respect to Leasnam because you were uncertain in your support and unwilling to flip the switch, in which case sorry for bothering you.)​—msh210℠ 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I thought only bureaucrats could change user rights groups, so ty. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We explicitly added user rights to sysop, restricted to add/remove the patrol rights. You are correct, the default is that only 'crats could do it ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

s/

s/ comes from the command (from sed and ed, I know, but I assume also from other programs — perhaps even shells?) to replace one string with another. I mean, it is that command, but it has also entered the lexicon as an informal way of saying "replace one string with another" in normal text, i.e. not in computer scripts: see the example given at citations:s/. (I've no doubt there are three usable citations for this sense, and we can have the entry, but I'm having trouble finding them: it's hard to search for this.)​—msh210℠ 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

saintesses

er, I was just about to get to that - you very nicely mixed me up! Good going! ; ) For the future - I usually create plurals of entries I create so others don't need to bother - and it does mix me up... L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

SoP

Someone went on a minor crusade to change "sum of parts" to non-idiomaticity a while ago. The trouble is that they don't mean the same thing.

kinetic energy is not SoP (and we have it), because it needs a precise definition. But it is also not idiomatic.

The test was (and is) SoP. Something that is not SoP is often an idiom, but certainly not always. And, of course, idioms can be single words Mississippi, and therefore not possibly SoP. I like your edit to CFI, but just wait for someone to demand a vote. (I certainly won't!) Robert Ullmann 13:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No I agree totally, but contributors use it a lot so it ought to be in WT:CFI (even if I don't like it much myself). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

catch me if you can

Hello. A nice word game...good film...Are interested in catch wrestling? Maybe you can help me improve the wrestling section of Wikt. I would like to add more French terms for this sport - maybe my favorite sports in the world. I think it would be good to add to this Category:fr:Wrestling category. Have a nice week. --Rising Sun 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "wrestling". I used to watch WWE (at the time, WWF) when I was younger, which is not really a "sport" as it's 100% staged. If you're talking about Greco-Roman wrestling, that's much more interesting but it gets little TV coverage in the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Wesha#WT:SAND

Testing is over, you can delete the sandbox page. See Template:ex. and автобус for usage example. -- Wesha 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments.

Hi Mglovesfun,

I don't think this edit was really appropriate. If an editor doesn't want to capitalize "Google Books" in his own comments, I really think that's his right.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I strongly prefer when people correct my errors; it saves me the time! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

wrongfull reversion

Your "interwicket" reverted a valid improvement to the term railroaded.

I do not care so much for myself if you decide not to keep the change but doing so may deprive others of valuable reference knowledge.

Please consider adapting the change. 71.100.1.156 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find that the verb is railroad#Verb and that railroaded is just the past tense of this verb, you just copied the content of one page to another page where it was not needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason it is needed is so that a user can cite the Wikitionary definition of railroaded directly without confusing the reader that the topic is about railroads instead of the transitive examples provided. I don't really care though since this is one of the reasons we are forbidden to cite the Wiktionary anyway. If you don't want to make it citeable according to the requirement's put forth by the citing format authorities and what best serves the readers needs then so be it. 71.100.1.156 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your definition was not for railroaded. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

greenality

"Greenality" lived only for a few hours? Is there no consideration for allowing others to look and evaluate?

Is the term offensive in some way? If so, how?

I was actually ASKED to post this here BY WIKIPEDIA, who thought that the definition in wikipedia fit better as a dictionary entry. I do so, and then it is deleted within hours?

...not feeling the love over here...

I'll try and verify it, but I'm not holding my breath. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Greenality is a word that a colleague and I are coining. It will used in a book that we are currently writing." Right, see protologism for this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Index:Hebrew/y etc.

Hi, thanks for cleaning these pages away, in future could you let me know of problems that you find with the indices so I can correct the scripts that generate them. (Otherwise they'll just keep being created again). Thanks Conrad.Irwin 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

garbidge

Hi, thanks for correcting me on that. I tried to look at the pages Wiktionary:Redirects and Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names, but I wasn't too clear on what to do. I'll use the alternative spelling of template. Thanks, --OldakQuill 13:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Wiktionary syntax is harder than on other wikis. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

contribute in old French

Hi. Yes, I can, but from September --Antal 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uber

see uber-

Why delete further advice on what a word with such a limited definition means? Spirit of this whole system is to share knowledge and your downright vandalism by deleting whole sections promotes exactly the opposite.

If you feel that perhaps the way the entry is worded isn’t an appropriate format, why not rephrase/format, rather than a wholesale delete. Progression and knowledge is made and created in an academic world by taking someone else’s work, building on it and then handing it on to the next generation/person to build on that understanding. By simply deleting information does absolutely nothing for the global knowledge base that is this people’s encyclopaedia.

I see you regularly pounce on peoples entries from the comments above – it is a shame you don’t display a level of intelligence and academic ability, rather than being a common vandal.

Yeah, but we don' just accept any old information either; maybe formatting would have been better than reverting I admit. Still, cut the high-handed crap, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Assisted translations

Yes, well i knew about the idea of a red link. But i think i remember a time where the template added was t+ or t- based on whether the target page existed or not. -- Jokes Free4Me 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Homophones in French

Hi Mglovesfun! I have noticed that you consider French verb forms ending in "ais", "ait" and "aient" as homophones to verb forms ending in "é" and "ai". Strictly they are not, and (AFAIK) the French wiktionary does not consider them as such either. Take a look, for example, to the IPA of zonai and zonais, or zonerai and zonerais. On the other end, in reality, the prononciation of both is often similar in day-to-day speech (at least in France), and it's not unusual to pronounce "j'irai" like "j'irais" for example. But despite most would consider "...ai" and "...ais" rhyme, I'd say they are not strictly homophones. — Xavier, 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I just posted this message on fr:. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong's concordance

It's always a good idea to check incoming links when you delete something. A template used by half our Ancient Greek entries linked to this, and so we've had a lot of red links because of this. I've changed the template, so this situation should be resolved now, but something to keep in mind for the future. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mammals and more...

Hi Martin,

Actually the real thing is, in my opinion and that of many scholars (Bèc, Linguistic atlasses), [o̞] that is a vocal similar to Spanish or Greek for instance (but there are scholars who transcribe it as an open -o- [ɔ] (which is dubious since it is not as open as -ò-). Usually (and since Occitan has no real closed -o- the notation [o] could be preferred, just as they do in the languages previously named). Sometimes I have tried to write that little sign but well it takes a lot of time for me to find it so I just do it this way. Let me know if you want me to fix it or just feel free to do it. Take care!Capsot 10:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thai alphabet

Hi

Thank you for moving Thai alphabet to Appendix:Thai alphabet.

John Cross 11:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work!

It was good! Just added the stress mark (which is really important in Occitan and other Romance languages...). Very good and interesting site, I didn't know it, thanks! I'm sure you'll speak Occitan pretty soon!!!Capsot 11:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again... Actually, there are two opposite trends in Occitan linguistics which concern the final -e (named e de sosten/e de soutien in French). Some people add it nearly systematically when they think the thing can't be pronounced without it ie. filme for film, vèrb should normally have a plural vèrbs (which I agree is not easily pronounced while vèrbe > vèrbes. The CLO advocated for some intermediate position though nobody knows clearly how it works except the few chosen ones... The fact is that a lot of confusion is going on; personally I don't like the -e de supòrt and hardly use it. I hope my explanation was clear enough, just let me know if it was too vague or unclear...Capsot 11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not much into the Internet widgets so I'll keep on writing this way for now, maybe when I have more spare time... (wishful thinking actually...), my greatest issue is how to create a "label" for the sensitive plurals like tais > taisses?

Many thanks/mila mercés!!!

1992

Hi Mglovesfun
I have tried to explain my reasons for adding 1992 on the RFD page, I hope it is clear what my reasons are even if you still disagree. I have also commented on the general policy issue of including entries made up (only) of the digits 0 to 9 in the Beer Parlour.

Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#1992

John Cross 19:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As you know, this has been kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Me again

I'm not new to wikipedia but i am new to wictionary. How do i redirect pages on wikipedia to wiktionary? See on wikipedia how i tried to redirect "chuiwan" to wiktionary? Didn't work. User name one 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mereon

Did you read the rfv page? Nobody replied there so nobody will reply on the rfd page either. --Makaokalani 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You could also try and verify it yourself, I promise to have a look today or tomorrow morning. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

affuter + affuter with the hat on the u

Hello Martin. Please can you throw an eye at affuter and affûter - both are affected by these 1990 spelling rectifications. Is there a Wiktionary link to these spelling rectifications - Wiktionary:French spelling rectifications, or similar? --Felonia 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

conjugation bot

Hello. I spent today making this bot. I think it works! I have used canaliser as the infinitive, and will test with others infinitves later. I've also used the {{also}} template for some things, but I'm not so sure about this part. See canalises, and it looks badly formatted. --Rising Sun 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Great! User:AutoFormat corrects this! I was hoping, that would happen. I'm also unsure about putting the fr: interwiki link on the page. Another bot can add these links anyway. --Rising Sun 15:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't put interwikis, canalises had [[fr:canalises]] twice! Review spacing, everything else looks okay.
  • Can it also do non 1er groupe verbs like transclure? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, it could do them. But not immediately. Someone (me, unless others wanna help) must write the code for them, firstly, and then it should be easily modifiable. Wow, I'm thinking, 80 different template to write. Ah! --Rising Sun 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • What's the problem with spacing? I've looked up and down at the contributions, and everything seems to be to me peachy! And I've done the second trial with lubrifier, sans fr: interwiki. --Rising Sun 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Its' putting [[lubrifier |lang=French]] which means that it appears as [...] of lubrifier . (with that extra space before the dot). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't follow you. Please, can you give a link to the page which looks wrong, so I can rectify. --Rising Sun 16:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, what is necessary, in order to get a bot flag? p.s. thanks for your help--Rising Sun 16:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • See WT:BOTS. I see you've already started a vote: make sure to announce the vote on the BP ASAP.​—msh210℠ 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Not exactly easy to see, but here. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Wow, that is real perfectionism! You have eyes like a golden eagle! --Rising Sun 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aintree Iron

Hi there Mglovesfun, I left the following entry for you on Saturday/Sunday, only to find that, instead of responding, you simply deleted my comment!! I'd appreciate the courtesy of your response:

I happened to stumble on this phrase recently in the lyrics to song by the 60s British group The Scaffold. I wondered what it meant and consulted Wilkipedia AND Wiktionary. NO mention of the phrase in either place! However, after an hour or so I found several explanations and composted a Wiktionary entry. ONLY to find that you had deleted it for the rather astonishing reason that you felt it was "not dictionary material."

I take strong exception to that and cite Wiktionary's own criterion for inclusion:

"A term should be included if it's likely that SOMEONE WOULD RUN ACROSS IT AND WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic."

That's what happened to me. And I see no "threshold" for "someone" that would suggest that a certain number of folks would need to try and post it before you allowed it to remain!!

While Wiktionary is not exactly the same as Wikipedia, there are many areas of overlap. Thus, while Wikipedia DOES have entires for The Scaffold and its members, the noun phrase "Aintree iron" is not mentioned or defined. While Wikipedia does contain many song references, they're almost always to the TITLES of songs/albums, NOT to specific, puzzling words and phrases.

The advantage of Wiktionary is that, unlike the OED and Merriam-Webster's Unabridged, there are no page limitations and neologisms can quickly be added.

Please leave the entry alone! Or at least make your comments, suggestions for improvement AT THE ENTRY! I know I'm not the only one who's wondered about the phrase. And being able to find an explantion of a word/phrase in a single, logical, FREE location is just what Wiktionary was created for!

By the way, you and your fellow admin destroyed several hours of work. I naturally assumed that you functioned much like Wikipedia and that any entry would be commented on and/or revised. NOT purged completely. I have never found it necessary to keep offline copies of my contributions because they could always be retrieve from the entry History. But you nullfied that my purging my entry. Please try to retrieve my entry from the system Trash and post it to my Talk page. Thanks. Cyberbot 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not the first WP user to mistkenly assume Wiktionary works just like Wikipedia, but this is not Wikipedia, and never has been. Wiktionary works very differently, and usually much more rapidly when it comes to deleting non-content. Wiktionary editors prefer to address problems up-front and soon after the new entry appears. Part of the reason for this is the very small number of administrators compared to the number of entries. Antoher is the small number of edits most entries receive. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not have editors regularly crawling through all the entries in a given topic to update them. If a problem is not caught and dealt with quickly, it tends to persist for years.

New entries which have no dictionary content are deleted as a matter of course. What you entered here was an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. Asking us to "leave it alone" means nothing since this is a wiki, and others are going to edit here. You cannot claim ownership. We also generally do not discuss entries at the entry's talk page; we have a small number of fora where the majority of discussion occurs. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Interesting that Mglovesfun replied by deleting my original post and you wind up responding to my re-post, which has been buried at the bottom of the list.

The first thing that your reply makes me think is that you folks don't really read what I'm saying in my responses to the deletion of my entry.

And frankly, your reasoning seems a tad circular. "We don't have enough editors to read every entry, so we take the time to read every entry as it appears to make sure non-content doesn't stay around for years." The only thing that seems clear about this is that you don't invite discussion or editing of an article as in Wikipedia. Instead, to save yourselves time, you simply PURGE anything that doesn't fit your concept of a "definition"!!

This is hardly the way to encourage folks to participate in the Wiktionary project. And while Wiktionary obviously isn't the same thing as Wikipedia, they are all offsping of the same source and users have a reasonable expectation consistency in standards.

You never define "content" other than to assert that my entry was more of an encyclopedia article. However, there is always some overlap in "dictionary" and "encylopdia" entries. Many dictionaries have Gazeteers and Biographical sections: clearly not things that are "defined". More to the point, I return to the basic CFI:

"A term should be included if it's likely that SOMEONE WOULD RUN ACROSS IT AND WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS."

I don't find any ambiguity in that statement. I myself "ran across" the term and wanted to know what it meant. While there is no definitive definition for it, I was happy to share what I found. Not because I have any agenda of promoting The Scaffold or their song, but merely because I wanted to do what Wiktionary claims to be about. If somone wants to provide a more "in depth" discussion in a Wikepedia entry related to The Scaffold or "Thank U Very Much," (currently there is no reference to the phrase anywhere on Wikipedia), I'm sure it would be welcome. I, however, deliberately condensed the information to its essentials for Wiktionary.

As for asking that the entry be "left alone," it should be clear that I meant that if anyone had issues with it they should be addressed via revision and/or comments in Talk (which, contrary to your assertion, IS precisely what Talk is for!) and not via PURGING the entry!

Except in those obvious instance where an entry is not enlightening but clearly a joke or intended to shock/offend or is totally incoherent, those of us who take the time and effort to compose entries deserve courtesy and respect for our work. There are numerous "flags" that can be added to entries, which should always be discussed, NOT dismissed and deleted out of hand. Cyberbot 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my... first I just moved the message to the bottom the keep the messages in chronological order with an edit summary saying just that. The criteria for inclusiong (WT:CFI) are a lot more complicated than you make out, an obvious first step would be for you to read them. Term is actually defined later in the article, throughout the whole article. We're not an anthology of song lyrics, there aer hundreds of sites (mostly free) already doing this. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

-z#Old French

This appears as a verb. However, I think you are mistaken. --Rising Sun 13:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, Mglovesfun (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

battle

The "edit" that was undone was in fact a reversion that eliminated my edits just some several moments before. My additions, which are now shown, are correct and can be vouched for by citing a number of etymological resources. In any case, I'll simply say that phonetically speaking, batallia must FOLLOW battUallia (not precede it), and that the additional Gaulish information adds more to the etymology. You might instead ask the other person why they reverted my edits. Please revert it back or I'll do it for you. Flibjib8 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no harm in adding correct etymological information as long as it is properly formatted, which it wasn't. You actually undid some of my work to tidy up etymologies by deleting the desired templates. Caladon 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for replying two days later. Basically modifying etymologies is quite clearly fine, but in this case, why not just modify it instead of reverting? Apparently you only wanted to change one letter (battUallia). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

{{term}} and other templates

Hi Mglovesfun. Please take note of the templates and other code used in presenting Ancient Greek etyma. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Increment

If you dispute the colloquial nature of using "increment" as a verb, then please supply the reference.--60.38.218.219 08:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of the other way around, we have to prove that it exists, not that it does exist. Otherwise I would start and entry for oinueri and someone would have to then prove it dosn't exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement "It's sort of the other way around, we have to prove that it exists, not that it does exist." doesn't make much sense, even if you don't nit-pick about the bad apostrophe usage. Unless you meant to suggest that "increment" as a verb was a wicktionary protologism. Only reference to usage that I've found is in the Kenkyusha Reader's Japanese-English dictionary under 増す (masu) (Leeds uni has a copy), but just because a word exists as a verb in one language (French or Japanese for example) doesn't mean that it exists in English as a verb, and it seems to me that this word as a verb is colloquial in the true sense of the word. Having worked for many years with that dictionary, I would not consider the kenkyusha as attestation in English.--Onigoroshi 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's = "it is", not "of it". Anyway Google gets 1.4 million hits for "incremented" and 0.7 million for "incrementing", so that's already 2.1 million before adding all the verbal uses of "increment" and "increments". Are you suggesting that all 2.1 million are spelling mistakes? If so, come back when you've analysed all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that wicktionary has a very good definition of the word "colloquial". And I think everybody knows the limitations of g-hits. What I find objectionable is that you have deemed that a colloquial word cannot be labelled colloquial for no apparent reason. Instead of entering into a sensible discussion as to why not, you simply barred an IP address, even though the edit was clearly not blatant vandalism, but just something with which you personally disagree. I think your time as a new admin might be better spent elsewhere. It took the actions of a more experienced admin to at least come to a compromise position by including the usage that was previously noted in the reverted edit. I think someone who behaves in a such a manner, biting newbies and fobbing them off, is probably not suited to the job, even if it is a volunteer position.--Onigoroshi 13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't insult me, but you are. To turn it around - what's your source for saying it's colloquial? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would rather you didn't insult me, but you have done. As regards the argument about the colloquial nature of the usage, we could run a statistical analysis of google data, but I would bet that most of those hits are either colloquial (from computer-related chat rooms?) or the result of translations into English: There are an awful lot of languages which have a single word meaning to increase something incrementally. That is why I posted a RFV, because I have not been able to find a single native English reference for the usage outside of computing, and even then it seems to be used in a colloquial manner within computing, with few formal examples of use.--Onigoroshi 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you're not denying the word exist, which rules out and RFV. Anyway, I updated the context tags per your request. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This would have been the better way to do things in the first place. --Onigoroshi 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, yes, but I wasn't the only person involved either. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)