User talk:Philologia Sæculārēs

Linking outside en-wikt

Hi, if you want to link to a URL, you don't use the URL+pipe format *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_arts| Bachelor of Arts degree], which makes your userpage's Tertiary education links leading nowhere - try Bachelor of Arts degree. You only use a space instead of the pipe: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_arts Bachelor of Arts degree] => Bachelor of Arts degree. When linking to the 'pedia the alternative way is this: [[w:Bachelor_of_arts|Bachelor of Arts degree]] =>Bachelor of Arts degree. --Duncan 09:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Duncan. (Sorry, I'm not very computer/coding/whatever literate.)--Tyranny Sue 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What you may understand from this, is how to link internal links properly as well. On your user page you ask for someone to tell you have to link to spat#Verb_2 without showing what's after the #. Well, put in a pipe: [[spat#Verb_2|spat]]. It'll give you spat. --Eivind (t) 06:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you EivindJ!--Tyranny Sue 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Don't hesitate to ask further questions (: --Eivind (t) 07:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Wiktionary:Citations

enPR, IPA, and SAMPA stress marks (ʹ, '; ˈ, ˌ; ", %)

Concerning this revision of yours: Please see Wiktionary:English pronunciation key#Other symbols; nota that whilst IPA and SAMPA stress marks præcede the stressed syllable, enPR stress marks follow it. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry about that. Fixed now. Thanks for letting me know.--Tyranny Sue 06:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

You can do en-verb manually for such cases, see my changes. You can do the same with en-noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tyranny Sue 09:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

tip

Hiya. Rather than add the year in the etymology sections, you could use {{defdate}}. See muster for an example of how it looks. The problem with putting specific years is that they maybe give an over-specific idea of when a word appeared, and also it means we always end up nicking info from the OED, who as far as I know are the only ones recording earliest attestation dates. And the problem with putting it in Etymology sections is that different senses appeared at different times, of course. Anyway see what you think. Ƿidsiþ 10:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,
Just wondering where you found the date (19th c.) for tip Etymology 2, Noun, sense 3 (dump). I haven't been able to find any date for that so far.
Thanks! --Tyranny Sue 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The OED's first attestation for that sense is from 1862. Ƿidsiþ 05:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

man

If you wish to proscribe certain words from Wiktionary, then please start a vote to do so. Your political agenda pushing is reason for a block if it continues. --EncycloPetey 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of bully-boy tactics. It is not clear what particular edit or edits it's in response to (though I guess it might have been in response to my edit at dog, where I changed "domesticated by man" to "domesticated by humans", but I certainly did not edit the 'man' entry, and have, of course, never suggested "proscribing" any word).

Just for the record, a big part of my reason for changing "man" to "humans" in the 'dog' entry is that "man" (as well as - to some people - meaning 'all humans') also, of course, means 'not woman', so that definition can quite easily be read as a statement that female humans didn't play a part in the domestication of dogs, which of course we don't know and should certainly not be claiming.

Leaping to accusations of hidden extremist agendas in response to my very minor and well-considered edits suggests that you are having a very emotional reaction to them. Have you thought about why that might be? It is getting a bit boring for me, frankly.--Tyranny Sue 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:195.14.151.43

IP addresses are re-assigned dynamically, the user from 2003 will have moved on long ago. Your changes to gender have been repeatedly undone in the past, I have not followed the discussion as to why, but trying to involve yet more people in what looks like an utterly pointless (from both sides) debate is unhelpful. Conrad.Irwin 02:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about IP addresses.

Regarding my edits to gender, they have been undone twice (I personally don't think that counts as "repeatedly") by the same admin who has refused to give a proper reason for his reversions.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that my interest in discussing this issue with anyone who is interested in discussing it is 'unhelpful' and 'pointless', but I neither share your feelings nor agree with your judgement on this particular matter.--TyrS 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have commented in the Tea Room. The problem is not that he hasn't given a proper reason, it is that you haven't recieved a proper reason. I understand the justification he gave in his edit summary, and also understand why you regard it as invalid. Those who are interested in discussions can join them whenever they like, this is certainly not the first time that the ordering of genders has been tediously over-analysed; it will not be the last either. Conrad.Irwin 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to check the Tea Room yet. I also don't share your feeling/judgement that this is being "tediously over-analysed". Wiktionary is still a forum for open discussion, and if users choose to discuss something, that is still their option.

Systemic bias typically works in such a way that admins and bureaucrats are the people most likely to share it (whether consciously or not). Combine that with the fact that this particular instance of systemic bias is one in which those particular admins/bureaucrats/etc can be seen to have a certain degree of - probably unconscious - personal investment, and (for me, anyway) it becomes an issue more worth discussing, not less so.

The fact that you find it uninteresting, etc, doesn't change how others might feel about it.--TyrS 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that I am bias, and some of the time even pay attention to it. For changing username, try WT:CHU. Conrad.Irwin 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link!--TyrS 03:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Do you really want your user page at User:Philologia Sæculārēs to redirect to User:Tyranny Sue? I see that User:TyrS redirects to User:Tyranny Sue and User talk:TyrS redirects to this page (User talk:Philologia Sæculārēs), but the discussion above seems to indicate that you edited under "Tyranny Sue" first and then under "TyrS", and now you edit under "Philologia Sæculārēs". So shouldn't both User:TyrS and User:Tyranny Sue redirect to User:Philologia Sæculārēs? - dcljr (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks very much for your post. You are right, they should. I didn't realize that this was the case. I will try to fix it when I get a chance.

Kind regards,

--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)