User talk:BD2412/Archive 7

Status: Away until mid-May. Archives: 1 (10/05 - 08/06); 2 (07/06 - 02/07); 3 (02/07 - 6/28/07); 4 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 5 (1/08 - 8/08); 6 (9/08 - 12/09); 7 (12/09-12/11); 8 (1/12-4/16) m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) copyright question You expertise would be most appreciated at user talk:Chuffable#Volapuk_entries. Thanks!​—msh210℠ 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC) IP One definition given is "A specific instance of intellectual property, such as a particular design". Do you recognize this use? I was going to RFV it, but figured I should check with you first. Thanks.​—msh210℠ 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) It doesn't exist in any sense that is not redundant to the first definition. bd2412 T 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks.​—msh210℠ 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Restoring pages Good stuff, how do you find these? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I was looking through red links on my watchlist, and my deleted user contributions. bd2412 T 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Reconstructed pronunciations User 24.29.228.33 has been adding many Middle Chinese entries, which is great. He wikilinks the reconstructed pronunciations from the Unihan database (see the 王 edit and Unihan's info), though he does put a '*' before it to show it's reconstructed. Shouldn't these be unlinked per our defacto policy on reconstructed terms? Or is this standard practice when dealing with Chinese transliterations? Thanks. --Bequw → τ 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Surely, if they are reconstructed, and therefore unattestable, we would never have entries for them, thereby making any links to such pages permanently red and pointless… † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Q Sorry to but in. Could you check the latest update (Mandarin) to Q. I can't tell if it is real or vandalism. SemperBlotto 17:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I am just as much in the dark about it as you! Seems like the links added are real Chinese instant messenger lingo, so not vandalism per se. However, it is likely that they have not existed long enough to meet the CFI. bd2412 T 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Capitalization of expanded initialisms Please don't add capital initials to expanded initialisms (e.g., in ACV, which stands for apple cider vinegar, not Apple Cider Vinegar).[1] In English, capital initials are usually used for proper nouns only. If in doubt, use the pattern of capitalization found in the Wiktionary entry, in other dictionaries, or in a Google Books search for the term or phrase. I see you've been using AWB to automatically capitalize many entries. How would you feel about undoing these changes? Regards. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 14:40 z I have not been automatically capitalizing entries; I have been automatically bolding the letters that make the initialism, and manually capitalizing entries where it appeared to be warranted (which was in a bare handful). bd2412 T 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) daling Could you check is it a "Pinyin syllable"? 91.106.45.197 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC) It is not a syllable, it's two of them, already covered at da and ling. bd2412 T 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Minimum definition length that can constitute copyright violation Hi bd2412. I was wondering: What is the minimum length of a definition which, if copied verbatim, would constitute an actionable copyright violation? I assume that one-word definitions for pure synonyms wouldn’t constitute copyright violation, such as, for secrete#Etymology 1: "separated", and nor would "having wings" for winged; however, what is the threshold? The specific case that spawned this question is that of the OED's six-word definition for herbose. Could you please comment on that particular case, and on the general threshold? Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC) <butting in> Actually, the OED's definition is five words - I added an extra "in". </butting in> SemperBlotto 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, SB, I hadn't noticed that addition.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The individual entry isn't really the issue, is it? If we say that short definitions are okay to copy, we will end up copying lots of them, i.e. far larger swathes of text, verbatim, and end up having to do a massive and expensive trawl to remove them later when quite justifiably accused of plagiarism. I think it's safest to rephrase everything (of course, "derivative works" can infringe, too — I don't mean every single entry should be based on another dictionary's definition!). Equinox ◑ 17:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC) "Always reword." is a sensible principle, but not always workable; for example, it isn't really possible to reword those two example definitions without awkwardness, verbosity, or inaccuracy ("Having been separated."? "Possessed of wings."?).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I've seen the definition for (deprecated template usage) retsina as "A Greek wine". You definitely can't copyright that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I agree; if one could, it would be utterly unreasonable. For example, for vinho, I didn't think it necessary or practical to alter the OED's definition of "Portuguese wine."  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Again, we have to think at dictionary level. Suppose a dictionary consisted only of three-word definitions, and we copied them all. That wouldn't be acceptable. Equinox ◑ 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It would not be possible to construct a dictionary like that, so such a scenario is impossible.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It would be possible if it only contained certain words: those that can be defined in three words. That's plenty of words. And it would still be infringement to copy them. Equinox ◑ 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Copying definitions from other copyrighted dictionaries is always forbidden, whatever the number of definitions and the length of these definitions. But it's not forbidden to create one's own definitions, and this may lead to definitions also found in other dictionaries, especially bilingual dictionaries, e.g. we define the French word psychologue as psychologist. This might be a copyright violation (or not; probably not, because there is no really original work in this definition) but, anyway, it's obviously impossible to tell, impossible to prove anything, because this is the natural definition in a bilingual French-English dictionary. Still, the rule is very important: never copy copyrighted dictionaries. Lmaltier 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. I was talking about copying, not independently coming up with the same text (which is fairly possible). Equinox ◑ 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I forgot something: don't reword copyrighted definitions either. You may consult them, but you must forget them before creating your own definitions. It might be easy to prove copyright violation for numerous slightly reworded definitions. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that dictionaries include false information to make copyright violation detection easier. Lmaltier 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC) To begin with, definitions are statements of fact so the copyright for definitions is thin. If a definition is presented such that there is no simpler way to define the word, it is uncopyrightable because the idea has merged with the expression. Here, I think the copied definition is poetic enough (and able to be restated in terms that are somewhat clearer to understand) that we're better off with the new wording. bd2412 T 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you, bd2412. That sounds like a very reasonable regulation.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC) toneless Pinyin "The community has voted against it (toneless Pinyin)", is it true? service of process Something is missing in the following text you added: The found plaintiff's service of process effective, although the defendant refused to receive the complaint Is that supposed to be something like this?: The court found the plaintiff's service of process to be effective, although... --Espoo 12:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, fixed. bd2412 T 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) It wasn't an error, even in fairly formal usage. It is so common that many verbs like (deprecated template usage) find are deemed to have copulative senses. OTOH, it seems to bother non-native speakers, so it might not belong in a usage example. An alternative reading is that the "be"-less form is an ellipsis. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) protein There is a brief discussion in the Tea Room of the attributive use of this in food products, eg, "protein shake", "protein bar". Has the US FDA or any other food regulatory yet weighed in on this with regulatory definitions? I had taken a quick look, but only in bgc. Glad you're employed. Hope it has some interest for you. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I had also looked at .gov searching for "protein" and "label". No joy. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) There is no standard of identity that I can find. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) rule against perpetuities I've created this and would appreciate your checking it for accuracy.​—msh210℠ 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) The rule against perpetuities is generally phrased as "No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest". Other expressions of limitations on inheritance are not considered different rules against perpetuities, but rather variations of the rule. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Hm, I'm not sure I understand the difference between variations of the rule, which are different from it, and different rules. Is my "Any rule that prevents […] a certain length of time […] " wrong: should it be instead "The rule that prevents […] twenty-one years […] , or any variation of that rule"? That just seems too confusing. Note that rules against perpetuities (in plural) is well attested. Thanks for your input.​—msh210℠ 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I may be wrong, that's just how I learned it. One rule; comparable rules are just deviations from the original. bd2412 T 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, so I've split it into senses: one for the rule and one for its generalizations (because citations show that they're also called rules against p., not just "variations on the rule against p."). Thanks for your help.​—msh210℠ 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, that works. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2009/December#Proposal to pick a language for our next focus Well, June starts in a week, and if this is going to happen it's probably going to need a bit of work before it starts. Are you going to bring it up in the BP? --Yair rand (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Based on the reaction this proposal initially received, I think I may wait a while longer before I bring it up again. Honestly, at the moment I don't have the time to work on something like that myself. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) My proposal for pinyin entries I would really appreciate you taking a look at User:Tooironic/xìngshì. I think this formatting policy would make our lives a whole lot easier. I am calling upon all veteran Mandarin editors to make suggestions of improvement at the talk page. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I think it's kind of sparse. bd2412 T 01:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC) plurality Your expertise may be useful at [[WT:TR#a_plurality_of]], if you have a chance. Thanks.​—msh210℠ 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Entries with several meanings I think keeping combinations of entries with several meanings is a good idea. Your argument seems to be they should be kept no matter how obvious the meaning is, a sort of "the readers don't matter" approach. Bus route is more justfiable as it can only have one meaning, I think. Yet as long as you speak English, you're gonna know what it means. Isn't this a case of "screw the reader - I like the entry, let's keep it"? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC) How, exactly, does it harm the reader to have a lexically correct entry in the dictionary? If they know the meaning, no one is going to force them to look it up anyway. It is only if they do not know the meaning of a collocation that they will look it up, in which case having the entry will help them. It seems odd to presume that the readership of a reference work will consist only of those who do not need to things look up, and will exclude those with limited English skills, and those coming from English speaking regions which do not happen to use specific collocations. Just because you've are fortunate enough to have been educated to the point where these things seem obvious to you does not mean they are obvious to the entire English-speaking world, or to those with partial English skills. On that basis, I frankly can't fathom your seeming hostility towards these entries. bd2412 T 22:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Well, under this logic, what would we allow? idiomatic sentence doesn't refer to a prison sentence, school building doesn't refer to a school of fish. Per Michael on the deletion debate, the definition is a "drawer for junk", it's the sort of thing where we could dispense with the definition and keep the rest. The whole disagreement is over the underlying question of whether a dictionary of our scope is for decoding or encoding. Learner's dictionaries tend to be for encoding, but are highly selective, trying to help users find the most common expressions. They are inclusive of many common collocations that barely meet the most inclusive definition of idiom. Comprehensive ("unabridged") dictionaries are aimed at helping users decode. There are no comprehensive learner's in print because there has little market for it. Once a user has developed a basic set of idioms, the rest are picked up by exposure. We are boldly going where no lexicographer has gone before, without the assistance of professional lexicographers, apparently without recognizing it let alone preparing for it. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC) First, we are not constrained by the space considerations of a paper encyclopedia. Now, I'm not taking "not paper" as an excuse to load up the dictionary with phrases that are indisputably sum of parts (such as orange lamp or idiomatic sentence). With word combinations, there is a spectrum of idiomatic character, and perhaps of the character of being considered as a lexical unit. My impression is that, on that spectrum, the phrase junk drawer is very much towards the end of fire truck or tennis racquet, and not towards the end of school building or patio furniture. I think bus route is probably a bit less defensible on lexical grounds, but is the kind of phrase that it might be very important for a speaker of limited English to find here. Given a few days to think about it, I could probably articulate the set of characteristics which leads me to this impression. This is very reminiscent of the work I did in the Trademark Office, where we were constantly evaluating applications for trademark registration to determine whether marks were merely descriptive of the products, and what associations that consumers would be likely to draw from a name that might cause confusion with another mark. Second, I think the degree of concern raised over entries like junk drawer and bus route hinges far too heavily on the inside baseball of the workings of this project. They are counter to the way real-world users use the Internet. It is strange to suggest that it takes a "screw the reader" mentality to wish to include an attested, possibly useful, lexically correct entry, which (like all of our entries) no user will actually ever see unless they search for the term, or intentionally click a link leading to the page. The objection would only apply if readers were somehow forced to look up the phrase "junk drawer" or "bus route". Does anyone imagine the OED staff said, "oh, screw the readers, we're including bus route"? I suppose there is a slim but tangible potential harm to having too many entries if they are not well policed, but it is neither a drain on the servers nor a harm to the users to allow entries where the degree to which they are idiomatic or set phrases is hazy. bd2412 T 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC) pansphygmograph Hi, BD2412. Please use the code {{grc}} in etymologies; {{el}} is for Modern Greek. PS In the case of pansphygmograph it's even better to etymologize like this. --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, will do. bd2412 T 01:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC) farspeak Uh... some of those are nouns and some are verbs. The definition is for a noun, but the inflection line is for a verb. Are you still working on this entry? --EncycloPetey 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's a noun. I think in that one use, it's a verb disguised as a noun, more or less like a verbal. In any case, I doubt it will meet the CFI as a noun, which it clearly does as a verb; the noun form (which does meet the CFI) would be farspeech. bd2412 T 19:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) It's clearly not a verb, and has all the hallmrks of a noun: article, an adjective modifier, a floowing adjectival prepositional phrase. However, you are correct that it might not meet CFI. I think it would be wrong to call it a verb, so if the noun does not meet CFI it could be placed unsorted on the Citations page for others to fret over at some later date. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a reasonable solution. That is the only example that presents a problem. bd2412 T 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Edit summary for new entries Hello. When you create a new entry, are you using a script or something that causes the edit summary to be the name of the entry? If you left it blank, it would show the actual content of the entry, which is probably more useful to anybody scanning Recent Changes. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, no, I just copy and paste. Five years I've been doing this, and I was not aware that leaving the edit summary blank would do that! bd2412 T 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC) without more Hi. Do you know whether "without more" means something special in legalese, or if it's just standard English "without" + "more" (i.e., "with nothing further")? (For examples see e.g. google:"without more" site:law.cornell.edu.) Thanks.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC) As a point of reference, I've heard w:John Sexton pronounce the second word with two syllables. Of course, he may be alone in that.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I have never heard that the phrase has a legal meaning beyond the obvious SOP meaning. It does not appear in Black's, Ballentine's, or Bouvier's law dictionaries. It is a common collocation, but there are many common preposition/noun collocations (see Wiktionary:Votes for deletion#in default). bd2412 T 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your input.​—msh210℠ (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC) presiding Hi BD2412, Should we have a noun sense "the judge presiding over a case" for presiding as in this quotation? : 2010, Nick Cumming-Bruce, “Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski”, in The New York Times, 2010 July 13: The director fled on the eve of sentencing in California because of fear that the presiding intended to renege what his defense lawyers said was a deal to avoid a prison sentence. I tried some Google-searches, but I couldn't get a clear picture of how exactly it's used. Thanks in advance! —RuakhTALK 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Looks like an error to me. I've never heard the presiding judge or officer referred to as anything other than the presiding judge or presiding officer. If this usage is intentional, it might still be just a fanciful noun usage of an adjective (as in, we have towels for the wet). bd2412 T 17:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I have added an adjective sense. bd2412 T 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Great, thank you! —RuakhTALK 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC) My pleasure. bd2412 T 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) But it doesn't seem to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives or User:Visviva/POS testing. Gradable? Usable after "become"? DCDuring TALK 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I could be wrong. It doesn't seem to show up as an adjective in any other dictionaries. bd2412 T 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The adjective tests we use correlate fairly well with the inclusion practices of other dictionaries. If anything, we include more participle- and noun-derived adjectives than our fellow lemmings do. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC) It looks like you were right that it was an error: it's now been changed to read "presiding judge". Maybe someone at the NYT reads your talk-page. :-P   —RuakhTALK 23:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Curly quotes Yes, I intend to do that, but not systematically. I do it whenever I see one of those pages that, unfortunately, for no good reason if you ask me, have to be entered with the incorrect quotes. At least let us show the correct ones then. I even remember having done that for a lot of these appendices before, but the pages seem to be gone?? H. (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Not these appendices, I don't think - every one that has been created is still here. This actually can be done in a systematic manner. bd2412 T 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Toneless Pinyin Has the community voted to ban toneless Pinyin?91.104.14.228 15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Vote on placenames Hi, I propose that you cancel or retract (can't find the right word) the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A, by posting a note to the vote. This would be merely a formal step anyway, as the vote is no longer relevant. Then I would remove the vote from the list of proposed vote in Wiktionary:Votes; it makes no sense that the vote lingers there, to me anyway. An alternative would be to delete the vote, but I think it should better be kept, for historical purposes. Thoughts? --Dan Polansky 08:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) It is an historical relic. I don't see why it would need to be cancelled or retracted at this point. It is so old that I don't see how it can reasonably be imagined to have any continuing consequence to the project. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I agree. I just thought it would be nice if you left a note of withdrawal in the vote, so that it gets formally a little bit cleaner. If you prefer not to touch the vote, I will leave a note in the vote myself. In the note, I will state that the vote is not going to be started any more. --Dan Polansky 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC) That is fine. I suppose if I were to press this proposal, I'd rewrite it from scratch. bd2412 T 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I have closed the vote by editing Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A. --Dan Polansky 06:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) An administrator shouldn't use himself's rules to ban Pinyin Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries. An administrator shouldn't use himself's rules to ban Pinyin. 91.104.17.51 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC) dick See dick#Etymology 2. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC) How do we know it has a separate etymology? It seems more logical to me that this would just be another version of the everyman. bd2412 T 18:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC) We don't know; it's like typical etymological just-so stories. OnlineEtyD, AHD, Encarta, Collins, WNW have it as we had it, as does CompactOxford, though they hint at a influence from a Romany word meaning look. MWOnline and RHU have it as you would have it. It seems prudent to keep a separate etymology even if it ultimately is unknown. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Poll on formatting of etymologies I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Vote on formatting of etymologies There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC) xiāngzào (perfumed soap) Why is it directly deleted and block me because xiāngzào is created? Anyhow, toned Pinyin entries are allowed. If someone believed an entry is unattestable, please put it to Request For Deletion such as here (善意第三人). xiāngzào is attested, references: Wenlin dictionary Alphabetically Based Computerized Chinese-English Comprehensive Dictionary ABC English-Chinese, Chinese-English Dictionary Hanyu Pinyin Cihui See also here for your reference. 2.25.212.48 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 2.27.72.110 14:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Toned Pinyin entries are allowed by Wiktionary rule (with a formal vote) Toned Pinyin entries are allowed by Wiktionary rule (with a formal vote) and those I am creating are attested such as tiāndì, but someone is doing something to break the rule (please see here. Engirst 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) "yuan is a nonstandard spelling of yuán"? It is not a fact. yuan is written in Renminbi, it is a standard spelling. It is a toneless spelling of yuán, but not a nonstandard spelling of yuán. Please see the banknote of Renminbi for your reference. Please see also the discussion here. Engirst 11:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC) WikiProject_Medicine Hi. Are you still working on, or at least interested in Wiktionary:WikiProject_Medicine? A representative of the World Health Organization may be interested in some collaboration. Please let me know via e-mail at asaf AT wikimedia DOT org. Thanks! Ijon 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC) client legal. Please take a look at the sense I added in place of something I found incomprehensible. (See history.) DCDuring TALK 03:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Your definition is correct; the one that you replaced seems to be some kind of fringe theory. I have never before heard "client" equated with "lunatic" like that. bd2412 T 15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. I'm sure attorneys must feel that way about clients sometimes. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) willful ignorance This one too. DCDuring TALK 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) copyright discussion Hi, there is a general copyright question here. If you have any insight into this, please respond there. Thx, Jakob.scholbach 22:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Insight granted. ;-) bd2412 T 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Insight appreciated :D Jakob.scholbach 09:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names The vote Categories of names is going to end soon, after receiving contributions of only a few people. (it proposes a number of renamings, in this pattern: Category:en:Rivers to Category:English names of rivers) It would benefit very much from your vote, even one of abstention. I assume you would be interested in this subject, as I am sending this message to everyone who didn't vote yet, but participated in the discussion that introduced the vote, and/or in this poll, which received far more attention than the vote, and is closely related to the proposal in question. Thank you. --Daniel 16:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC) brillig I notice brillig is a redlink in the copy of Jabberwocky on your userpage, because you've written [[brillig,]]. I'm not sure if you'd rather link to the entry, or if you've made certain words red amidst the blue as a bit of visual poetry of your own — a step across the legal threshold of creativity and all that... ;) - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Nope, that is a typo, now fixed. bd2412 T 03:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) schwarzi A couple of problems here, the header should be Translingual, also it needs a category, Category:Translingual adjectives I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC) It looks like Latin to me. I doubt it would be attested in multiple languages. Are two languages enough? Ten? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC) It's not real Latin, though. It is, rather, a manufactured term made to look Latin to fit the look and feel of binomial nomenclature. bd2412 T 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC) All fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I appreciate it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) medical terms sounds great to me, i'll get on it right away.Gtroy 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC) User:Robert Ullmann/Missing If you're removing 'sum of parts' you should really check that the term isn't used in the main namespace, such as this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I have generally been doing that; this one slipped by me. bd2412 T 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC) gtroy Dick blocked me again but is ignoring the beer parlour decision, what should i do? (ACDC rocks)71.142.74.66 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Be patient. The discussion will run its course. In the meantime, have you considered contributing at Wikipedia, Wikiquote, or Wikisource? Building a track record on another project can help make a case for your being allowed to edit here. bd2412 T 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3 Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)