User talk:Daniel Carrero/2012

Thank you

Thank you for the additions of links at Citations:assholocracy! Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

^-^ --Daniel 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You think some of those redlinks should be created as new pages? :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as they are attestable by three citations each, why not. --Daniel 07:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to do some research on that! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems there's an emergency effort to try to get these pages deleted real fast for some unknown urgent reason. I'd appreciate any advice you could impart to me about that. Perhaps you could revisit Citations:assholocracy? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can attest the words in question (assholocracy, assholeocracy, arseoleocracy, assholocrat and assholeocrat), then they would be kept. Even if they get deleted prematurely, they could be restored once attested.

As I checked Google Groups and Google Books in a few minutes, I did not find any new content to add to Citations:assholocracy, so most likely the entries will get deleted, indeed; the citations page can stay, nonetheless.

Amusingly, for some reason, "assholocracy" returns 19 results in GB, but the resulting books either seem to not actually have that word, or are not viewable at all. --Daniel 10:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you think based on Citations:assholocracy, at the very least the main entry for assholocracy should be kept, along with the citations page? -- Cirt (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, only one citation counts, if it can be found in a print book: "We are living, he observed, in the age of the assholocracy. He's right, you know."

Most other citations don't count because they are not the word being used in a phrase. "Most Outrageous: "assholocracy", meaning rule by the disgustingly super-rich." is just a definition. It is a mention.

Please see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction --Daniel 09:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But there are plenty of other cites at assholocracy. Those are satisfactory, yes? -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

After you asked me to check the cites, a couple of days ago, I noticed that almost all cites with the specific word "assholocracy" at the pages assholocracy and Citations:assholocracy are mentions, not uses.

• "Assholocracy won the award for the outrageous word of the year."
• "there’s assholocracy, concisely defined as “rule by obnoxious multi-millionaires.”"
• "Most Outrageous: "assholocracy", meaning rule by the disgustingly super-rich."
• "new additions to pre-existing blends, like assholocracy"
• "My favorite was "assholocracy", which won "most outrageous"."

The only exception is the one I pointed above: "We are living, he observed, in the age of the assholocracy. He's right, you know." So, assuming this one counts, then that word needs two additional citations that count, to be kept. --Daniel 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes but what about the alternative spellings? Aren't they usages of the same meaning? -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some other citations are usages. Their meanings vary a little, though. From my count, none of these words is currently attested, though. I don't know any rule along the lines of "if three books use the same word, each book using a different spelling, then the word is attested". I believe each spelling would have to be attested on its own. The usages are:

• "Whicg[sic] of these did the assholeocrats get rid of?"; He is the elder statesman of tge[sic] assholeocrat party."
• "Could simply gather them under a uniform label: Arseholeocracy" (this one could be controversial)
• "He is the elder statesman of tge[sic] assholeocrat party."
• "you can't say they are all automatically assholes simply because they work within the ubiquitous Assholeocracy."
• "We are living, he observed, in the age of the assholocracy. He's right, you know."

--Daniel 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those all do seem quite similar, and the spellings could simply be typos in some cases. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that is possible.

DCDuring recently mentioned at WT:RFD#Chinese man a way to check for typos and scannos, that may apply to the issue in question: "It is easy enough to see whether any single instance of Chineseman occurs on the same page or adjoining pages with Chinese man and to inspect the page image for scannos." --Daniel 20:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite certain I've also read other users state that it's okay to use alternate spellings to support the same word before, I'll try to research where I saw that. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

deus

I don't know any Portuguese but the plural for this word seems a bit unlikely... can you check it please? —CodeCat 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

CFI and company names

Do you intend to vote in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names? You have made a comment in the vote, but given no vote, which surprised me. --Dan Polansky 09:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I voted now. --Daniel 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

CFI and straw poll

What do you think of your withdrawing Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-01/Linking "Straw Poll: each section of our CFI" from the CFI? Then it can be removed from WT:VOTE. You have even opposed the vote yourself. I don't think anyone's going to complain if you withdraw the vote. Just an idea. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix

I edited the page so removed your vote; please revote. Sorry for the hassle.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You may want to double-check that vote and edit it again. There's a "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" somewhere. --Daniel 22:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"::The vote is on removing the quoted sentence, which includes a <ref> tag. The error notice is a byproduct.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

changes

I like the changes you made. I think this is much clearer now --Cova (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. --Daniel 12:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing CFI

I think you would do well to reduce the number of subsequent edits when editing CFI, which can be achieved by using the preview function, deliberately slowing down, and carefully thnking about the edit that you are about to make. Another option is that you stop editing CFI without a vote. I know your edits were related to the use of references, but I still find them objectionable. In February and March of 2012, you have made 21 edits to CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to try to avoid series of cosmetic corrections, along the lines of "Oh, I just placed a bold text here, but I prefer it non-bolded instead!" That's just noise on the history, and demonstrates that I didn't use the preview function satisfactorily.

On the other hand, my original plan of mentioning one vote per revision looks good in the history, as it's abundantly clear what I have done. It's clearer than a single revision explained like "Adding 15 footnotes", but this would be a good alternative plan, too, for conciseness. Either way, deciding about this specific dichotomy (adding one footnote per revision or many footnotes in one revision, assuming that footnotes can be added, to begin with) looks like a moot point today, if I could successfully make sure that all the applicable votes are mentioned in CFI and ELE.

The current tally of our vote about voting suggests that, in the near future, only discussions and consensus would be enough to edit these policies.

Apart from that, we have some history of editing CFI and ELE to add references to votes even when the votes do not state that a reference should be added. This revision[1] is an early example from last year, a little earlier than the vote Sourced policies.

I'm not sure what you mean by "objectionable", so you might want to elaborate this statement. I believe you don't oppose the practice of adding unvoted references to votes in CFI, in general, because you supported that practice, in Sourced policies and in Modify WT:ELE rhymes section.

So, I infer that you might find objectionable some specific edits I have done. If this inference is correct, I'm not sure exactly which edits. Nonetheless, I see that the different edits have different levels of importance. The votes I have added fit well into three categories in my mind: (1) major/active, describing rules that are remembered often in discussions, like WT:COALMINE and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms; (2) minor/passive, rules that are often undisputed and undiscussed like Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Exclusion of possessive case and cosmetic changes like Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings; (3) neutral or niche, that govern a comparatively small number of entries (such as a single language), like Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Redirecting combining characters and Wiktionary:Votes/2011-09/Unified Tagalog. The first category is very important. I believe the second is less useful in practice, and probably can be deleted harmlessly, yet keeping it seems equally harmless; I'd keep it for curious minds like mine. The last category might be moved to other policy pages when they exist and are authoritative enough. --Daniel 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

catboiler subtemplates

I noticed that the subtemplates like catboiler categorize, catboiler doc, catboiler format and so on were originally subtemplates: catboiler/categorize, catboiler/doc, catboiler/format... Is there a reason why you changed this? —CodeCat 15:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Predefinição pt-verb

Oi, Daniel.

Encontrei um problema na predefinição pt-verb: ela está chamando o tempo verbal gerúndio de "particípio presente". Veja, por exemplo, gostar: lá consta que "gostando" é present participle de "gostar". Está errado: o particípio presente de "gostar", se existisse, seria "gostante", e "gostante" não é verbo (ao contrário de "gostando", que, justamente por estar no gerúndio, é verbo).

A terminação do particípio presente é sempre -ante, -ente ou -into:

• (verbo) cantar + -ante = cantante (que é adjetivo, não verbo. Exemplo: pessoa cantante)
• (verbo) correr + -ente = corrente (que é adjetivo, não verbo. Exemplo: água corrente)
• (verbo) constituir + -inte = constituinte (que é adjetivo, não verbo. Exemplo: assembleia constituinte)

►Sampayu ^msg 07:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Portuguese adverbs suffixed with -mente

Is it necessary for this category to specify the part of speech? (Also Category:Portuguese nouns suffixed with -a.) I was about to change them but I decided to ask what your reasoning was first. Ultimateria (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How are you?

Hola senhor; long time no see. You may not recognise me, but I signed my e‐mails (to you) as ‘Seth’, & Stephen helped me alter my title now that Doremítzwr left. I personally believe that this title behoves me more‐so than my last one. I desired to ask you why you had not answered my e‐mail I sent a few months ago. And I suppose that I ought to thank you for partially unblocking me, but I honestly can’t promise you that I will not ‘ragequit’ again if somebody ruffles my feathers. I’ll just have to mellow out more (being an adult now should help). Regardless, I wanted to enquire what has been going on with you recently; I hope that you are fine. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)