OlEnglish

Citation pages

Citations pages are for examples of the word in use. See Citations:parrot to see an example. Nadando 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see.. interesting. Thank you. -- OlEnglish 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

memorium

We can't list this as an English "misspelling", since (deprecated template usage) memoriam is not an English word. --EncycloPetey 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. uhmm.. well why not simply change "English" to "Latin"? The reason I used English was because I thought memorium is an English misspelling of a Latin word.. a mispelling that's only used in the English language. I admit I'm still new to Wiktionary but was deletion necessarily the best choice in situation? I was only going by the recommendation give to me here. Oh and btw, I did not see mention of mispellings anywhere in your "reason for deletion". -- OlEnglish 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the speakers of Latin don't misspell the word. For an entry to be a Latin misspelling, it would have to be misspelled in a Latin context by speakers/writers of Latin. --EncycloPetey 20:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly why I chose English, as it's an English mispelling. -- OlEnglish 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We wouldn't include English misspellings of French words, nor French misspellings of Spanish words, etc. The "language" of the misspelling must be the same as the language of the word being misspelled. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have said that the first time :) Now I understand. -- OlEnglish 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

However the fact remains that it's still a commonly misspelled word used in English. A Google search for "memorium" has 634,000 hits. So I believe it's at least worth a mention somewhere is it not? Would a mention under an "Alternate spellings" section in memoriam be allowed? -- OlEnglish 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because (deprecated template usage) memoriam is a Latin word, and the "Alternative spellings" section is only for valid or accepted variations in spelling. We also don't rely on raw numbers of Google hits to make decisions; a more carfeul analysis is needed to see what is actually happening. --EncycloPetey 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Compare (deprecated template usage) ad nauseum. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, so how would an entry for 'memorium' differ from that example? If I include the line "From memoriam, with influence from the common Latin ending -um." could I then recreate it? -- OlEnglish 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would differ in all the ways previously mentioned. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm still trying to understand, thanks for being patient with me. I see the difference between the two in that ad nauseam is categorized as a "Latin derivation" while memoriam is categorized as a "Latin adjective form" and therefore not an English word, however I noticed that "in memoriam" IS an English word, therefore it would be correct to create "in memorium" as an English misspelling using the layout from the ad nauseum example? -- OlEnglish 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, as long as in memorium is a "common" misspelling (we've never been precise about what makes a misspelling "common", although there have been situations where a misspelling clearly was not common.) --EncycloPetey 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hooray! We've reached consensus! :) I wasn't sure if you knew this and were purposely guiding me towards the answer or what but, either way the problem's solved. Thanks. -- OlEnglish 22:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Interproject links

Please do not delete interproject links simply because you don't understand them. Why you don't understand, it's a good idea to ask first. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed like a reasonable removal to me. The wikipedia link simply redirected to an unrelated article about a newspaper. Why do you think it should stay? Nadando 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Our links with Wikipedia are not based on perceived relationships. Every Wikipedia article will be "unrelated" to its Wiktionary companion to some degree, since they are a topical resource and we are lexical. The link allows people who have come across "[P]aisano" without knowning its meaning to determine which listings apply to the situation they've encountered. --EncycloPetey 04:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to block OlEngish, EP? He's a reasonable guy who just happens to be new. I think your explanation above is enough, and there is no reason to think he was going to cause harm to the project, or even disagree. In this situation, it is a bit disingenuous of you to block someone for failing to communicate their question, when you initially reverted them without even an edit summary to explain why. Dominic·t 10:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked, as I believe there is no reasonable basis for a block in this case. Dominic·t 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Interwebs

Added followup comment on [interweb] -- ryper ^(Talk) 19:20 19 Mar 2015 (UTC)

User Page

You have the best user page of all mediwiki. Straight to the point. GoodSpeller2015 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, really? Thanks! But did you mean my userpage here on Wiktionary? Or the one on enwiki? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 02:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)