User talk:BD2412/Archive 4

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) restore recow Hello Sorry to contact you this way; I don't see another way to do so. I wrote the recow entry after my friend YK sent an email before recowing me last night. My cow had gone on a trip with YK, and I looked forward to being recowed upon his return. I readily admit that the word has not seen extensive usage in English, and perhaps should not, therefore, be included in wiktionary. But, given that I did spend several minutes writing the entry (sorting out the pronunciation), I wonder if you could do me a small favor by copying the text of the entry to the WT:-) page, so that I may link my journal entry to that definition instead of the now-missing recow entry. Thanks! - Rob at robnugen com Very well. Done. bd2412 T 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Possessive forms exclusion WT:VOTE rewritten and restarted I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Best pet demonstration What happened to the second # ~~~ in your vote? Full support is supposed to count two points. DAVilla 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Huh? No idea. Did I miss a step? bd2412 T 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC) If you have used {{subst:fullsupport}} your vote would have looked like this: 1. Full support: bd2412 T 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2. bd2412 T (The above signatures are a quotation.) DAVilla 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Ah, I see. I don't like it. Looks like I'm trying to vote twice, thus gaming the system. bd2412 T 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Well it's in the rules, so it's not gaming the system. I would really appreciate if folks could just try it out as intended for now, and we can work on adjusting the details. How would it look if you only signed once, but the image had to span both lines, as a top half and a bottom half? Then you'd know you're doing the right thing. DAVilla 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC) That I would go for. bd2412 T 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Done. DAVilla 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) FYI, the wording of this demonstration vote has changed: Which is Wiktionary's current choice of the best most widely acceptable aquarium pet? Note that this example vote is non-binding. It is intended as a demonstration of a variation on approval voting. Not that it really matters, but hey, I'm following procedure. DAVilla 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2 You seem to have unofficially withdrawn Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2, yes? It might be good to officially withdraw it, so the first half of Wiktionary:Votes isn't taken up by a former vote that's now really a discussion page. —RuakhTALK 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Wiktionary:Tea_room#OED update Connel is not happy about this. See also my talk page. As a lawyer, what are your thoughts? Widsith 09:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) sound (legal term) Hi. Our entry for sound doesn't include the sense in sounding in tort. I've mentioned this at Talk:sound, q.v., but since (likely) no one's watching that page and since you're a law-entry contributor, I thought I'd mention it to you, too. If you can help out, that'd be great; thanks! —msh210 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your work on that! —msh210 06:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) continental United States Are you sure this excludes Alaska? I thought the contiguous US excluded Alaska, but that the continental US included Alaska. --EncycloPetey 11:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC) I thought I was sure, but now you've made me doubt! Check Wikipedia? bd2412 T 11:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Their article on w:Continental United States says both interpretations are possible. --EncycloPetey 11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Fixed up, I think. But is it a proper noun? bd2412 T 11:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Since it describes a unique entity, it could fall under the definition of a proper noun, but it's not really the "name" of something. It's really a modified proper noun. It might almost be better to classify it as a Phrase. --EncycloPetey 11:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) To the Tea Room! bd2412 T 11:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) ב- Did you mean to link to the appendix from this one? —RuakhTALK 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Yep - the appendix contains every "word" that is a variation of the letter "b" by addition of a punctuation mark. Can't hurt. bd2412 T 04:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) edit to cheddaring In this edit to cheddaring you marked the verb sense as not having an inflection template. My understanding is that only the infinitives required the inflection template? "cheddaring" is the present participle of "cheddar", and is marked as such by using the {{present participle of}} template. Thryduulf 09:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I think you're reading that wrong - in the edit you point to, I removed the notation. I think it was added by a bot. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Indeed it was added by AutoFormat and you removed it. Chalk the misreading up to my being half asleep this morning. My apologies. Thryduulf 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) None necessary. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) The 'bot added the notation/category because it was adding the missing inflection line/headword repeater, and questioning whether a template was needed? Not in this case ... Robert Ullmann 08:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC) even though Do we not use question marks to indicate questionable-grammaticality here? —RuakhTALK 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, it looked like a typo because there was no space afterwards. Perhaps in parentheses? bd2412 T 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Linguistics papers often use a question mark or asterisk before a quote to indicate that it's questionably-grammatical or ungrammatical (respectively); no space or parentheses or anything. Wikipedia uses this notation as well, but usually explains it; it might not be worth the trouble here. (Or, maybe we could create {{?}} and {{*}} that would produce links to explanations? Or since these symbols also have other uses — for example, asterisks can indicate reconstructions of unattested forms — maybe {{maybe-grammatical-?}} and {{ungrammatical-*}} would be better?) —RuakhTALK 20:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I really like the idea of {{?}} - but is it necessary in a usage note that basically says the phrase is a questionable usage? bd2412 T 21:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Perhaps not. Since we generally only present ungrammatical or questionable examples in usage notes, where we'd want to avoid relying solely on people noticing these symbols and realizing their significance, the symbols might not be that useful in main entries at all. (Appendices might make still good use of them, though.) Thanks for this discussion. :-) —RuakhTALK 17:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC) hypertechnical Just to be silly...isn't this always supposed to be hyphenated? --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Huh? I don't think so - the unhyphenated form gets hundreds of Google Books hits. bd2412 T 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Well, well, well. We seem to be the first dictionary to recommend this non-hyphenated spelling, then. --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I'd phrase it as "we seem to be the first dictionary to document the verifiable use of this non-hyphenated spelling". bd2412 T 05:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I suppose I shouldn't have even tried using humor. Sorry about being hyper-technical about hypertechnical.  :-(   --Connel MacKenzie 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Since all humor is lost here, I wish to point out the absence of informing people how it correctly is normally formed (hyphenated) is a breach from what other dictionaries do. And we still have no entry for the inherently prescribed form "hyper-technical." --Connel MacKenzie 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) But the fused form gets more b.g.c. hits than the hyphenated form. Not tons more, mind — it's a difference of less than 10%, and when you consider that b.g.c. will always interpret "hyper-hyphen-linebreak-technical" as the unhyphenated version, it might end up being a difference of even less than 5% — but still, we've no basis for alleging that "hyper-technical" is how the word is "normally" formed. (And I don't think we've any basis for a claim that it's "the inherently prescribed form", but as I don't know quite what you mean by that phrase, I can't be sure.) Incidentally, as someone who writes it with a hyphen, I was rather surprised to find that most people don't. I guess this is what investigation is for. —RuakhTALK 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not certain what I meant by that, either.  :-) But the absence in recognized/famous dictionaries will lead any school-kid to assume it ain't a word. Meanwhile, most (or all) do have entries for hyper- and technical. You will be interested to know that the more I dig into this one, the more perplexed I become. Altavista's search seems to distinguish hyphens better than Google (still accepting spaces and line-breaks though,) but that shows a similar propensity for the combined word. (27k vs 23.5k) It never even occurred to me, to try hyper technical, but apparently that has a significant amount of use too. Whichever variant, it seems uncommon enough, to not merit any mention at all in various style guides. --Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC) nontheism? The word nontheism is not recorded in any dictionary. I looked at the meaning of nontheism in a mini Oxford dictionary. The word simply doesn't exist! RS2007 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) We actually don't go by other dictionaries - no dictionary has enough pages to capture all the words in use, especially as new words come into the language. We look to see if a word is actually in use in multiple independent sources. A Google Book search shows over a hundred mentions in books of the word "nontheism" going back as far as 1900 and coming as recently as this year. bd2412 T 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Well, the word nontheism is like the word non-religious. And, I also thnik that there is no difference between atheism and nontheism. RS2007 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) We have Wikipedia articles on both, perhaps they elucidate the difference. My understanding is that atheism can take the form of antagonism to theism, whereas nontheism is sort of like a passive agnosticism or ignosticism - a lack of personal religion without necessarily positing that religious belief is inherently wrongheaded. bd2412 T 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) CheckUser Hi, I was wondering if you'd consider accepting a nomination for CheckUser. It's a fairly technical role, but we need trustworthy people to occasionally accept responsibility with that kind of information, and you are someone who the community can trust. Let me know how you feel about it, and thanks! DAVilla 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I would be honored to be nominated. Thanks for thinking of me - cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) That's great! You'll have plenty of company, so it shouldn't be too stressful. I'm going to wait a little before making the nomination, and I'll email you when I do. DAVilla 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Ok. I'm going on vacation for a few days, so I'll look for it when I get back on Sunday. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Do you mind if I withdraw your nomination with another? Due to all the controversy, and looking at the turnout so far, I don't think it's likely to pass. DAVilla 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC) That's fine, I agree that it's not looking likely to pass. Hopefully my peers will look more favorably on me when I'm up for a 'crat position. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Pinyin report I ran the problems report (not the second table) again from the 13 August XML and 17 August DB. Robert Ullmann 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) deletion log Could you go to WT:PREFS and check "Replace text in deletion log comment" (first one under sysop tools at the bottom); this keeps the text of deleted entries ("XYZ is gay!") from showing up in the public deletion log. Robert Ullmann 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Sure, but I was under the impression that we only did this for names of individuals, to avoid defamation concerns. You can't legally defame a school. bd2412 T 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Someone somewhere had set up a site that collected them; sure we don't have any liability issue, but it is better if that crap doesn't reflect on us at all. Robert Ullmann 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/2007-08/Brand names of products 2 Thanks for your comments. I've replied to one and made changes based on the other. While yes, the interpretation in this vote a little stricter, I do want to be sure that you're happy with it. If there's anything that's unclear or really lacking, or if I haven't gone far enough in changing something you'd discussed, or if someone else mentions something that had been on the back of your mind, please just edit it. DAVilla 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC) wintard Hi, I don't suppose you could weigh in at Talk:wintard? Eclecticology makes this claim there: "Dictionary definitions are rarely copyvios because of the merger principle. For a dictionary the word is the idea […]". If he weren't a bureaucrat of such long standing, I'd think he was Wonderfool/Dangherous! —RuakhTALK 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) pandeiro Hi there. You have "pandiero" several times throughout - was this intentional? SemperBlotto 08:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC) No. Typo - indeed, thought I'd fixed that, but I certainly will. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) deism - ttbc Hi, I noticed that you marked all the translations of deism as translations to be checked. I added most of those, and virtually all of them come straight out of the native Wikipedia pages in those languages. Is that not sufficient, or do additional sources need to be found for each? Cheers! bd2412 T 14:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC) The problem is that there are three senses which are not broken down in the translations. If you want to check them, just put the ones you entered under the corresponding definition. DAVilla 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I like the green you use. Where can I find the full range of applicable colours or coding for the non-background font colouring? Thecurran 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Everything you need is at w:List of colors. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC) User:SpongeBob Hi, I'd like your opinion regarding whether User:SpongeBob is acceptable. (The editor has already been blocked for his other edits, and Connel thinks that this is a reappearance of a longstanding vandal on Wikipedia; but right now I'm just wondering whether the user-page should be deleted, seeing as some company owns this character.) Thanks in advance, —RuakhTALK (21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)) On the one hand, we're not subject to any sort of liability for keeping it (if challenged it would pretty clearly be protected speech as a parody). On the other hand, if the guy is blocked for vandalism, I see no point in keeping it, as it serves no purpose for the lexicon. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC) contributing to the delinquency of a minor Is this a valid legal term? Or a specific charge? Or just a colloquial joke-phrase from the 80s? I don't see it listed in Appendix:Legal terms and I'm really, really unsure if I should enter it...and if so, how to convey the jocular sense. Thoughts? --Connel MacKenzie 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, it is a legal term (and would be a specific charge in many if not most jurisdictions), but it's kind of like assault with a deadly weapon - it seems to me it is inherently non-idiomatic. bd2412 T 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I guess that is just a {{figurative}} or diminutive use, of the official charge. Do we have the various common charges listed in a separate appendix somewhere? Or is that one just not common enough as a real charge, instead only used figuratively? Unlike assault + (modifier) with a deadly weapon, this one seems to be composed of inseparable parts. It should be listed somewhere, right? Hrm, I wonder if deadly weapon as a legal definition would survive RFD? I assume so... --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) High five. Sometimes I pop into recent changes and see you at the end of deleting a long string of nonsense articles, and I just wish I could high-five you, man. bd2412 T 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC) <digital (3)_high-five> Thank you. I notice your deletions of nonsense have been increasing lately, too. So yeah, here's a high-five to you too! --Connel MacKenzie 06:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Probable copyright violation As an int. prop. © lawyer, I imagine that you’d know the answer to the question I asked here. Could you enlighten me please? † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Well that's interesting. If it is copied verbatim from the source cited, it is indeed a copyright violation. Copyright in corporate works (such as this) subsists for 95 years from the date of publication (although anything published prior to January 1, 1923 is now in the public domain in the U.S.). If that is the case, than we should delete all versions of the article containing the infringing language (if there are non-infringing versions in the history, we can delete and do a partial restore). Dictionaries are notorious for retaining the same language from one edition to the next, so see if we can find an older (i.e. out of copyright) OED that uses substantially the same language, and if so we can say "aha, it was in the public domain all along!" Cheers! bd2412 T 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I checked the OED. It wasn’t a copyvio after all. I reckon the editor intended that parenthetic comment as a reference. I’ll go format it properly now and strike the RFC section. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Good work! bd2412 T 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Botting Funny, Hippietrail was talking about the exact same thing a few days ago. It looks like you are just manually AWBing and/or templating those entries? (i.e. from dog#Translations...) Or something more clever, for wider use? --Connel MacKenzie 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Nope, I'm clicking them all open in a new window. That was rather exhausting. I'd rather have a bot do it, but as you may know I'm a big fan of pictures in our entries. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Pictures. Hrm, that is an interesting concern. Well, anyhow, if you notice non-obvious patterns emerging as you go about it, (especially specific language concerns) I'm sure H.T. will be interested to hear about it. So what's next, dictionary?  :-)   (Waitsec - I'm pretty sure that used to have a picture...) --Connel MacKenzie 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Logo I replied to a legal concern made by Lmaltier on my talk page. Since you seem to have interest in such things do you think you could have a look at if what I said was correct? And there are logo versions on Beer parlour and it would be great to get any opinions about them. Thank you for your help. :) Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Latest non-words Definitions start with a #, not a * SemperBlotto 14:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Oops - that's what I get for mass producing. All fixed, thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC) AWB edits Hi there. Could you mark these as minor please. Then they don't flood "recent changes". Cheers. SemperBlotto 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC) `Sorry, thought I had that set as my default. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC) bibliothecae You do realize that "plural of" is meaningless in Latin, since a plural can be nominative, genitive, accusative, dative, locative, vocative, or ablative? In the case of bibliothecae, the word is the nominative plural but it's also the genitive singular, dative singular, and vocative plural. You need to be sure when adding citations that they belong to the specified sense. --EncycloPetey 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC) I will keep that in mind. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC) I guess I really need to spend time soon beefing up Wiktionary:About Latin. There are lots of useful declension and conjugation templates available that save lots of time. --EncycloPetey 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC) What we really out to do is feed all the Latin lemma to a declining bot that will make all the appropriate entries. bd2412 T 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Eventually, yes, but we're still very low on the number of lemma forms, and we're still working out details of formatting for the inflected forms. Heck, we didn't have an adverb template until earlier this week, and the adjective and verb inflection tables were in soory shape until a few months ago. --EncycloPetey 03:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) ss: What does "ss" or "SS" (I'm not sure which) mean when it appears on the top of a brief or motion? Usually right after the jurisdiction or court name, if I'm not mistaken. We have an entry SS but not that sense of it. if you know, and can add it, that'd help. Thanks!—msh210℠ 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC) I'll add it - it should probably be ss., from the Latin scilicet (namely, to wit, particularly), indicating that a document was executed in the designated place within that jurisdiction for such a document to be executed. bd2412 T 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks!—msh210℠ 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)` AWB I was told to talk to you if I wanted AWB access. I do not want, nor need bot access, as I do everything manually (I've used AWB on WP in the past), but have no idea how to get my name added to the permission list, or even where is the permission list. Circeus 17:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks a lot. Circeus 01:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Entries like asstunnel Is it worthwhile to have a proper simple entry for vulgarities like "asstunnel". It can be cited (though I'd rather not). I'm sick of seeing it on the request list. What do you think? DCDuring 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC) We treat vulgarities like any other word - if they meet the CFI, they go in. Mind you, we have tons of words to add, so there's certainly no need for anyone to prioritize its addition. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)