Hi Ortonmc,
Links are very compute intensive on the server. That's why we stopped using them in the titles/headings. I'm removing them from your articles. I hope you understand. The servers are almost unable to hold the load as it is. If there is something we can do to relieve the load, we should try to do it, I think. I like the articles and the definitions you put in. Keep up the good work!Polyglot 21:34, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- No problem; I'll start doing the same thing. Ortonmc 22:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Ortonmc!
I have just seen your definition of butterfly as a verb. English is not my mother tongue and it is the first time a see that use for the word. May it be just an adjective similar to eight-legged bug, where neither "eight-leg" nor "leg" are verbs even though participle-like forms can be derived from them? In short, can something like "I am going to butterfly the shrimps" be said in English?
Thanx! - Piolinfax 13:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Cheers for the explanation, Ortonmc/Mark! - Piolinfax 18:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Check the recent changes. My guess is that all the entries from that user are M-W online.
Hello, Ortonmc. Everything about the Bulgarian translation of iron is OK. Anyway, thanks for the notice! Webkid 14:53, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've noticed you are removing links from some articles. I think that doing so is detrimental to the articles and those links should be left in. After all, some people do not know the difference between a transitive verb and an intransitive verb. Such links are helpful to readers. -- LGagnon
- Hi LGagnon,
- I'm also taking out links from titles. There is a reason for this. The server cannot cope with the load anymore. For every link it encounters, it needs to do a database lookup to know whether this link needs to be colored red or blue. The links in the titles are the easiest ones to forgo. They are also the most ubiquitous, recurring again and again in all the entries. Most people consulting a dictionary do know about grammar and the others can also look it up manually or they could simply not care about it. Also words like it, of, and, etc, shouldn't be turned into links. I hope you understand. Many thanks for your contributions!Polyglot 08:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I replied to you on my talk pagePolyglot 17:28, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Do you want to be a sysop? You seem to be having some trouble with vandalism there. -- Tim Starling 05:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to have stopped now. But I wouldn't mind, in case it happens again. -- Ortonmc 07:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Congratulations! As of today you are a sysop on Wiktionary. Polyglot 09:55, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hey Ortonmc- I'm not even a registered user and readily admit that I'm a bit of a moron. ;) I added a few new words to the 'pedia (kibi, gibi, et al), but not having the will to look up how to format entries I did them completely wrong. Thanks for fixing them! I'll go read up on how to do it correctly now, so I can make more meaningful contributions. I'd sign this with a handle, but for now I'm just a number.
Hi Mark. I left a message for you on Talk:Apology. Cheers ValidUserName 21:05, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a bit too quick to revert there. Polyglot 11:28, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why bring in the Webster's 1913 definition of bark in particular? I may not be clear on the concept here, but I thought the Webster's 1913 material had been moved to a different namespace. Otherwise, I'd think Wiktionary would have an entirely different appearance. -dmh 06:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, dmh. I just happened to notice that some definitions (and all the etymologies) were missing from bark, and since I wasn't feeling particularly creative at the time, I cribbed them from Websters.
- The Webster 1913 namespace is, as I understand it, a temporary holding place for the Websters source material. Some folks (primarily Eclecticology, though I think there I've seen another in the last couple of months) have been gradually reformatting the Webster definitions into Wiktionary format and moving them into the main namespace. Since it's public domain, it seems like a good place to import info from. Of course, many words have acquired new meanings since 1913, and those should be added. Ortonmc 18:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have no problem with using material from Webster's (or anywhere else in the public domain), but I was a bit disconcerted to find that the original definitions had been replaced by largely identical ones, the new (old) ones being more precise in some cases but also more quaintly worded. Would it not have been better just to bring in the missing material (particularly the etymologies)?
- As it is, I can't help wondering what was the point of creating the original entry? I had gathered that the decision had already been made not to use Webster's as a starting point, and thus implicitly to create new entries from scratch, reflecting current usage. If there is an ongoing project of bringing the Webster's entries over, I may have misunderstood.
- I would think that bringing Webster's over is somewhat more than a simple matter of reformatting. For example, I learned "bark ones shin" without knowing the specific meaning given in Webster's. If my case is typical (maybe it isn't -- maybe most people recognize the original metaphor), then the meaning has effectively mutated.
- On the other hand, part of the utility of a dictionary is bringing to light suhc hidden connections. To this extent, dictionaries tend to be somewhat conservative and the older definitions are particularly useful.
- Hmm . . . perhaps modern entries could link to the Webster's (and possibly other sources) for comparison purposes. It seems feasible to have a bot insert links or stub entries for words defined in Webster's.
- In any case, it seems best to have a clear policy either of using Webster's and other PD sources as raw material consistently and energetically, or specifically not using them as a matter of course. As with most such matters, I don't have a strong opinion as to which course to take. I would just like to know. I thought I did, but the updating of bark put that in doubt.
Hi Ortonmc,
Yes, the word Afrikaans is (derived from) Dutch. Before the English colonized Zuid-Afrika, the Dutch were there (Just like in Japan, they were the first that managed to penetrate in the society there too). So the language Afrikaans today is a mixture of Dutch, English and some local languages. It is not impossible for us to understand Afrikaans. It takes quite a bit of effort though... and it sounds extremely funny. The grammar has been simplified and adapted. Polyglot 05:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hello! I think that <input type="hidden" name="num" value="50"> should be inserted to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Googlesearch so that 50 search matches could be displayed at one time. Greetings --Dubaduba 20:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary adminship edit
Hi. As a Wiktionary admin, I would like to ask if you are still interested in remaining an admin while you have had no activity after 6 September 2005.--Jusjih 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm hereby informing you of Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-06/User:Ortonmc for desysop.—msh210℠ 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)