User talk:Pilcrow/archive

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:English words prefixed with præ-

Are there any words prefixed with præ-? All of these seem to be from other languages, not by prefixing. For example, is præfer fer prefixed with præ-? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ It seems to me that those were words that were prefixed in Latin; they do not have the other root word included in English (such as this). Fine, you may delete that category. Pilcrow 12:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a trick question; I'm not saying that there aren't any English words prefixed with præ-, just I can't think of any. Seems like one of the entries listed in præ- definitely is a derived term. Try Category:English words prefixed with pre-, some of these might also have præ- forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I am assuming you meant words unique to English, which are spelt with præ-? Alternatively: perhaps obsolete words which do not have modern æquivalents? Otherwise, it seems I hallucinated ∼100 of the words I found here. Pilcrow 13:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my posts apart from spelling mistakes and typos (see User:Mglovesfun). Prefix is a bit of a tricky one; there's been some debate on it. I think everyone agrees there's a difference between first letters of a word and a prefix. It gets a bit trickier for words from non-English languages that could be interpreted as prefixed or indeed suffixed words, like manhood which is attested in Middle English as manhede. Try also Special:PrefixIndex/præ. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Premature is an even better example as it's from Latin praematurus according to etymonline. But it could also be considered pre- +‎ mature. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I suppose you are indicating that pre- is not actually English then? The word prefix is not prefixed with anything in English, since it is a loan‐word? I guess “præread” would be an example of an English word prefixed with præ‐. ¶ If you are looking to win a debate, I freely concede! I am not sure what else I am misunderstanding. Pilcrow 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there three words formed with this prefix whose earliest citations are spelt (deprecated template usage) præ-? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

eu- and dyspnœa

Re your revisions: Where did you get *(deprecated template usage) nœa? The second element of both is (deprecated template usage) -pnœa (from the Ancient Greek πνέω (pnéō), pneō, “I blow”), which does not exist independently in English. Furthermore, the OED [2ⁿᵈ ed., 1989] gives the etymology of eupnœa as "mod.L., a. Gr. εὔπνοια, f. εὔπνοος breathing easily, f. εὖ well + πνέ-ειν to breathe" and the etymology of dyspnœa as "L. dyspnœa, a. Gr. δύσπνοια difficulty of breathing, f. δύσπνοος, f. δυσ- (dys-) + πνοή breath, breathing". Please verify your etymologies with the most reliable, up-to-date authorities available (the OED's a good example). Thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I suppose you will not believe it was a typographical error? I will creäte a page for the Græcian suffix -pnea, if that is acceptable. Pilcrow 15:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends whether it is attestable. An affix is attested if there exist three terms formed therewith which themselves satisfy WT:CFI#Attestation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Perhaps this page will not suffice ? I do not know how the exact Greek word would be spelt for any of those terms, since I do not have any significant knowledge of Greek, but I doubt you will believe me about that. ¶ If you want, I can just leave the etymology sections out all together. Pilcrow 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the terms on that list, and it turns out that at least some of them are coinages in English, so I created -pnœa. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, re your two comments hereinbefore, viz. "I suppose you will not believe it was a typographical error?" (15:13, 27 March 2011) and "I doubt you will believe me about that" (15:26, 27 March 2011), I believe you edit here in good faith and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I expect everybody using this website to be distrustful of me since I do not edit under my actual name. Pilcrow 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So what? Why would your real name make any difference? Most of our admins don't edit under their actual names. I judge your trustworthiness according to, and only according to, the contributions you make. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Using a fake name over Internet communication is sometimes seen as cowardice, immaturity, or (also) deceitfulness. However, using a real name could portray the opposite, as that would be openly displayïng significant information of identity, and not conveyïng fantasty or absurdity. I hope that is understandable. ¶ I am assuming you are registered under your actual name; perhaps one of your parents was a Latvian.— This unsigned comment was added by Pilcrow (talk • contribs) at 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

I understand your views, but I simply don't make those inferences. I am indeed registered under me actual name; neither of my parents are Latvian. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I am glad you are not angry with me, as I was expecting to be blocked. However I am still curiöus: may I please know what the origin of your name is, sir? Pilcrow 23:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Certainly not; that would be ridiculously unfair. 2. Not right now; that's a rather long story. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletionist

Wow, fast on your way to being the most deletionist Wiktionarian ever. Before you and Tempvalodese (sp.) that was probably me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Should I apologize?  Pilcrow 04:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see why you would. NB user's name is (deprecated template usage) Tempodivalse. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I was going to nominate you as a rollbacker on the Beer Parlour; do I have to explain what a rollbacker is? If not, would you accept my nomination? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Somebody who may quickly revert edits, I assume? ¶ I will accept this nomination; strangely, there is only one rollbacker. --Pilcrow 15:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with Æ and Category:English terms spelled with Œ pipes

Hi Pilcrow. To explain this edit of mine: Our software, unfortunately, lists (deprecated template usage) Æ, (deprecated template usage) æ and (deprecated template usage) Œ, (deprecated template usage) œ as coming after (deprecated template usage) Z, (deprecated template usage) z; whereas we want them to be listed as equivalent to (deprecated template usage) AE, (deprecated template usage) ae and (deprecated template usage) OE, (deprecated template usage) oe. For that reason, Category:English terms spelled with Æ and Category:English terms spelled with Œ should be piped with a the term respelt sans diacritics and with ligatures converted to their corresponding digraphs. Does that make sense? If you've any questions, please ask. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ So I should include the un‐ligated spelling next to the ligature, example: [[[Category:English terms spelled with Æ|gynaeco-]]? I can do that. --Pilcrow 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

gynæconome, &c.

Hi Pilcrow. Re gynæc- terms, γῠναικ- (gunaik-) is just the stem of γῠνή (gunḗ, “woman”). Stems don't get entries, so please don't link to γῠναικ- (gunaik-); link to the lemma (γῠνή (gunḗ)) instead. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Noted. I have changed the etymology. I apologize for this inconvenience.--Pilcrow 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

cœliæ‎

Hey, Pilcrow. "Trash...the quotes are fake..." I don't get it. What's going on? Ƿidsiþ 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you care. I’m a non‐admin. It’s not like my opinions would be worth anything. --Pilcrow 15:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure what we're talking about. Ƿidsiþ 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, I suppose "Trash" means "I would like to get this page deleted because it contains material blatantly unworthy of a dictionary." On the other hand, "The quotes are fake, of course" doesn't mean anything because Google Books is the highest authority on attestability, and it confirms the whole contents of Citations:cœliæ.

You know, Pilcrow, I could start a motivational discourse about the value of opinions from non-admins, that would certainly include the fact that everyone here was once a nonadmin, but... People like you and your work. And Widsith just asked you a question whose answer is quite obvious. As far as I know, you don't have a reason to assume people will disregard your opinions just because you're not an administrator. Do you? --Daniel. 16:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Since our administrators worked for months, eventually receiving (if not earning) their promotions, would it be too hazardous to assume those behind their status do not yet have the dedication or trustworthiness to become an administrator? I think my current status could make anything I do less reliable.

I don’t see why I’m still acknowledged here; I do not respect my work anymore. Accented characters and ligatures were never part of the Latin alphabet, so isn’t it incorrect to use them? Most of the entries I make are just old spelling errors. --Pilcrow 17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your self-esteem does not necessarily reflects the opinions of others about you. On the other hand, saying things like "I do not respect my work anymore" can indeed harm your reputation, just because I have a personal tendency not to praise unreasonable levels of humility.

Wiktionary is descriptive; so, basically, if a bunch of people uses a word, it should eventually be defined here, regardless of whether they are "old spelling errors". If you think that a number of words are incorrect, and that their existence here somehow implies that they are correct, then one way to combat this phenomenon would be proposing to tag all of them as "proscribed"; for example, the entry plant contains the word "proscribed" once; please search for it, and see how it is used to tag something prescriptively wrong. --Daniel. 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pilcrow, administrators are not superior to non-admins, they just have more tools to use. It has no bearing whatsoever on the value of your contributions. If you think the entries you're making are trash, there is an obvious solution: don't make them. Or, nominate yourself as an admin if it bothers you so much. I'm not sure that is the best motivation however. Ƿidsiþ 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hear, hear! --Daniel. 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ I had the perception that nobody finds my contributions to be useful or helpful; I do not get peer reviews, but I know I should not expect this from everybody here, since we have other things to be concerned about. ¶ I’m just in another depressive episode right now, and it is likely we’ll all forget about it in less than a week. --Pilcrow 07:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ I have been taking my medication inconsistently (I know I shouldn’t do that); that remark “I do not respect my work” was way over the top, please accept my excuses. Nonetheless, I am still wondering: whence did you get the idea that people “[p]eople like [me] and [my] work”?

I like your work. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too. --Daniel. 19:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Feedback#.E6.9B.BF

Please see Wiktionary:Feedback#.E6.9B.BF. I see that you removed a vandalism report regarding the exact same type of problem a few days ago, but without comment. It seems to be an ongoing problem. 71.66.97.228 00:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Original vandalism report

• Your removal, without comment, of the original vandalism report

71.66.97.228 00:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

English formal terms

I created Category:English formal terms per your proposal. It is already populated by a number of English entries, because they use {{formal}}. --Daniel. 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cats

As a side effect of this edit made by you, the entry Schrödinger's cats was categorized into Category:English nouns, which is a bad thing because that category is supposed to not contain words that are merely defined as plurals of other nouns. --Daniel. 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. --Daniel. 14:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

to-day

Hi. I thought we didn’t redirect pages. May I ask what the character is in the words being redirected? Looks like a hyphen, but is it something else? Leasnam 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] --Pilcrow 20:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

It appears you've fallen into the trap of creating redirects from words of similar-looking unicode characters, but of different language scripts, into those of regular English words, like you did with enjoy. This is wrong. I'd encourage you to read WT:REDIR, specifically the section entitled "#Redirects from one script to another", and to learn from the mistake that I've made doing it. TeleComNasSprVen 23:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

They're all Latin script characters. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

-s suffix

I really appreciate your additions of words from the English language that use letters/glyphs outside the standard 26 characters. I wanted to point out that on entries for plural or third-person singular simple present indicative variants of words, adding an etymology section isn't needed when there's already etymology at the main entry. The "plural of" or "third person singular of" templates are sufficient, while the -s suffix causes entries to show up in Category:English words suffixed with -s, which is very small and contains mostly adverbial genitives. - Afiler 17:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ Noted. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will not add -s as an etymological suffix for either third‐person verbs or plural versions of words. I hope that is correct. --Pilcrow 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pilcrow, you might be interested in knowing (if you didn't already know) that we have a Category:English plurals ending in "-es". We don't have a Category:English plurals ending in "-s", though. --Daniel 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

appreciation

Thou art astute: ay, mayhap I attended
Unto thy Toiles, and thus mine that way bended.
Yet, sooth, no Inspiration I neede
To work on formes obsolete, indeede. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

No, Pilcrow, those template redirects don't save slightly more memory. I, personally, wouldn't object the creation of a few redirects just to be used by you, if for some reason unrelated to saving memory you just prefer typing "æ". However, replacing older names with newer names is particularly futile; the addition of "præsent" in this diff looks like just a (small) waste of effort and bandwidth.

By the way, having a few issues with Mglovesfun is not a good reason to feel "unwanted" and "not welcomed". Please stop being overdramatic. --Daniel 04:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right, it was wasteful. I am not going to bother utilizing my own style anymore. It’s just worthless and stupid. Nobody cares about it.

I don’t see the point coming here anymore. I’ll just mess things up again. --Pilcrow 04:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you can just go away. And come back when you see the point. --Daniel 06:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, please remove the "delete" request from your user page and user talk page: if you want to take a break from Wiktionary for a while, you can do it without deleting anything. Compare User:EncycloPetey, a great Wiktionary contributor who is on a wiki-break now without getting his user page deleted. --Dan Polansky 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Template redirects

Are you just requesting the deletion of all template redirects, without any discretion? --Daniel 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's retaliation for me speedy deleting Template:suffix. Note that some of these templates are used, such as {{accent:Spain}}. Revenge doesn't normally lead to productive edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it MUST have been retaliation. Just like I MUST have made those template redirections for my own "amusement". There can't possibly be another reason!

Tell me Martin, since you are so incredibly good at seeing my motivations: how about you use your mental powers to make myself disappear? --Pilcrow 23:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me guess why you are angry at me (otherwise, you shouldn't swear towards me). It was because I reverted that comment from a while back. When I was experiencing another depressive episode a few weeks back, you merely told me that "skulking won't impress anyone". I guess you considered that to be helpful, right? It's certainly not rude or inconsiderate, right? So it must have been irrational to revert it, even if it looks no different from some vandal's comment. Since I'm a non-admin, I reacted incorrectly, I should never remove your (very) rude comments like you would for anybody else; it's all about YOU, I don't matter at all. I never had interest in "impressing" anybody, but why would you take my claim into account? --Pilcrow 23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop, both of you. Mglovesfun, requesting the deletion of fifty or so templates is harmless and easily reversible. Also, Pilcrow has the right to delete comments from his talk page. Pilcrow, you should know better. Templates that are widely used most certainly shouldn't ever be deleted without a good reason.

And both of you, please refrain from using poor psychology. One's behavior may not have been planned as retaliation; and another's behavior may not have been planned as abuse of power. I'm going to unblock Pilcrow per "It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions." of WT:BLOCK.

Pilcrow, I'll believe in your previous experience and ability to use common sense. That means you should only make contributions that you know are acceptable; or you should ask whenever you are not sure. In particular, the deletion of a template redirect is not alone a reason to delete another template redirect. --Daniel 23:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin did not bother explaining his deletion of my redirections, but he decided that I did it for my own "amusement", and he seems to think I am well-aware of that. So what should stop me from thinking he intentionally makes redirections for his own amusement? I doubt he will explain, since he is confident that I already know, and he seems to think I make "bad edits" on purpose, otherwise, I would not complain, would I? --Pilcrow 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Template:suffix, at least, was deleted per a very short RFDO discussion.

Using Martin's arguments against him is retaliation. Why would you want to do that, Pilcrow? Do you actually believe that doing things for one's own amusement is bad? That's apparently just Martin's belief. --Daniel 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I am sorry that I mis-judged, and I should remain more skeptical. Although, I really want to know if anybody here could possibly consider this response to be appropriate at all; would you claim he was not assuming bad faith (in the slightest)? I cannot help but feel like I get exactly what I deserve since nobody else cared about that discussion. --Pilcrow 00:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, did care enough about the discussion to read it and grasp the situation. I already asked Mglovesfun (through this discussion, which I believe he reads) not to assume bad faith of you if possible. However, Pilcrow, really don't recreate obscure deleted redirects and don't re-request the deletion of widely used template redirects, simply because the circumstances indicate that both actions would just be unwanted. --Daniel 01:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I can not be entitled to a specific explanation about how my entires are "gibberish" or "nonsense", which (I assume) is all because of the way I was acting towards Martin's "advice".

I enjoy writing in my own way, and I think Martin likes his own method too, but apparently, my way is "gibberish" compared to his. Well, what am I supposed to think of that? Is my style just too unpopular? Is he incapable of taking me seriously? Does it ruin the valuable congruency by letting somebody else use slightly different templates? If not, then could I please know what kind are allowed? How am I supposed to ensure myself that I will not irritate him (and get blocked) again? At this point, I do not want to mess with my deleted entries anymore, it just causes too much trouble over something minor, but I still have not received a satisfactory explanation and I am stuck without one. --Pilcrow 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindenting) Yes, Wiktionary oftentimes seems to follow a specific type of democracy in which unpopular ideas get deleted and popular ideas are kept. Since {{internet slang}} and {{accent:Spain}} are widely used by many people, they are popular by default. Since you are reasonably the only editor expected to use "Template:suffix" and certain other template names, your style is unpopular by default.

In spite of anything you may have learned from Mglovesfun, there is nothing inherently wrong with using one's own style. However, the concept of "style" encompasses a huge number of things, so it's not possible to simply say something like "Yes! Please always use your own style! Always!" or "No! Don't you dare ever using your own only style! Never!". There are situations where you can use your style and other situations where you can't use your style.

I advise, as a rule of thumb, always taking your time to post new and unpopular ideas at WT:BP to give the chance for other people to comment about them. Not because they are "your style", just because they are "new" and "unpopular"! By proposing the implementation of new ideas before implementing them, you more clearly display good faith and willingness to work in group. As you certainly know, there is even the possibility of other people supporting (or just don't opposing to) what you have to say.

In particular, I don't think that a redirect from "Template:suffix" to "Template:suffix" is a good idea, for the reasons I already gave. In addition, the redirect is obscure, and (AFAIK) often not typeable from average QWERTY keyboards. This redirect might confuse new readers. The current name is much more user-friendly. --Daniel 03:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, proposing before-hand would have been the reasonable option to do. I apologize for trying to get all of those entries deleted, it was arrogant and hasty of me. As for my own: in my defense, I found this kind of template (which an administrator made) went un-deleted for a while, so I assumed it would not be hazardous to quickly make some of my own personal templates. I know "other people do it" is not usually a very good excuse, but surely it is normal to act that way at first. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nonetheless, I doubt that I can make compromise with Martin's attitude, which is why I still doubt I will continue contributing here. I will admit, I did make some un-necessary assumptions towards him, but it seems to be too late to reach any kind of agreement; it is likely that I will remain un-respected in the long-term. --Pilcrow 05:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

At first sight, surely it may be natural to assume that "Template:palæontology" is a precedent for creating new template redirects with ligatures, even if this assumption is in fact inappropriate for a number of additional reasons. Since you have repeatedly shown the ability to learn from conversations, I take the liberty to expect your improvement in the areas discussed.

Now, here are two interesting facts about Template:palæontology, that are very good reasons to believe that its name is actually unpopular as well:

1. A search for Template: "æ" indicates that the number of templates whose name is written with "æ" is zero. "Template:palæontology" apparently was the only template name written that way, but it's deleted now.
2. The page Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:palæontology lists all the pages that link to "Template:palæontology", and clearly demonstrates that no entry links to it. (And I have reasons to believe that this template was equally unused before being deleted as well.)

Pilcrow, feel free to take a break whenever you want, or even go back to editing Wiktionary right now. Being in friendly terms with everyone would be great, but I don't think a disagreement with Martin should hinder your ability to make good contributions to this project. --Daniel 08:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

User pages

What is your rationale for marking numerous user pages for deletion? I do agree that they are rather meaningless, but that is hardly a cause for a speedy delete in user-space. See WT:USER (should be constructive toward the goals of Wiktionary).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 07:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ The pages I marked are usually similar to this and this, so I am expecting these to get suppressed for the same reasons. If I am correct, a user‐page should contain as least a little bit of information that is descriptive of the user (but it should not be redundant). --Pilcrow 07:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ As of now, nobody will take the initiative of deleting them, so I will stop unless I receive administrator consent to continue. --Pilcrow 08:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing feedback

I have reverted your removal of feedback from "WT:FEED". I admit that the feedbacker wrote in all-caps, which is a poor idea, but what he had to tell seems worth reading anyway. I would not touch the text of the feedbacker myself, but what could be done as an alternative is turn all his writing into all-lowercase. --Dan Polansky 11:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ “Feedbackers” really should not write in such unpleasant fashions; such hogwash can be treated befitting to the the way ‘he’ would. It is both embarrassing and gruelling to read carelessly tailored messages, since it is likely the writer did not care enough about ‘his’ purpose to actually respectfully communicate it. ¶ In addition, your “HO” about what is in poor taste does not mean it is your absolute right to act on it, especially without discussion or consent, and I do not appreciate that. --Pilcrow 01:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The only sin that the person who wrote the feedback has committed (diff) was that he wrote in all-caps; he used no insulting words, and the content of his post was to the point. What you did was remove a post altogether, which I find much more offensive than writing in all-caps, so I felt perfectly free to undo your removal. Under most circumstances, people should not modify other people's posts, let alone remove them. The writer's use of all-caps was neither embarassing, nor gruelling nor disrespectuful. If you don't want to read posts with various levels of adherence to conventions including grammar and spelling, you should rather avoid WT:FEED, a page intended to get feedback from various segments of Wiktionary readership. --Dan Polansky 08:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ Perhaps you believe it is acceptable or appropriate to (obnoxiously) misuse language, but many others have far less patience or respect towards misusage. As for your denial of my opinions: I could never be proud to have such careless, oblivious readers, no matter how common or ‘normal’ they would be. ¶ If we are going to toss out our standards towards feedback, then what would our feedback be worth? --Pilcrow 08:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Writing in all-caps is not a "misuse of language". From what I have seen, it is a practice in Wiktionary to be rather tolerant, especially on WT:FEED, but also to people who choose to use non-customary "¶" signs in each paragraph they write. The feedback is worth the information it provides to Wiktionary, even if that information is formatted in all-caps. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ Not a misusage? Please, this is English, not Ancient Latin. Unless you happen to spend a lot of time reading messages written entirely in majuscule, I can not understand why it would not feel awkward. --Pilcrow 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All-caps feel no more awkward than the use of ¶ symbol in every paragraph. The use of an awkward thing or feature in a post is alone a poor reason for removing the post, anyway. --Dan Polansky 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about we agree to disagree: you can tolerate messages written entirely in majuscule and I cannot. Does that sound fair? I am sorry. --Pilcrow 10:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not about to tolerate your intorelance. Wiktionary is not your private playground. --Dan Polansky 10:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So what, do you simply want me to leave alone anything that goes into the Feedback section, even if I think it looks like gibberish? If I knew this was so important to you, I would have never touched that comment in the first place, especially if I was going to be accused of playing with this website. --Pilcrow 10:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The post you have removed (here again diff for you) is no gibberish. It is a meaningful message written in all-caps. Your classing the post as "gibberish" is outright false. You will do well to no longer touch any comments of other people, even if they look like "gibberish" to you. --Dan Polansky 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ Did I state that particular message was gibberish? No, I did not. That is because I am using an example of content I remove. I am not proposing it was meaningless. I was never proposing my opinions are actually capable of being “false” (or true). There is no reason why feedback needs to be written entirely in capital letters (at least in this age). In contrast: a paragraph mark has purpose, and I see no reason why it would considered improper, unless it is used very excessively. I think your comparison is un‐called for. ¶ If you believe I would do well to ignore content that appears as nonsense, then you may as well revoke my roll‐backer status; it is not as if somebody will denounce you for it anyway, I am not wanted. --Pilcrow 10:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you did not mean that the particular message you have removed from WT:FEED was gibberigh, then I do not see why you spoke of gibberish in the first place.

Your paragraph mark is uncustomary, as you know all to well. You are so proud of using this unconventional thing that you have chosen a user name that refers to it.

If something is not wanted, it is your drama queen behavior, consisting first of breaking conventions and starting turn things upside down, and then whining about how "you are not wanted". --Dan Polansky 11:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ I have removed content from the feedback section before, which you do not seem to be taking notice of. Now this, of all instances, is suddenly rejected and it is obvious because you have the patience to explain it to me. Although I do not see why you would go through the trouble of thoroughly explaining to me what feedback is acceptable to revert. ¶ My user‐name was a nick‐name Mister Doremítzwr applied to me, somebody whom I respect. One reason I did not make an account is because I could not think of a decent name to use. Perhaps this name was nice, but I see no reason to be ‘proud’ of it. It is not an achievement of any sort. In fact, I have thought about it, and I realised that I honestly have no reason to be ‘proud’ of anything in particular. If I was proud, there could at least be ‘wider’ positive recognition of my efforts. I suspect the pages I create get very low traffic; I could very well be the only person to use those terms regularly. ¶ You (an administrator) claimed that I have “drama queen behavior” and I am whining. Yes, why should I feel un‐wanted when I get comments like that, especially from people such as yourself? It’s obviously irrational.

¶ I apologize for removing that comment, I should have ignored it completely. I am thankful you are patient with myself. I will never remove feedback without your permission. --Pilcrow 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of non-lemma forms

I find the edit of this diff in "infrequencies" dubious. Form "infrequencies" is not a lemma form but rather a plural. Thus, classing the entry under "Category:English words prefixed with in-" seems wrong, as we only class lemma forms into such categories. The same seems true of Category:English words not following the I before E except after C rule, which should only contain lemma forms. If you find my reasoning implausible, we may try to find out in Beer parlour what other people think. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with Category:English words prefixed with in-, as it's actually infrequency suffixes with -s, where -ys then becomes -ies. Infrequency is actually from French anyway, isn't it? But the other categories seem fine to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

MG, do you mean categories for prefixes should contain non-lemma forms, such as plurals, when the prefix aptly applies? Thus, should Czech category for words prefixed with "při-" contain not only lemma "přibít" but also all inflected forms such as "přibiji", "přibiješ", "přibije", "přibijeme", "přibijete", "přibijí"?

In general, should non-lemma forms be placed to categories for lemmas alongside of lemma forms? --Dan Polansky 09:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a prefix category here; for one reason, it's not even accurate! For the rest Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Categories for inflected forms. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was very clear in my question that I was asking about the case in which the prefix does accurately apply ("..., when the prefix aptly applies?"), and I have given a Czech example. The question you have raised in Beer parlour is different from the question I am asking. My thesis is that inflected forms should not be placed together with lemma forms into categories for prefixes and categories such as Category:English words not following the I before E except after C rule. In particular, the following entries should IMHO not be placed to Category:English words not following the I before E except after C rule, as these are non-lemmas: obstinancies, obeisancies, magistracies, lunacies, infrequencies, lieutenancies, frequencies, inaccuracies, latencies, idiosyncracies, accuracies, idiocies, kakistocracies, intimacies, supremacies, ecstacies, fancies, fallacies, extravagancies, exigencies, inconsistencies, constituencies, conspiracies, excellencies, Excellencies, consistencies, conservancies, concurrencies, competencies, delinquencies, emergencies, deficiencies, choccies, efficiencies, currencies, biccies, bibliomancies, belligerencies, bankruptcies, bureaucracies, æquivalencies, agencies, adhocracies, accountancies, aristocracies, aberrancies, abbacies, urgencies, mercies, inefficiencies, delicacies, contingencies, democracies, pharmacies. --Dan Polansky 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have posted this to Beer parlour, to Wiktionary:BP#-ies forms in English words not following the I before E except after C rule.--Dan Polansky 09:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Can you use descriptive edit summaries? "So I don't get blocked again" is not a summary of the edit that you are doing. By contrast, "remove a category" and "-cat" are good summaries, as is "add a category" or "+cat". --Dan Polansky 10:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ “+cat” or “-cat” are certainly not good summaries because it is not apparent that ‘cat’ is a contraction of ‘category’ and it is informal to mix mathematical symbols in regular (non‐mathematical) sentences. Now, I admit that summary was inappropriate, but I want to take responsibility for my errores and I do not desire to get into trouble over problems I could have (easily) fixed myself, including the categorization of terms ending in ‘‐cies’. Considering Martin is taking notice of my actions, I really do not want to aggravate and have him fix mistakes I could have fixed. --Pilcrow 10:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer the longer "remove a category", I certainly won't object. I still hold that "+cat" is a good edit summary, but I am not going to argue with you about it. --Dan Polansky 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask you again to use edit summaries, especially for introducing changes that deviate from the common practice. --Dan Polansky 07:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Traffic

Here is a tool for knowing the traffic of any particular entry over any month: The tool. I thought you might be interested in it. It is much more user-friendly for seeing traffic of Wikipedia instead, but it works for Wiktionary as well, if you know how to use the tool.

The page linked says that the entry encyclopædia was viewed 152 times in February 2011. The text "Wikipedia article traffic statistics" is false, because it is surely about Wiktionary.

To see other pages and months, you must edit the URL, not the buttons and lists of the pages. If you try to use the tools "Enter another wikipedia article title:", you'll wind up seeing traffic for Wikipedia instead. --Daniel 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re I hope you do not mind.

I have responded on my talk page. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology in inflected forms

What I find really annoying is your repeated finding new ways of breaking common practice instead of adding valuable content to Wiktionary. Now you have started adding etymology sections to inflected forms. Is this a common practice? Obviously not, but you don't mind, and fuzz around, without creating much of added value. It is not so hard to see what is and what is not common practice, right? I really wonder what it is that you came to Wiktionary for. --Dan Polansky 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ “Common practice” is not the same as policy. That is an appeal to popularity. Regardless, there is a discussion here which discusses if it is appropriate to add etymology to the inflected forms. Instead of continually antagonizing somebody, you could explain what they did incorrectly and ask if they could fix the problem. Although I highly doubt you would accept advice from non‐administrators since they have ‘less experience’. --Pilcrow 02:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary is driven by common practice rather than by policy. Yes, I know there is a discussion. What I see as wrong is your refusal to look at the common practice, introducing deviations that require new discussion instead, all that while contributing not much of substance to Wiktionary. Now you have started adding things like "{{infl|en|verb form|head=throw[[-ing|ing]]}}" in place of "{{en-verb form}}", which I dislike and based on which I would have to create yet another discussion in Beer parlour about your deviations. What I see from your editing is that you are creating more trouble than anything else. I ask you to stop introducing deviations into Wiktionary. I ask you to look at the common practice. I ask you to consider contributing things of substance such as new definitions of missing English words rather than wasting time of other editors with deviations. --Dan Polansky 07:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you guess it. Things are run by appeal to popularity among editors of Wiktionary, many of whom have contributed things of substance, rather than by appeal to what a troublemaking newbie finds pleasing while disregarding everything else. This is not your playground. This is a collaborative project to build a dictionary. --Dan Polansky 07:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again you accuse me of playing with this website. I would have thought nobody would see any harm in at least including convenient links to affixes, but you think it is worthless and troublesome (apparently) since it is not common practice. For the last time: if you want a problem I made to be removed, you can simply ask me to fix it; I can accept responsibility. Since when was it decided that our policies are less important than “common practice”? Why bother having a Help page, or rules for that matter, when our only warning should be to imitate most people or else? --Pilcrow 16:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you to follow common practice. Help pages often contain things unsupported by community consensus anyway. There are some key policies in Wiktionary, but they are few. Your creating of {{suffix}} is an example of that sort of deviation that you should avoid. Did you really think it was a good idea that Wiktionary entries should use two versions of the template, one {{suffix}} and {{suffix}}? What made you think {{suffix}} was a good idea in the first place? Do you first need someone to write a policy that forbids {{suffix}}, and let that policy passed through a vote? --Dan Polansky 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not apparent that template re‐directions are more reserved than regular redirections. --Pilcrow 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it is not apparent to you that having two spellings of a single template in the articles is a bad thing, where one of the spellings only differs in a ligature. It is still not clear to me why have you created the other template {{suffix}}. --Dan Polansky 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Go back to Martin’s talk page and read the part I asked why it was deleted. I made an incorrect assumption. You still won’t explain why certain redirections are allowed. You obviously don’t care at this point, you just want me to do what you want. --Pilcrow 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually not. I would like to see into the style of reasoning that says that creating {{suffix}} is a good thing, and the useful purpose for which this thing is good. --Dan Polansky 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it would save up slightly more space. Did you even read a single thing I said? --Pilcrow 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And for clarification: just because I thought that DOES NOT mean I still think that. --Pilcrow 18:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, you are referring to this post to MG's talk page: "Am I incorrect to assume it saves up slightly more memory? ¶" Now, what memory is this template supposed to save? Do you mean the digital storage at the harddrive, because "suffix" is 4 unicode characters long while "suffix" is 6 unicode characters long? If so, I am amazed at your reasoning: did you really think it was a good idea to introduce a spelling with ligature that hardly any user can type in order to save two characters per template? --Dan Polansky 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so basically I’m an idiot. Great. I don’t care any more. --Pilcrow 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When somebody asks for their own talk page to be deleted, it usually gets deleted. It is very, very easy to comply with this request. I do not want to use this any more. --Pilcrow 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page is here not only for you but also for other people. It keeps track of your past interactions with other editors, thereby making you accountable at least in part. --Dan Polansky 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Then can somebody please block me infinitely? That’s why these things can get deleted. This is causing me a lot of stress. It would just be so much better if I can stop without worrying about it later. --Pilcrow 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you no longer want to get any messages from me on your talk page, it suffices that you stop introducing deviations from common practice. Getting yourself blocked is going overboard; it is an overreaction. --Dan Polansky 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don’t want to get messages here period. --Pilcrow 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you continute introducing deviations, you will continue to get messages. Avoiding deviations is much better than being blocked indefinitely (which is what you have proposed, not me), isn't it? --Dan Polansky 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What if I told you I would NEVER deviate from common practice ONLY if this talk page was deleted? --Pilcrow 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I could not care less. As long as there are issues with your contributions, I will talk to you. --Dan Polansky 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I just don’t want to contribute any more. --Pilcrow 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Impressive. Even though this page was once deleted with my request, now you decided that it needs to stay. I do not want to contribute now, so why keep this? Who cares about me? Do you have any respect for me at all? Obviously not. --Pilcrow 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Pilcrow. Dan Polansky has given some good advice, including don't deviating from common practice, and don't being dramatic, which are things I asked to you before as well. If you always did these things, that would be a way for showing "care" and "respect" for Wiktionary and its contributors. --Daniel 22:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to follow “common practice” here. There was no clear rule that I was supposed to follow “common practice”; I was never aware of it once I joined. I will not comply, especially now that my personal requests are continually being rejected. --Pilcrow 22:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are, at the very least, aware of the existence of common practice now. --Daniel 22:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter to me. Just because I am aware of the norm of doing things did NOT mean I agreed to follow it.

Also, please do not insist that I should “stop being dramatic”, I have the right to my feelings. I have been insulted again and again without apology and I will not deny my feelings just because you think this matter is petty. I will give respect when it is earned, but I certainly do not see fit to do so now that my requests are denied. --Pilcrow 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well. Let me clarify a few points:

• This is a collaborative project. So, if you choose to contribute here, please follow the common practices relating to your contributions.
• I didn't ever say that you shouldn't have feelings. However, the way you have repeatedly said varieties of "nobody cares for me" after disagreements sounds very petty indeed. You, sometimes, seem to imply that others have the moral duty of following your lead in order to make you feel welcome.
• Whether your requests are reasonable is open to discussion. If you do contribute here and feel the inspiration to invent new practices, please be ready to tell others why they are good practices, and also please be ready for knowing and acknowledging why the previous practices were good in the first place. Wiktionary follows appeal by popularity, so "it's good because everyone does it" is typically considered a good reason for keeping an old practice, though counterarguments to this are possible, and relatively common.
• In particular, I don't think the request of deleting your talk page along with its history is reasonable, because others have the right to read conversations taken place here. This right is closely related to the collaborative nature of the project. I, personally, would not mind, however, you blanking completely this page while keeping the history intact. Dan Polansky seems to have reasons for the talk page not be blanked as well, which he probably is able to explain better than me.

--Daniel 00:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: I do not oppose all of the common actions here, but when I try new things then they are seen as major and removed quickly. Yes, I was selfish at times, but I still doubted anybody would get angry over modifications I think look considerably minor; some of them may appear as identical to already existent practices. Secondly: I do not care if anybody follows my ‘lead’, I edited as I saw fit. What has caused me grief are the irritating attitudes I have seen. I have been accused of playing here, whining, being a “drama queen”, doing things for my own amusement, and highlighting my ‘bad edits’ as much as possible (I’m not allowed to know what I did wrong, I guess). I have little patience for people who are disrespectful to myself, and I feel helpless when administrators do it. I am completely sick of Polansky’s attitude towards me, and judging from his tone of writing, he likely feels the same way about myself. I really don’t want to speak to him any more. Third: "it's good because everyone does it" is not a rational principle: it is an assumption rooted in common sense. If popularity is treated as logical or “reasonable” here, then I definitely made a mistake signing up. Finally: this page is embarrassing for myself, it has also caused me a lot more stress then normal, and there is some personal information stored in the History section, which I want deleted as soon as possible! But who would care about my desires? I don’t matter at all, do I? I am that ‘trouble maker’ and the ‘newbie’, right? Maybe this must be for my own good, that definitely would not surprise me. I could mark this with an RFD tag instead of speedy‐deletion, but I feel pessimistic about the outcome. --Pilcrow 03:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing personal information... as soon as possible. Done. Your IP (which you added to your talk page by yourself, and is hardly a secret anyway) is hidden. If I missed something, you may ask for its deletion by e-mail. --Daniel 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK; done as well. I deleted more revisions of your page per your request. (It was a little tricky finding the right revisions, due to our difference of time zones, but nevermind.) In the future, please consistently avoid revealing personal information that you would rather want to be kept hidden. --Daniel 05:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

masteries

There is Category:English words suffixed with -ies created on 12 May 2011, with 6 entries. What makes you think filling this category with members is a good idea? --Dan Polansky 10:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I originally categorized masteries as [[Category:English plurals ending in "-ies"]]. Am I responsible for every single bad thing on this website, now? I guess so! It is impossible to disagree with you! --Pilcrow 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am asking what makes you think filling this category with members is a good idea. I do not blame you for creating the category. I am merely asking what makes you think this recently created category is useful. The summary that you gave in diff suggests that you were aware that what you were doing was not a perfectly good idea. --Dan Polansky 07:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You call a category made in 2006 a ‘recently created’ category? Firstly: that word is a plural noun ending in “‐ies”, so categorization would not be contradictory. Secondly: I think categories can be useful for conveniently storing congruous terms together since they are easier to find. Thirdly: I do not want to be interrogated over considerably minor edits; from my impressions so far, you have been acting hostile towards me, and hostility is not something I am very comfortable or patient with. --Pilcrow 15:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused, do you just want my opinion on that category? Why not ask that in the Beer Parlour instead? You would get a lot more responses there. --Pilcrow 04:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake: the category you have added to "masteries" was Category:English_plurals_ending_in_"-ies", created on 1 October 2006, having 1,105 entries.

I admit I have been looking into your recent edits, after having seen a couple of them that were problematic, and after having seen your hostile behavior at WT:Feedback. What further makes me distrustful of you is your having created {{suffix}} and {{præfix}} without clearly recognizing it was a bad idea. --Dan Polansky 07:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. They were merely template redirections, thence I doubted harm would be done in creating them. I enjoy utilising my style of writing often; yes it was selfish to make them for personal usage, but I was not certain it was necessary that they were required to be popular, considering that other re‐directions are quite obscure! --Pilcrow 20:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

English terms spelled with &, etc.

Thank you for your continuous hard work on categorizing the English terms that are spelled with something. --Daniel 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you not angry at myself? --Pilcrow 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You made me stare half-surprised at your "Why are you not angry at myself" for five minutes. What a joke. Did you try to make me angry and failed? --Daniel 00:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am expecting to get scorned for things I felt secure about doing, especially when I am in the middle of completing many tasks at once. To be quite open: when I saw that orange message box, I quietly said “oh shit” and expected to get rejected by Polansky again; he thinks I am a trouble‐maker. --Pilcrow 01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel is probably the single editor who has worked the hardest on categorising terms by spelling; I am certain that he's being quite sincere. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

comment

Thanks. FYI, most of what I've been adding comes from the old out-of-copyright Webster 1913 (where I can verify that the terms exist) and from User:Visviva's bot-generated lists of words from the New York Times. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

enquiry

Why is it perfectly acceptable for people to hurl insults and accusations at me? --Pilcrow 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's because you're a Mexican. This place is very racist. --Vahag 15:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

dysæmia

Why did you do this? (deprecated template usage) Dysæmia is older than (deprecated template usage) dysaemia, and you made both. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 07:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

¶ I was under the assumption that the bulk of information should be re‐located to the more common form, in comparison with entries such as hæmoglobin versus hemoglobin or gonorrhœa versus gonorrhea. Ƿidsiþ also simplified centre as a mere alternative form. I did not think the âge of the entries was relevant. ¶ That said, I will not be upset if that content is moved again, but these spellings seem to be generally detested here in favor of more occurrent spellings. --Pilcrow 08:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Doremítzwr/Archive/02#homœophony, particularly numbered paragraph 3 of my post near the end (timestamped 16:26, 13 April 2010) for a full explanation of why it matters which entry was created first. I happily define ligated forms as alternative spellings of whatever already-extant lemma, but I expect others to do the same for other spellings when a ligated lemma already exists. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• For reference, normal practice is to use the most common form as the main lemma, not the oldest. Age is only taken into account when there are two or more very common forms that are used in different dialects (typically it comes up in US/UK spelling issues), where the oldest-created entry is given precedence. Ƿidsiþ 09:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Which spelling is created the lemma is the original editor's preference. In the vast majority of cases uses of a US spelling will greatly outnumber the uses of its UK counterpart. The OED2's lemmata can be taken as indicative of recent UK spelling, and it lemmatises (deprecated template usage) -æm- spellings for English words deriving ultimately from the Ancient Greek αἷμα (haîma, “blood”). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it used to. Third edition entries lemmatise -ae- forms. See pyaemia for example. Ƿidsiþ 10:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I wrote OED2 and recent. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:infl

The tempate {{infl}} should never be used without arguments. We have a separate template for plural English nouns, but usually we use bolding on the headword line for plural forms. The accelerated templates are even set to do so. --EncycloPetey 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

¶ If you could please specify the exact template for plural English nouns then I will correct my errores as soon as I can. Putting the head‐words in bold appeared to be an inofficial practice to me. --Pilcrow 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The template depends on the nature and predominance of the plural. There is a discussion started in the WT:GP on how we ought to handle this, since bolded headwords has been the norm for English plural forms since the project started, and since before we were using templates for headword lines. We ought to wait and see what's decided, but it looks as though just adding a language parameter might be sufficient, unless the category can also be included. --EncycloPetey 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back :-)

…Re this recreation. BTW, your keyboard layout is bad-ass. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Daniel 08:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

agnœa

Hi Pilcrow. I checked for this and *(deprecated template usage) agnoea and could find nothing except these, which seem to refer to some Classical Greek personage. This suggests that you may have better luck attesting (deprecated template usage) agnea, but I'd have more faith in agnoia (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and many others); compare paranœa and paranoia. That said, most instances of (deprecated template usage) agnoia seem to be mentioned transliterations of the Ancient Greek ἄγνοια (ágnoia), employed in any number of technical and philosophic senses, as shown here. Good luck, anyway. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

¶ Hullo. I tried searching for “agnœa”, “agnoea”, “agncea” and “agnrea” (to look for mis‐scans); none of those turn’d up any relevant usages for agnœa. This spelling is almost certainly utilised in dictionaries only. I could attempt to look for ‘agnoia’ later, but would entring that term de‐commission agnœa from the dictionary‐only appendix? --Pilcrow 14:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would, I'm afraid, because that appendix is for lemmata only, to the best of my knowledge. I think you could justifiably list it as an alternative form in that entry, however, given that so many dictionaries lemmatise it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

extatic

I think the hits on Google Groups are misspellings (because of all the other common words in ex- like excited, exceptional, etc.); many people have trouble spelling this word. I've added a misspelling line to the entry. Equinox ◑ 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating entries

I hope you don't feel worried about creating entries for words in general. Sure, if you can only find a handful of citations, discuss it with other editors, but if there are hundreds of results in Google Books then you should just go ahead. My rule of thumb is something like (I'm kinda making this up on the spot) if nearly all citations are pre-1940, it's "dated"; if pre-1880, it's "archaic"; if pre-1800, it's "obsolete". Equinox ◑ 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You scared me.

¶ I do not perceive any consensus about how to mark terms by time‐lines; our glossary conflicts with that, I think. Mister Doremítzwr said that archaic terms should be marked if they are still used but only for conveying an archaic feel. Obsolete terms are no longer utilised, but some ‘obsolete’ spelling survive as (supposed) misspellings, like intitle, so I don’t think those are truly obsolete; but using two definitions, with one calling it a misspelling and another an obsolete one, is contradictory. ¶ There are many unwritten rules for this website, so I feel scared to edit, except on talk pages and my sandbox. --Pilcrow 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest the "dated, archaic, obsolete" thing is unworkable in the long term, because time passes, and we should be actually marking years of usage. Good enough sets of dated citations will achieve that. I don't know exactly what you're saying about how "misspelling" and "obsolete" contradict each other (maybe it was used in "obsolete" times, and then stopped being used, but the old spelling was intuitive and some people used it by mistake), but honestly if you create an entry for a word that has loads of documented evidence then nobody is going to kill you. They might just stick a "dated" tag on it or something. Ah well, up to you of course. Equinox ◑ 21:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So continuing from the above — and not trying to attack you or anything, just wanting to verify that these words were used in English — I am having trouble finding anything much in English for hexagramme. You've found at least three good ones, right? All I can see is French. The search "a hexagramme" gives nothing, and "the hexagramme" seems to be people talking about "the hexagramme mystique", i.e. something described in a French paper by Blaise Pascal. Equinox ◑ 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Will these suffice: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? --Pilcrow 21:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

One of them is referring to the French "Hexagramme Mystique"; the other four look great (but I'd still call this a rare spelling). Thanks for checking! Equinox ◑ 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean #3? It has another instance of Hexagramme written lower down. I did not know that the ones with the capitalised Prime letter count. --Pilcrow 22:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The capitalised form suggests to me that the author was referring to Pascal's name again, but we will probably never know :) Equinox ◑ 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one. --Pilcrow 22:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

thermometre

Yeah, the citations seem to support an obsolete spelling. I've changed the entry accordingly. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I like your work. Bye. --Daniel 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are ye just saying that so I do not feel depressed again ? --Pilcrow 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm sure you're going to feel depressed again, sooner or later.

I just happen to like to say true statements randomly. --Daniel 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is brief and it looks forced. Some reasoning would be nice. --Pilcrow 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is obliged to flatter you. I agree with what more than one person has said, that silence is implicit approval. I hope you will stay around and keep editing, but Wiktionary seems like a terrible place to be seeking validation. Equinox ◑ 21:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

@Pilcrow: No, I don't need to elaborate my opinions about you here and now. Mainly because I already did it somewhere else, many times. You, of all people, should already know how I feel.

Yet, let me repeat something important: I wholly agree with what Equinox has to say, just above.

Well, my initial comment is brief and looks forced, because it's more fun to me this way. It's simple as that. --Daniel 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So do I. And I have a slide rule right here in this room with me, too!​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. 1+1=2. --Daniel 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@Pilcrow: I gave you a big reply at the information desk. --Daniel 21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Shit, you scared me. --Pilcrow 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not my intention. But scaring you is so easy it's fun. I guess I'll try again in the future. --Daniel 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep expecting to get chastised whenever my talk page is updated. --Pilcrow 22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Boo! --Daniel 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not funny. --Pilcrow 22:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My reply transcends fun, because it was artistically foreshadowed, built and expected, like a good plot.

No, really, even if you want a serious conversation, this one is not. You can try again next time. --Daniel 22:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Units

Where are you seeing words like zeptogramme and zettagramme? Do they meet CFI? Equinox ◑ 02:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But I did not add them! --Pilcrow 02:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right! I misread the recent changes. I've RFVed them. Equinox ◑ 02:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

obsolete -ick forms

Good work on these. Is there some sort of list you are working from? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you scared me! I am skimming Johnson’s Improved Dictionary. That is where I am finding these forms. --Pilcrow 19:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm glad someone is working on the archaic/obsolete forms, though, that seems to be one of the places where Wiktionary is rather weak at the moment. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

¶ Well, I can not really blame you. I would much rather not have a talk page, but there is nothing I can do about it. --Pilcrow 19:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Terms and their characters

That big project of categorizing English terms by their characters surely is growing up more and more, thanks to you. I've said it before, I'm saying it again: well done, my young, hardworking, paranoid fellow. --Daniel 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic at all? --Pilcrow 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not today. --Daniel 02:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(or, in that case, yesterday; no, not yesterday) --Daniel 02:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

-neß

They are trying to remove your -neß entries! Wiktionary:Beer parlour#fitneß, kindneß, etc. . Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So? --Pilcrow 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

dickbrain

here you go!Lucifer 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I might make another request later. --Pilcrow 00:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

glory days

Hey, I thought immediate deletion was wrong, so I replaced that with an RFD tag. Please start the RFD to explain why it should be deleted Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The edits you've done in the last few hours

Hi Pilcrow. Thank you for those entries where you've corrected vandalism tonight.

However, you have also created a number of pages ending in ...fuller, as comparatives of adjectives ending in ...ful, and I don't think that many of those comparatives are actually used in print. Wiktionary's function is to give definitions for words which are in actual widespread written use, see the section headed General rule and subheaded Attestation in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Where "everybody has seen it used" we don't ask for proof, but where it seems doubtful, we ask for three citations to be given, showing actual use (rather than just being mentioned in a dictionary or word list), spanning at least two different calendar years, and taken from durably archived media (see Wiktionary:Quotations).

When administrators patrolling new entries see a slightly-doubtful word, they will flag it as needing verification as mentioned above, and unless people add that verification within a few days, the entry is then deleted. But, where it seems very unlikely that citations can be found, an admin may "speedy-delete" it, without further comment. I'm not going to do that now, as I haven't time, but I suspect that someone will do so for most of your words in the morning, partly because many of them are words which have been added before, and deleted because no cites could be found. Still, since it only took you about a minute each to add them, that will not be a great loss.

For the future, I suggest that you check for real use before you enter a word, and add the citations as you enter it (if you need to stop halfway through, you can drop the half-finished entry onto your User Talk page, or into a file on your own hard drive, and come back to it later). In fact, if you want to do it, finding cites for existing entries is also very useful to the project. I used to do that a lot, but haven't had time recently. Because cites aren't required to be entered for common words, we have the odd situation where there are no quotations given for some of the commonest words.

Anyway, thanks for your help, and please don't be upset if most of the entries you have added today are speedy-deleted. Just check them out and, if you can find the cites, re-enter them complete with evidence. --Enginear 05:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t delete them! I’ll add three citations for each of them, just give me time! --Pilcrow 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to sleep but I shall have more citations to‐morrow! I don’t want to get in trouble again! Please don’t bloque me! --Pilcrow 07:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but I'll be back by about 18:00 UTC. You've done some good work, and it's really good that you are watching for silly entries by others. If someone misunderstands and blocks you for the ...fuller entries, I'll explain to him and unblock you (or if I'm not back yet, point them to this conversation). If the entries are deleted, let me know which ones you've got cites for, and I'll undelete those ones so you can add the cites. But don't be upset if there are some you can't find cites for -- sometimes, people just don't use the words we think they should, and then we can't put them in the main part of the dictionary (although we can add them to the Appendix:List of protologisms in the hope that people will start using them in the future). --Enginear 08:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did ye get the perception that these were deleted before? The only one I found that got deleted was mirthfuller. --Pilcrow 21:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean [[mournfuller]]. —Ruakh_TALK 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. ¶ I would rather not keep adding citations for these terms because they get a lot of hits on Google Books. --Pilcrow 00:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I had to stop early last night, and missed you by a few minutes. Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that any of the ...fuller words had previously been deleted. The true meaning probably fell through a hole where our idiolects were out of mesh.

You're really good at finding cites, but if you don't enjoy it, we ought to minimise what's required from you. For the present, I suggest that,

• If there are any words you haven't yet cited, you should add at least one really good cite, showing use rather than mention, to each. That should normally be enough to avoid speedy-deletion. If someone "is suspicious of it" then, if there is at least one cite, they should and almost always will send it to RFV or RFD, which will then flag that more cites are required.
• For any word definition where you can't find a cite more recent than 1900 (other than as a typo or a reference to an earlier work) you should gloss it (archaic). If the only uses since 1900 are jocular or related to young children, you can gloss the usage (archaic or jocular), (archaic or informal) or similar. Other glosses sometimes used are (obsolete) and (non-standard), but those are probably not relevant to the words you have been entering. (It is our job to record all significant usage, but also to warn people where a word is unsuitable for formal usage, for example in 21st century exam answers.)

As far as I can see, we've still not got any clear written guidelines for citing and glossing words like these. In the next few days, I'm going to put together some thoughts on my Talk page -- I'll let you know here when I've done it -- and I should be grateful if you (and the others reading this page) would then contribute to improving them. If we can get a consensus among ourselves, we can then submit it to general discussion at WT:BP, with a view to it becoming an official guideline, enlarging on WT:ELE and WT:CFI in the manner of WT:STYLE -- that is, it would not be policy, but would show general accepted practice.

I have to do something else now, but will be back briefly in a few hours --Enginear 17:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Playfuller seems barely attestable, and one of your "citations" is somebody actually raising the word as questionable ("could one say...?"). Equinox ◑ 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just delete it then. --Pilcrow 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it can pass. But as long as you seem to be letting your love of weird spellings (and sometimes erroneous typo/scanno forms) run ahead of attestability, people are going to come and ask for the citations. It's pretty reasonable. Equinox ◑ 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"aegalement"

Surely a scanno! Equinox ◑ 22:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you even see my citation? --Pilcrow 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice you'd replied. I don't pay much attention to my watchlist any more, to be honest. Well, everything I could find in Google Books (which was very little — only about six results) proved to be a scanno. Maybe I'm wrong. Seems vanishingly rare though. Equinox ◑ 23:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote, "I am adding entries for a language I do not understaund^[sic]" — please don't do this! As it says on the accelerated inflection pages, no entry is generally better than a wrong entry. Equinox ◑ 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk

I have just found the above website, which includes 300 years of British newspapers (with more old ones added daily), and thought you might be interested in it, as I suspect the older papers will include many words you will like. It is provided by the British Library, which is the only legal deposit library to which publishers are required to send a copy of every book, pamphlet, magazine and newspaper they publish in the UK, and is apparently "the world's largest library in terms of total number of items".

Most of the newspaper archive site is pay-per-view, BUT at any one time they have about six free-to-view sample pages, which they claim to change regularly, so giving you more free words from time to time. And since the source newspapers are "durably archived", references based on them will remain valid according to wikt's CFI, even after the relevant pages become pay-per-view, indeed even if the website is taken down in the future. You do have to register (for free) but since it is a UK government-sponsored body, it should be safe and fairly spam-free. --Enginear 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

acknowledgs, judgs

Whoa whoa whoa, what language is this? Not English. I think you're creating nonsense, or scannos. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

¶ Since the Main Form exists, Inflexions are allow’d, even if they are not attestable. Feel free to delete them if ye insist. --Pilcrow 23:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Your inflections are outright wrong. This isn't a playground for you to invent inflections that have never been used and will never be used. It's a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

O.K., so Liliana lied to me when she said Inflexions were allowed. Just stop accusing me of fucking around and delete them fucking Entries already. Jesus. --Pilcrow 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Inflections are allowed, but you formed those inflections incorrectly. It's as if I wrote en-verb|plays|playing|plookalook. Inflections that make no linguistic sense are not allowed. Equinox ◑ 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I like it when you start swearing because then you start speaking comprehensible English instead of this made-up gobbledygook "Thou art a good sir" stuff that nobody ever spoke, even hundreds of years ago. Equinox ◑ 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to be formal, and I favour older Forms for personal Reasons. Why are you being such a Dick ? Leave me alone. --Pilcrow 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

woah woah woah

Please. Don't leave. Do it for me. I would be sad if you left. Get professional help if possible. -- Liliana • 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been keeping up with your saga and been meaning to (attempt to) cheer you up for a while, so I guess this is the time to do it. Although our work rarely overlaps, I think you're a good editor in general. As for whether your work is appreciated, I think a lot of us wonder that at times. I admit that a lot of my edits are pretty minor. But I don't worry about whether they are appreciated. I know Wiktionary won't fall apart without my reformatting edits, or even if I just leave forever. I don't even care whether my work is appreciated, because I really enjoy editing Wiktionary. And if you also enjoy editing Wiktionary, don't let what other people think about you get in the way. I think you should stay and prove those who disapprove of you wrong. Ultimateria 05:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You may not feel welcomed here by everyone, but that's because not everyone is welcoming. Peruse my talk page archives; you'll see that I was not always welcome here, yet now I'm an administrator. Go figure. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Block

For reference, this user account was blocked on the user's request: the request and a response. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He has gone to the Spanish Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)