User talk:Dan Polansky/2011

Needless RFD?
If you are intent on sending entries to RFD and making the RFD process more busy, I am no longer intent on pretending not to know who you are. --Dan Polansky 10:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Please suggest a better way that I can start a discussion on whether a particular entry on Wiktionary is worthy or not of deletion. If there is none, which I highly doubt, then I shall continue to use the RFD page for exactly what it is supposed to be used for. Regards. --Downunder 13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

checking hodit
do you mind checking that word? i think hodit se is imperfective: to se bude hodit seems natural to me, but again, i am no native speaker. --Diligent 08:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Hodit" as "to throw" still seems perfective to me. "hodit se" seems either imperfective or lacking true grammatical aspect or perfectiveness, as it refers to a relationship rather than an action or event. I do not know how to best mark this up. --Dan Polansky 10:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I divided it into two verbs ; see fr:hodit, the reflexive verb is clearly imperfective (I think) hodíme si k sobe. If you think that I did a mistake, please leave me a message. --Diligent 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to think you are right. Verbs referring to relationships rather than actions or events seem to be classed as imperfective, an example being "mít". --Dan Polansky 07:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

faceguard
Re: my desired change to CFI. For bucket, you seem to be right, I think, but what about this? You made a comment regarding xīnxuèguǎnbìng "Wait a minute, this is solid-written, so it cannot be sum of parts." Of course this isn't in CFI, it says "attested an idiomatic". Solid-written words (as you put it) can be non-idiomatic. The current RFD dung heap could fall under this header - if dungheap meets CFI and dung heap is significantly more common, then dung heap also meets CFI. But CFI does not allow dungheap any more than it allows dung heap, it's simply a convention not to nominate single-word entries as sum of parts, but they're not 'protected' by CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be referring to several past discussions at once. Can you give me hyperlinks to the discussions, so I can recall better what you are talking of? From what I recall, you said that "bucket" does not meet the current wording of CFI, while I tried to explain that it does. --Dan Polansky 12:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes CFI says "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." You said (roughly) that since bucket has no parts, then the meaning cannot be easily derived from no parts! Oh and WT:RFD the for quote I mentioned above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I now understand what you are saying: you admit that I am right about "bucket" but not about "faceguard", "dungheap", "headache" and other closed compounds. CFI says that 'expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components'. It comes down to what is meant by components. I admit that "headache" is a closed compound composed of two words, and that the meaning of "headache" can be derived from the meaning of the constituent words. I admit that the application of the quoted CFI sentence to closed compounds is unclear, but the precedent for English says that we keep "headeache". So the statutory CFI regulation is complemented by the common practice where unclear. --Dan Polansky 12:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree (very much so), just it would be nicer for CFI to say this, so we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that this is still an open issue, especially for languages that tend to form long closed compounds (German, Finnish). Right now I do not know how to specify the intended notion of single-wordness in such a way that it would cover both English and German in a satisfactory manner. I do not know what constitutes a typographical word in Chinese and in Pinyin in particular (re xīnxuèguǎnbìng, which is nominated for RFD as sum of parts). --Dan Polansky 12:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth – Poll on formatting of etymologies

 * (A little “thanks”!)

Votes/pl-2011-01/Final sections of the CFI
Just wondering whether you might want to add a note similar (or opposite) to for legislative intent purposes. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably mean this legislative intent note of yours, of 06:03, 17 February 2011, made to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-01/Final sections of the CFI. (The hyperlink you have posted points to a diff in the main page.) Yes, I will post a similar note. --Dan Polansky 13:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I indeed meant that. Thanks. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Romanian orthographic norm
Bună ziua! Mulțumesc pentru mesaj. Concret:
 * Toate scrierile (opere literare și profesionale) române, toate cărțile române sunt scrise doar cu Ș, ș, Ț, ț.
 * Wikipedia română scrie numai cu Ș, ș, Ț, ț.
 * Nu există nici o legătură între limba turcă (Turkish) și limba română (Romanian), nici din punct de vedere lexical, nici sintactic-morfologic și nici ortografic.
 * Eu personal cred că problema ortografică nu poate să o decidă nici un "Robie-SWE" și nici eu, "BAICAN XXX"!
 * Este o aberație colosală afirmația că "Academia Română" este doar o imensă "birocrație", ea este o instituție de stat în România și are competență.
 * Ar trebui discutat (probabil) și cu Wikipedia română (Romanian W.), și apoi adoptată o soluție comună (common solution) Wicționar-Wikipedia R., inclusiv intrările (contribuțiile) la E. Wiktionary.
 * Eu personal prefer utilizarea literelor Ș, ș, Ț, ț atât aici la (E) Wiktionary cât și la Wicționar (R).
 * BAICAN XXX 13:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Using http://translate.google.com/ I think I have understood most of what you are saying, although I speak no Romaian.
 * From what I have understood, you could like the option Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms, as that prevents premature standardization on one of the options. --Dan Polansky 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I do encourage Mr. Baican to participate in the vote, even though some of his statements above are incorrect (mainly 1 & 3). Since we live in a democracy he's entitled to his own opinion, but a personal attack against me (especially in another language unintelligible for the vast majority of users) is uncalled for. --Robbie SWE 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you see a personal attack on you? --Dan Polansky 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He's referring to my statement about the Romanian Academy and he is insinuating that I want to take a decision on behalf of the entire community. On the contrary, I really want consensus by discussing the subject at hand (something I wanted when I brought it up last year). So needless to say, I really don't appreciate what he is insinuating especially when I take into consideration the messages (some of which were very offensive) he directed to me in the Romanian Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (unindent) I have understood the fourth bullet point as follows: 'I personally think that Romanian orthography should be decided neither by "Robbie SWE" nor by me, "Baican XXX"!' If this translation is roughly correct, I see no personal attack; he is merely saying that neither you nor him should decide. If you post links to his offensive messages on the Romanian Wiktionary, I can get them translated for me and see for myself. Otherwise I do not see any personal attacks here. Anyway, the vote is running; if you are lucky, you will get some supporters. What you could do to increase the chances that the vote turns the way you want it to is to list in the vote the reasons for and agains the respectice spellings. --Dan Polansky 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The nuance "un Robbie_SWE" conveys a sense of "a certain (type of) person", thus leading people to believe that the person is representative for something. If he wrote "nici "Robie-SWE" și nici eu" then the meaning would be like your translation, but it is that "un" that implies something derogatory. If you want to read his offensive messages, just go to my talk page on the Romanian Wiktionary and scroll down to "Cuvântul Momentului". Thanks for the advice concerning the vote, I'll take a look tomorrow and see if I can convince anyone. Best regards, --Robbie SWE 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at ro:User talk:Robbie_SWE, 13 martie 2010 (March), using Google translate. I found no personal insults, but these could have been lost in the translation. Anyway, the currently running vote and the presenation of reasons for and against seems more important than personal insults. --Dan Polansky 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Yes, the personal racist remarks about me being Swedish must have disappeared in translation. Google translator isn't the most reliable source, but most often the only one available. Best regards, --Robbie SWE 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Block
You've had several warnings about your disruptive edits, culminating in this block. Please stop. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your having blocked me for leading discussion with you on your talk page is a further attestation to your oligarchic top-banana behavior. You have abused your admin tools. Blocking a user from a wiki is equivalent, in terms of ability to operate in the respective environment, to temporarily locking the user in prison. The summary that you have given for the block is false ("Disruptive edits: again"), as is the explanation given above on my talk page ("You've had several warnings about your disruptive edits, culminating in this block. Please stop.") I have received not a single warning from you that uses the word "block", nor have I received a warning from you referring to "disruptive edits". When you were about to block me for discussing instead of leaving your talk page, you ought to have properly intimidated me with "stop or I will block you", so I could give in to your brute power. If you did not want to do that, you could have blocked me for one hour, so I could give in without having to wait a day. You have reverted my post on your talk page because you did not like what the post implies about you. Moreover, you did not need to answer any single post of mine and get back to your editing, so your excuse that I have somehow prevented you from editing Wiktionary is lame. Contrary is true: you have temporarily removed via brute force my ability to edit Wiktionary.
 * If you really consider the conversation in the thread on your talk page an "intimidation" from my side, have a look at RFDO, November 2010, in which you had an exchange with EP that contained your 17 hostile responses. Compare your behavior towards EP and my behavior towards you, and check which of them is more intimidating. This was not your first behavior towards EP that was so hostile. Furthermore, considering the reading of "intimidating" as "threatening", it was your behavior toward me that was threatening, and actually resulted in your having blocked me, whereas I, a non-admin, cannot threaten you with a block.
 * I am responding to you on my talk page. I will not respond to the thread on your talk page unless I get an explicit allowance from you to do so. --Dan Polansky 15:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Votes
I understand your unwillingness to make changes without a mandate; being cautious about such matters is always important. It's also important to know that mmany proposals aren't going to get any response at all. I can't say that no response should be treated as do nothing. I just looked at the templates you mention, and I have a hard time understanding what they do. That doesn't incline me to take any position on such technical matters. I do see that the "derv" template is the work of a single person. Does he still use and support the template? One-man templates tend not to be used by anyone else, assuming they know about it at all. If it's really abandoned deletion should be fine. If the template is new or in development it's better to let it develop, and see what happens. This may make some articles look different from what might be expected. It's important to allow that for the sake of innovation. Some articles may end up looking different, but that's OK; if the experiment fails it can be deleted later. Does the positioning of the images before or after the heading matter? When you start votes on this sort of thing you just end up making something matter when most people would just have ignored it. In a lot of these things the easiest way to go is to make a few changes and wait a few days to see if anybody complains. In the present case the best option seems to be to let people use whichever form they prefer rather than pushing either one.

Often there is no one evident best practice. Driving on the left or right is a matter of convention. Such a convention (from Pope Boniface VIII in 1300) has been useful for preventing disasters. The choice of etymological conventions for Wiktionary are not likely to put lives at risk. Blocking people for most of these "infractions" is simply not warranted. Saying that it relates to a community decision in these cases is fraudulent.

Your analysis about why pages get long is just fine. It is indeed easier to add stuff that to remove it. Some editors get locked into their favorite policy snippets, and protect them. Maybe we just need to start removing stuff, or at least make it clear that violation of a guideline is not justification for harrassment. Eclecticology 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I have responded at User_talk:Eclecticology. --Dan Polansky 07:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is evidently not just about "from" vs. "<". That issue is only one manifestation of something bigger. Your unpleasantry seemed embodied in the blocking discussion immediately preceeding my response, and decided it would not serve my interests to head-butt a nest of angry wasps. Discussing something until one side falls over from exhaustion is not a healthy practice. It is premised on the notion that one side or the other must be right, and subscrobes to the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. It does not allow for both sides to be right or for both sides to be wrong.

That the image position position matters to you does not mean that it matteers in any absolute sense. I mostly would never notice it. The fact that we are having this discussion easily establishes that we are not the average user who only came here to look up a word. We have no basis for presuming to speak for him and his experience. If it matters so much to the passive user he should be participating. The lack of unification is unpleasant to some editors, not to the general user. They do generate disagreement, but only between editors, and that still does not make either side right or wrong. Giving in to the "Tyranny of the Majority" (to use deTocqueville's term) is to give in to bullies. It diminishes the value of the minority opinion, and sometime drives away the value that they bring by branding them as something other than a team player. The issue rapidly become what matters to you against what matters to your partner. When many spouses get into a fight, who gives a damn about the baby?

If the contributor of an image caption wants boldface, and puts it back after you remove it just let it be. True, the formatting disunities do not bring any benefit, but neither do formatting unities. These formatting issues have no bearing on the mission of Wiktionary. There is no need for any time limit for resolving them. If a poll indicates a clear preference use that to guide your practices, look at the minority arguments and respect them, make changes where you see fit, but be prepared to back away from resistance. It may then take a couple years to achieve what you want, but it would happen without the divisiveness of a formal vote.

The bolding vote was a year ago. It linked to a poll which has since gone into the archives, effectively breaking the link. I suppose someone who cared could rummage through the archives and find it. Eight people opposed bolding, and none supported it; thus no arguments are shown to support bolding at all, though I'm sure they must exist.The voted text does not say that anyone other than the eight supporters would be prevented from bolding. What happens when they do? Are their reasons respected? Or will there be a closed vote = closed mind expression of group think? Maybe the person has a legitimate reason for bolding in those particular circumstances. Will he have to run the gauntlet of those people who argue that everything was settled with the vote?

Blocking is a tool that should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Mere opposition to formatting conventions is not one of them. Persistant disrespect is, and that goes both ways. A person who questions a policy is just as deserving of respect as one who oppposes it. Eclecticology 19:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Czech noun plurals?
Hi Dan. I notice that Czech nouns don't have plurals mentioned in the headword. Surely they exist? Or is it just a shortcoming in the template? SemperBlotto 11:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The nominative plural of each Czech noun could indeed be put into (There are seven plural forms, but the nominative would probably be the one to put into the template.) Another inflected form which could fit well into the summarizing headword line could be singular genitive, as that could also fairly well disclose the inflection pattern. Do you know of headword-line templates of other languages that could be used as a model?
 * I have seen some people proceeding in the other direction, removing inflected forms from the headword line. I think one of the German editors has been removing them, leaving them only in the collapsible inflection table in the ==Declension== section.
 * In Czech entries I cannot really appreciate the usefulness of inflection summary on the headword line: I already know the inflections. In German, however, I can experience the convenience of having some inflected forms on the headword line: I do not need to look into the full table of inflected forms. --Dan Polansky 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the inflection is stated in a dedicated section when someone bothers to add it: kočka. I am avoiding inflection like a plague; I am into semantics, and a little bit into etymology. --Dan Polansky 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Italian equivalent is rather complicated, but I think that   might be a better template to use as a basis. I have had a quick look at  and I notice that somebody has discussed the plural as a possible future extension. I'll have a thunk. SemperBlotto 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See the Czech entry for apostrof:. Would that look reasonable? (I have used my testing template, not the real one) SemperBlotto 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The formatting that your testing template shows is this: Unlike this example, English, German, and Italian headword lines put inflections in boldface, so I will do that too in all following examples.
 * apostrof m (plural apostrofy)

The format looks okay with the provision that "plural" has to be read as "nominative plural". Hence a bit more explicit alternative, of which I do not know whether it is preferable: Some people were fond of indicating animacy, which would result in something like this: An example entry that now indicates animacy: plurál: I've checked Bulgarian, Polish, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian nouns, none of which currently show any plural on the headword line. Instead, they show transliteration.
 * apostrof m (nominative plural apostrofy)
 * apostrof m (plural apostrofy), inanimate
 * plurál m, inanimate

An example from a German entry: The German entry uses the terms "genitive" and "plural" where "genitive singular" and "nominative plural" would be more accurate, yet it does not seem to harm anything. An example inflection table for German nouns can be seen in Wurm.
 * Abbruch m (genitive Abbruchs, plural Abbrüche)

An alternative Czech formatting that follows the German example: Yet another explicit alternative:
 * apostrof m (genitive apostrofu, plural apostrofy)
 * apostrof m (genitive singular apostrofu, nominative plural apostrofy)

--Dan Polansky 06:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC) I am pissed off enough to write one more response on a subject we have discussed on your talk page recently. Your asking me about cs-noun actually costs me resouces: I have to do some research around in Wiktionary, think about various options and which would be the best one and why, and think about anomalies and other things that could go wrong. I am used to dedicating my resources to Wiktionary, so this is not really an issue. Now how much resources does it cost you to ignore an invitation to vote? I will tell you: zilch. So I see an assymetry here: I am supposed to leave you alone, and sending two notifications in a month to you is "disruptive edits" in your book, while I am supposed to dedicate my resources to your projects. Very nice indeed. --Dan Polansky 08:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. See the latest version (and the notes in the example). If that is acceptable to you I shall implement it. SemperBlotto 08:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * is a markup that is okay with me.
 * The formatting that the last version generates is okay with me: apostrof m (genitive singular apostrofu, nominative plural apostrofy). I would have thought boldface would be in order, but this can be discussed and adjusted later.
 * Your "Either both gen= and pl= or neither need to be specified" is okay with me.
 * A side note for me. Genitive indeed seems to be fine for disclosing the inflection pattern: "páni, pánové", "muži, mužové" are similar plurals of two distinct inflection patterns, while "pána", "muže"--genitives-- show the difference between the two inflection patterns.
 * --Dan Polansky 08:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But here is a caveat: there are two nominative plurals in the examples above ("páni", "pánové"). Either one of the plurals has to be chosen or both plurals have to be shown on the headword line. --Dan Polansky 08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another anomaly that comes to mind is "robot", whose inanimate nominative plural is "roboty" while the science-fiction animate nominative plural is "roboti" (not perfectly sure; I would have to verify this). --Dan Polansky 08:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you get it? This is Semper's way of trying to expiate his feeling of guilt for dissing you. He doesn't care about Czech plurals. --Vahag 09:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let's be clear: I don't care about Czech plurals and about Czech inflection. is perfectly okay with me as it is. Nonetheless, I am willing to provide input to anyone who seeks to modify the template. If someone wants to say "I am sorry", the way to do it is to say "I am sorry". If someone wants to say "don't send me notificaitons", the way of doing it is to say "don't send me notificaitons" rather than help ruin a vote that has cost me so much resources. Adults should behave like adults, especially if they are several decades older than I am. --Dan Polansky 09:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

havran
Does this refer to the bird rook rather than the chesspiece? If so, is it from the same Germanic root as ? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch; I have expanded the entry. As regards etymology, see also sh:gavran--it does not seem to have Germanic roots. --Dan Polansky 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela
What made you think that "country" is an hypernym of "Venezuela"? See WS:Venezuela. --Daniel. 15:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops; Venezuela is an instance of country rather than a hyponym, so the inverse relation indeed is not hypernymy. It seems best to me to delete WS:Venezuela, lest we end up with a Wikisaurus entry per country. --Dan Polansky 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have left "country" or "continent" in various pages. I may clean them up for you; I could do that earlier, but I wanted to know your response first.
 * Now, setting aside (temporarily, at least) the issue of whether WS:Venezuela should exist... Does Wikisaurus have a header for an inverse relation for Instances? At least, hypothetically WS:chess could link to WS:board game using it. --Daniel. 08:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikisaurus has no headword for the inverse of "instance". One that comes to mind is "class". I am not too disturbed by the misuse of "hypernym" in the absence of other headword; I am much more concerned with your plan to create the likes of "WS:country of South America", "WS:dependent territory of South America", "WS:forest of South America", "WS:river of South America", "WS:former country of Europe". --Dan Polansky 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied about the geographic names on my talk page. Would you mind if I list board game under a "Classes" header at WS:chess, and country under the same header at WS:Venezuela? --Daniel. 08:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the headword "Classes", but I am not too enthusiastic about entries that need such a headword in the first place. --Dan Polansky 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-04/User:WikitanvirBot
If you've changed your mind about this vote, could you modify the voting page to reflect that, please? Otherwise, I guess close it as a failure (2–1) (or I will, if you let me know you're not changing your vote). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I have not really changed my mind. If the vote were supported by more people, especially regulars, I might just go for abstain, but then they would outvote me anyway. Furthermore, three voters is a really low number. --Dan Polansky 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I will close it as a failure. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Frequency lists/Czech
There isn't a talk page for this; also, wouldn't it be nice to keep the red links somewhere? Admittedly this page is of limited usefulness just because so many of the links are blue. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, I have just added the text to the talk page, with a bit of delay. The page is a copyvio, so it has to be deleted.
 * I have chosen "delete" after hesitating whether I should use "rfd". I figured there is not much to discuss about: the page is a copyvio. --Dan Polansky 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind taking care of Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/Czech? -- Gauss 08:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks for the notification. --Dan Polansky 09:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

při-
Please, can you fix entries like this? The definition is just laughable, no offense. What exactly is this prefix for example? Is it just to change a verb from imperfective to perfective or is there more to it that I, as someone who knows more or less nothing about Czech, cannot see? 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no definition at "při-"; right. I find defining prefixes a rather hard task. At some point, I may find a Czech dictionary that defines prefixes, and form English definitions in Wiktionary based on that, but I have to be careful about copyvio. It looks like a lot of rather challenging work, which I am unlikely to find time and enthusiasm for any time soon. --Dan Polansky 18:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining what makes it so difficult? I mean to try to take an example in English I would say look at un- maybe (yeah, simplistic example I know). The definition shows that it is added to adjectives, for example, to add "not" to the meaning (e.g. unfit=not fit). So in the case of this Czech prefix is it just a prefix that changes the verb it's added to from perfective to imperfective? Or like I said, is there something else that it does? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have an explanation for you of why I find defining prefixes hard. To get an idea, you may try to define an English prefix from the scratch yourself, without looking into a dictionary.
 * One source of difficulty may be that a prefix is not a standalone word, so a native speaker does not need to have a clear idea of the various ways in which the prefix semantically modifies stem words; he can learn the meanings of the derivations of the prefix one by one instead. Furthermore, a prefix does not have a clear part of speech, yet is often defined in Wiktionary using prepositions, adverbs and adjectives, which I find rather confusing.
 * Prefix "při-" does not just turn an imperfective verb into a perfective one. For one thing, many other Czech prefixes also have the ability to create an imperfective verb, yet each of them modifies the semantics of the stem in a different way. For another thing, "při-" can appear in an imperfective verb: "bít" (imperfective verb) -> "přibít" (perfective verb) -> "přibíjet" (imperfective verb); "stát" (imperfective verb) -> "přistát" (perfective verb) -> "přistávat" (imperfective verb). --Dan Polansky 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see...well, thanks for the better explanation anyway. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Of or relating to
Note to myself: I have started replacing "of or related to" with "of or relating to". The latter seems more common in Wiktionary (as found by Google in site:en.wiktionary.org), and it seems to be the canonic phrase used in several modern dictionaries including MWO and Encarta. What seems to be most common in Wiktionary is "of or pertaining to", a phrase used in Webster 1913, now probably sounding archaic. --Dan Polansky 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to yourself: To my native-U.S.-English ears (yes, the ears are native U.S. English ), of or pertaining to doesn't sound archaic at all. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

marriage agency - manželství agentura?
Hi,

Could you add a Czech translation for marriage agency, please? I saw you reverting my "manželství agentura" back in February. It doesn't seem too common but "seznamovací agentura" seems to have a slightly different meaning. --Anatoli 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding my : "manželství agentura" is definitely wrong; the Czech term corresponding word-for-word to "marriage agency" is "manželská agentura", as Czech does not use nouns attributively. But "manželská agentura" does not seem to be used. The definition of "marriage agency"--"a business that endeavors to introduce men and women for the purpose of marriage, dating or penpals"--does not make it clear how a marriage agency differs from a dating agency. The closest Czech translation is "seznamovací agentura" and "seznamovací kancelář", both referring to a dating agency. --Dan Polansky 06:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pilcrow
Note to myself: my discussion with Pilcrow from June 2011 in which he shows his typical behavior is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pilcrow&oldid=13611144#Etymology_in_inflected_forms. In this discussion, he rejects to abide by common practice, and subsequently threatens to leave the project. The following quotation of Pilcrow is particularly revealing: "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)". --Dan Polansky 16:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that I never threatened to leave this project over anything, unless he thinks not wanting something is synonymous with threatening. Not that he would care, of course, since he can accuse me of lying. That note ‘to yourself’ is clearly public. --Pilcrow 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that "he" in your response refers to me, inspite of this being posted to my talk page; that's weird. You are not obliged to talk to me on my talk page, but if you decide to do so, referring to me as "you" would be more natural.
 * Quotes that show that you have threatened or at least indicated the intention to leave the project:
 * "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)"
 * "I just don’t want to contribute any more. --Pilcrow 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)"
 * --Dan Polansky 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you are unlikely to properly archive your talk page, I will note to myself other gems:
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pilcrow&oldid=13611144#Removing_feedback - contains a discussion in which you stubbornly defend your right to remove feedback that you do not like, on account that the feedback is written in all caps.
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pilcrow&oldid=13573632#Template_redirects - a follow-up on your creation of and.
 * --Dan Polansky 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not lie: I was bargaining to get that damn page deleted, since Gauss said that is why talk pages are usually deleted. Happy now, Polansky? Or will you only be satisfied if I tell you every single bad thing I ever did in greater detail? Maybe you should publish that in a book.
 * “gems”? Do I amuse you all of the sudden? Did I not apologize for my errors? Do you think I am incapable of being responsible for better things? You probably think Martin Gardner (an administrator) was right to lash out at me, and you must think I should just shut up and not be entitled to reasonable arguments to why I was wrong, right? Your lack of professionalism is quite irritating. --Pilcrow 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, do either of you think there's any chance that this section is going to be at all productive? --Yair rand 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do so. Pilcrow is slowly learning that I am about to make him accountable. I find his removing of inconvenient threads from his talk page objectionable, but some admins obviously disagree with me. Pilcrow cannot so easily remove his posts from my talk page. --Dan Polansky 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not teaching accountability to anyone. You are doing this to humiliate me, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Why would you bother to teach me anything when you do not even respect my desire to forget about old topics? You are intrusive and intolerable. If I do return, we certainly know it will not be because I owe you anything. --Pilcrow 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If your past posts on your talk page feel humiliating to you, it is because you have humiliated yourself by what you have posted. You are accusing me, instead of admitting that it is your past behavior that you are ashamed of in the first place, and that you want traces of your past objectionable behavior removed. --Dan Polansky 07:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I humiliated myself, have I? Because it is always my fault? I believe I already recognized and apologized for my errors; there should be nothing more to discuss about those topics, but you kept bringing them up, which frustrates me and makes me disrespect you more. The reason I wanted those discussions removed was in hope that I would not be reminded of your behaviors. Maybe you need new reminders:
 * You repeatedly accused me of using this website as a ‘personal playground’. Oh wait, it was not a direct accusation so there’s no reason I should be offended, right? Am I right?
 * You compared some moron’s careless, constant usage of capital letters to an obscure punctuation mark, which was clearly insulting towards my punctuation since you know I despise “all‐caps”.
 * You think I classed that moron’s message as gibberish, and said my opinion was ‘false’. How could you have the arrogance to claim anyone’s opinions are false?
 * You claimed I had pride in my paragraph mark, I denied this: I have no reasons to be proud.
 * You insolently said I have ‘drama queen’ behavior. With rubbish comments like that, you are not going to help me.
 * You said I am making more trouble than anything else, which made my positive efforts look meagre and petty (at least to me) because of my mistakes.
 * You briefly mocked me (you did not care if you accused me).
 * You implied I was a ‘trouble‐making newbie’, which I consider an insult, and this was frustrating since I have been editing for a few months.
 * You claimed you were ‘amazed’ at why I made a template re‐direction for reasons I saw as un‐needed at the time, did you really think a ‘newbie’ must have known better?
 * You insist I made threats to leave this project.
 * No apologies or re‐consideration for any of that; why would you care about a ‘newbie’?
 * Since my regrets here are not major, I am not usually thinking about my own behaviour on this project, but how you reacted to it, you maximise it so much that you had to start this topic, for your own satisfaction, in public. I do not feel embarrassed about my regrets on this project, but you are insistent on keeping those old subjects on my talk page; you are doing this in attempt to humiliate me, and I still see no reason to think otherwise since you are aware of my mistakes and you know that I do not want to be constantly reminded of these old topics, obnoxiously highlighted within a ‘note to self’ on an obviously public page. If this does not make sense, I will simplify: I do not want your garbage cluttering up my own talk page. I did not want to return to this subject, since I am incertain it will be of much use to anyone, but maybe I could understand myself better in this. Otherwise, since you distrust me: you can easily dismiss all of these as fabrications; reject my complaints as meaningless or useless. --Pilcrow 16:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is true that it was actually my behavior in these removed threads that was objectionable, it may be good that you have removed them. At least, no one can now conveniently review my objectionable behavior, except for laboriously searching the page history and perusing the links I have posted above, which is far less convenient than looking through a properly archived talk page. It seems that you have done me a service. --Dan Polansky 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are admitting your actions were objectionable? I may thank you for that. As for archiving my talk page: I do not care. I see no demand for a proper archive. If somebody requests for specific links to incidents, I may post them; our actions are still archived in the history section and sooner or later, people will examine it, no matter how inconvenient that process may be. Contrary to what you may believe: I am not interested in serving you to keep you out of trouble, since I do not expect anybody to scorn or reject you soon. --Pilcrow 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pilcrow does not handle social interactions well and you should stop picking on him. You’re not going to socialize him or teach him anything useful by using those tactics. You’re just tormenting him for no purpose other than your amusement. —Stephen (Talk) 07:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my amusement. If Pilcrow knows that what he posts to his talk page stays there, he is likely to be more careful next time he posts anything there, knowing how unpleasant it is to have one's objectionable posts on one's talk page. --Dan Polansky 07:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another fit of misbehavior: : "What the hell is the point of this [User:Equinox/Drugs] page? --Pilcrow 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)". --Dan Polansky 07:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Moron, it was because of Martin’s stupid remark that he vandalised, it was not a rejection of Equinox’s drug page. You god-damn fucking idiot. --Pilcrow 07:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to be even more arrogant, why don’t you rudely put a disclaimer on my own user page saying that all the below information is false without any evidence whatsoever? That would suit your usual behaviour pretty well. --Pilcrow 07:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dan, please stop actively antagonizing Pilcrow. I have half a mind to block you for intimidating behaviour/harassment because that's exactly what this looks like. &mdash;Internoob 01:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I understand correctly that you are threatening to block me for my keeping a public track of misbehavior of this person? Is it correct that you deem Pilrow's utterances such as "You god-damn fucking idiot" perfectly acceptable while my keeping track troublesome? --Dan Polansky 10:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing good or useful has ever developed on this project out from one user deciding to police another user by publicly logging all of their "offences". I don't think either of you would object to the statement that you don't like one another, so the best practice is to stop antagonizing each other and, if just trying to be more pleasant in your interactions isn't working, stop interacting.  It is entirely possible and probably the best way to avoid disrupting the furtherance of the project. -  10:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Votes/2011-07/Categories of names
The vote Categories of names is going to end soon, after receiving contributions of only a few people. (it proposes a number of renamings, in this pattern: Category:en:Rivers to Category:English names of rivers)

It would benefit very much from your vote, even one of abstention.

I assume you would be interested in this subject, as I am sending this message to everyone who didn't vote yet, but participated in the discussion that introduced the vote, and/or in this poll, which received far more attention than the vote, and is closely related to the proposal in question.

Thank you. --Daniel 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Vote
Hey, good to see you back. Any intentions on starting your vote anytime soon? -- Liliana • 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I have responded at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation_of_extinct_languages_2. --Dan Polansky 18:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

marketingový plán
You created this back in 2008, seems awfully SoP doesn't it? + . --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly. I do not think it is 100% SoP, but it is SoP enough to be deleted, I am afraid. --Dan Polansky 09:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your call; I won't RFD it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gender in term lists
Note to myself: I am starting to remove gender from term lists of Czech pages. For a past discussion, see User_talk:Karelklic, October 2010, and User_talk:Mirek2, October 2010. --Dan Polansky 09:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IPA and Czech u
Note to myself: In its IPA pronunciation markup of short Czech "u" as in "kus", Czech Wiktionary seems to be using "ʊ" whereas Czech phonology uses "u". User "Emil J." argues in support of "u" at W:Talk:Czech phonology in a detailed, researched manner, leading me to tentatively accept "u" instead of "ʊ" until proven otherwise. For comparison, IPA "ʊ" is used in English "bull" and "pull". I have posted a question at cs:Wikislovník:Pod lípou, 28. 8. 2011. --Dan Polansky 11:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An online source that confirms "u" over "ʊ" is http://www.phil.muni.cz/jazyk/files/fonetika/, and http://www.phil.muni.cz/jazyk/files/fonetika/ipa-pro-cestinu.pdf in particular, by M. Krčmová, mentioned in W:Talk:Czech phonology. --Dan Polansky 12:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yellow signature
An editor since 8.28.2011.  18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can clearly see you haven't seen this (or seen and ignored it), even though you've recently contributed to the beer parlor. Notice the time of the talkback: 18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC). Notice the time of this post: 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC). That's a three-day difference. (I sincerely apologize if this is offending, I just find it intriging that you would make contributions without responding to messages on your talk page.) Thanks, An editor since 8.28.2011. 
 * No comment other than this: Feel free to remove the yellow color from your signature, as I have requested. --Dan Polansky 07:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly show me a policy that will tell me to do so? An editor since 8.28.2011.  04:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that regulates colors of user signatures. I have made what I think is a reasonable request, based on the poor readability of yellow on the white foreground. More generally, I very much dislike too colorful signatures. Most people in Wiktonary have rather inconspicuous signatures that fit the editor's purpose of building a dictionary rather than making each of their post stand out on the page. The overarching principle is simple: if something is a poor idea, don't do it, regardless of whether it is forbidden by a policy. --Dan Polansky 04:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it is hard to read. Not a personal question, but do you have astigmatism, color blindness, cataracts, or any other eye disability? Such persons have difficulty with colors. (I am not trying to be sarcastic, I really mean it :]) Here, try comparing the signatures:  D b f  i  r  s   and An  editor since 8.28.2011 . What a difference! At least I think so. Also:
 * I personally think that others won't go out of your (or others') way because you "dislike" it (my personal opinion).
 * As I said above the numbered comments, it is not "based on the poor readability". It is already "dark yellow" in the coding.
 * I didn't think it was a "poor idea".
 * Again, I apologize if I have offended you, but my personal opinion is that the person/user with the signature is the person/user that controls their signature. I will be looking forward to your response. Thanks again, An editor since 8.28.2011.  05:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no more comments; you still have the option to remove the yellow color from your signature, as I have requested. --Dan Polansky 05:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I say "no thanks"? An editor since 8.28.2011.  05:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. --Dan Polansky 05:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning me not changing my signature. An editor since 8.28.2011.  05:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The way something appears on one computer screen is not a good indication of how it will appear on another. Fonts vary tremendously, and colors do, too. A light color on one computer may be very dark on another computer. Brilliant colors on one screen may be completely washed out on another. The only predictable colors are black and white, which is why most editors use black against a white background. On my computer, the red color that indicates nonexistent links shows up as black. —Stephen (Talk) 05:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know that. So... now what? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On my other laptop, light colors are completely invisible; very dark colors appear light. —Stephen (Talk) 05:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  05:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So... now what? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  05:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you hate your computer/laptop? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  05:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have recently seen a funny video: The Annoying Orange. --Dan Polansky 05:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the classic "Annoying Orange"... okay, I'm going to admit, I don't know what the heck that is. I watched the video and I don't get it. <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (10 indents) Hey, on a side note, should we split this section? Well, you, technically. <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're a different person? Wow, I did not notice that! <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing that you left, I'm assuming you didn't see the above comment. Again: should we split this section? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: I'll split it, and you can revert it if you dislike it. Deal? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave the section unsplit. As regards your yellow signature, end of story. --Dan Polansky 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (12 indents) Okay. Could you see the next section? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "end of [the] story", I really appreciate it a lot. You have been ✅ <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding some policy edit
Could you please explain this? It was a completely good edit. <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a troll. Now go away. --Dan Polansky 06:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a troll? Where was I trolling? I thought we were actually having quite a pleasant conversation in the preceding section. <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I am not going to get an answer (and my day has retired), so I will be leaving. If you would like to tell me where I have been trolling, you are (obviously) free to do so. Have you misunderstood one of my comments? I will elaborate any and all of my comments to clear any and all misunderstanding. Thanks again, <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it kind of frustrating how you don't explain your own edits. Quoting your edit summary: This article is "not to be edited by people with almost no contribution[s] in the main namespace". I really don't know why you deleted a good-intentioned edit. I was trying to provide a description on the subject for others that read the policy. So now that I have made more "contribution[s] in the main namespace", can I repost it then? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is very little doubt that your purpose in registering in Wiktionary is to steer trouble and generate empty chat, you should leave not only this talk page but also Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 06:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the purpose of me registering (it's kind of private). I think you should have a look at some of my contributions. As you could probably tell from my signature, this account is not yet even a week old. Meaning: there probably hasn't been a lot of contributions. I will be making "good faith edits" "from here on out". Since you are telling me to stop "steer[ing] trouble and generat[ing] empty chat", which I am not trying to do, I will end this discussion. But could you please tell me why you reverted it? I won't bother asking. Let's pretend we've never met, alright? Reset everything we said and done. We will never see each other "from here on out". Deal? <font color="#DAA520">An <font color="#DAA520">editor since 8.28.2011.  06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC) (PS: I will now retire for the day FYI.)
 * Note for me: see also W:User_talk:Since_10.28.2010 and Block log for W:User:Since_10.28.2010. The last block was issued on 31 July 2011, with an expiry time of indefinite. --Dan Polansky 12:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mixed-script Mandarin
To myself: Mixed-script Mandarin entries: Talk:Ampere定律 has a list of RFDs on various terms, including one that has a compact list of mixed-script Mandarin entries. Many of them were deleted, but some survived as attestable: Alps山, Alzheimer病, e-mail地址, CD播放器, CD播放机.

Mixed-script Mandarin terms AA制, T恤 and 69式 seem unquestioned.

Some people asserted that Euclid几何 (Euclidean geometry) is a semantic sum of parts, an error on their part.

A recent discussion is on "Thames河".

In the discussions, people who heavily push deletion regardless of attestation include Anatoli ("To decide on this, people should know how Chinese works and what is acceptable and what is not in standard Mandarin", which is prescriptivism; the entry can be marked as nonstandard if fit), Tooironic ("They should all be deleted, pure and simple", "Chinglish"), and Eiríkr Útlendi. User:-she hesitates, and seems to lean toward deletion. Lmalties pushes adherence to attestability, hence tends to support inclusion of "Thames河". DAVilla supports adherence to CFI, hence idiomacity and attestation; same for msh210. Some argue that the terms in question are not Mandarin and are an instance of code switching. A related discussion is whether "Москва" should be considered an English term when used in English text in the middle of Roman script. --Dan Polansky 09:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is now Beer_parlour discussion, 28 September 2011. --Dan Polansky 09:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A long discussion in which I am heavily involved is now at WT:BP. In the discussion, the anon 60.240.101.246 14:40 is coming out as a prescriptivist in the response starting with "OK. Here is what you wanted", and in the quotation "the import of loanwords damages the structural integrity and purity of Chinese, although some young people view this as fashionable, it should be regulated and discouraged" in particular. --Dan Polansky 07:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Some key points: --Dan Polansky 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A descriptivist dictionary does not promote terms; it documents them, and marks them as "rare" if this fits observation. In particular, a dictionary that documents vulgar and obsolete terms does not promote their use. Most users are unlikely to start using obsolete terms only because they can be found in a dictionary.
 * The thesis that each phrase that contains some Latin letters is not Mandarin cannot be accepted as long as AA制 and T恤 are accepted as Mandarin.
 * The following predicates are non-considerations for inclusion of a term per CFI: "is in common use", "is in general use", "is not considered Mandarin by the majority of native speakers", "is unintelligible for most Mandarin speakers", "is not readily understood by the majority of the native speakers" (an almost-synonym of the previous), "should be excluded to protect the purity of language", "is perceived to be not a word by the majority of Mandarin speakers" (how would you know that?), "sounds very foreign".

For a list of mixed-script entries, see Category:Mandarin terms written in multiple scripts. --Dan Polansky 10:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3
Because you voted in Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

apology
Hullo. I know this will likely sound odd or suspicious coming from me, but I just wanted to say that I am sorry that I insulted and disrespected you, as that was in poor taste. Will ye ever forgive me? --Pilcrow 01:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate and accept your apology. --Dan Polansky 08:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of szuler
Hi,

Could you please check the etymology of szuler? Does the word šulíř exist? If it does, what does it mean? As you said on my talk page, you don't know a Czech word with the same meaning (about "šulař"). --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As regards the etymology of Polish szuler, I have found some Polish etymological dictionary at http://etymologia.org/wiki/. Searching for "szuler" there takes me to http://etymologia.org/wiki/S%C5%82ownik+etymologiczny/szuler, which takes me to https://picasaweb.google.com/asparagusium/Brueckner#5421922968109564898 -- a page with a bitmap scan, which for "szuler" says "czes. szulírz", which looks like a Polish transcription of Czech *"šulíř".
 * Czech *"šulíř" is currently unattestable in use. One source in Czech Google books (Časopis pro moderní filologii, Volumes 15-16) mentions Czech words *"šulař", *"šulák" and *"šulíř", but these are mere mentions rather than uses for Wiktionary purposes, and do not serve for attestation. According to the same source, *"šulíř" would mean "podvodník, dříč", in English, cheater, drudge. Thus, if the authors of the source did a good lexicographical job, Czech *"šulíř" does exist, but we have no direct evidence of this being the case, so I cannot enter the word into Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 08:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit confused but thank you for the answer. Do you think the etymology is correct, no need to change? Can, perhaps the meaning, as you said "cheater, drudge" appropriate to be added? --Anatoli (обсудить) 08:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know whether the etymology is correct. The reason to think the etymology could be correct is it's being sourced from the dictionary by Aleksander Brückner, via the link I have given above; see also this link to Google books. The reason to think the etymology could be incorrect is the lack of attestation of Czech *"šulíř". However, while *"šulíř" is not used in modern Czech, it could have been used earlier, and it is unclear how sufficient current Google books is for attesting old Czech words, because of likely incompleteness of Google books. Thus, the lack of attestation does not lead me to want the etymology of "szuler" removed or changed; I do not know to what alternative etymology it would be changed anyway, as I have only one source of Polish etymology.
 * I would not add the meanings of cheater and drudge to the etymology at "szuler", given *"šulíř" is unattested. --Dan Polansky 08:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The etymology for the Russian шулер would be as unclear as is the current etymology for szuler. Both Polish and Russian language linguists claim to have some relations to Czech, which is unconfirmed. Even if the Russian word was derived from or via Polish, the original source or a closer source is not clear. I mean, the Polish linguists could as well have claimed it was derived from Middle High German via Russian, at least, the pronunciation in Polish and Russian is identical. --Anatoli (обсудить) 09:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing comes to mind: Aleksander Brückner writes this: "szuler, szulernia, szulerski, szulerstwo, o 'graczach', od 18. wieku; czes. szulírz, od szuliti, 'oszukivać', szulík, 'blazen'; [...]". He does not write "z czes." with "z", whereas, in other entries, he writes "z niem." with "z", as in "z niem. Stiefel [...]". (Polish "z" means "from", as you probably know, similar to Russian из.) Thus, it could be that Brückner does not even say that the Polish word is from the Czech word, bur rather that the two are etymologically related. But I do not really know; I would have to have a closer look at Brückner to see what conventions he uses.
 * What you could do is ask Maro about his source of the etymology of "szuler". --Dan Polansky 10:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Díky, I have asked. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nouns and proper nouns
Hey, I've started a discussion in the Beer Parlor. I'd really like to know the community views on this. Any additional input would be great. Thanks. – Krun 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking Lewis and Short
A script for checking Lewis and Short online follows, created by me and published by as public domain. --Dan Polansky 15:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)