User talk:LinguisticsGirl.Librarian

Welcome
Hey, welcome to Wiktionary. I reverted some of your edits and adjusted others because they didn't quite conform to how we typically do things at Wiktionary. Hopefully this is helpful, if you have any questions feel free to ask. (There is more info for newcomers in the generic welcome message, which I think is boring so I didn't use it here but which may come in handy.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding -on; the -on in Teuton is not a productive English suffix nor is it identical to the -on- in tectonic (which is also not a suffix), nor is -on an alternative form of -an as far as I can tell.
 * Regarding prolactin - your edits were mostly fine and thank you for them, but there are some remarks on the formatting: the etymology ought to have a subheader introducing it, so ===Etymology=== . See Entry layout, which is quite a long read but acts as a good reference. (Or just copy how it's done elsewhere.) Do also note that the template is deprecated and in the process of being replaced: we now use various alternatives (mainly,  and ).
 * Regarding lactorrhea - the formatting wasn't quite right, and I figured it's an exact synonym so I replaced the definition you added, which was redundant to the galactorrhea entry, with the template.

Formatting
Hi. Thanks for your additions. Could I ask you to take a look at WT:ELE to get some hints about how to format entries properly? If you don't use the correct indent level (number of equals signs on a ===Noun=== header, etc.), or mix up things like * and # when starting a new line, then the entries will look visually wrong and won't categorise properly in the software. Equinox ◑ 21:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You've been making a lot of messy entries. The best way to improve is to look at the changes that experienced editors have made to your entries, but also take a look at how other entries are formatted and copy them. For example, you created with a capital letter and started your definition at  that way as well — a glance at our entries will show that none of them start with a capital letter unless they're always written that way, like. Another thing is that you'll notice that none of our entries lack a definition line, like when you added. It takes a lot of work for people to clean up after you, so please try to pay attention to these changes, and feel free to ask questions if you're unsure about anything. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Synonyms
I am confused about the synonym placement on plasticness. Why does the synonym go under the 1st definition? On the style sheet, synonyms are in a heading farther down:

Noun
Headword line etc.
 * 1) Meaning 1
 * 2) * Quotations
 * 3) Meaning 2
 * 4) * Quotations

Synonyms
LinguisticsGirl.Librarian (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like you left this note for yourself, but I happened to notice it so I hope you don't mind if I respond. The format using a special section for synonyms is the old, original format, but for a while now there has been a second possibility to specify synonyms and other such terms directly below the sense to which they belong. In the recent vote Votes/pl-2018-11/Allow semantic relations under definition lines, the new format was officially approved. The older format is still allowed, but given the overwhelming approval for the new format, it seems likely that that's what most people on Wiktionary prefer to use now. —Rua (mew) 17:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

somniloquaciousness
I deleted this, because it seems that you made it up. It is extremely important that you only add words that are actually used, rather than ones you want to be used. For more on how we determine whether something can be included, see WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

About this project
Hi! I am aware of your interesting language blog and I don't want to drive you away or anything, but you have been doing a bunch of edits here and basically not engaging with the community at all, and sometimes you are making mistakes. If you keep making mistakes and not engaging, you will get blocked.

The latest thing I noticed was your creation of "anxiodepressed", which only appears to be attestable (according to our WT:CFI rules) in a single paper, that is the 1989 Chabannes & Douge paper called "Efficacy on anxiety of fluvoxamine vs. prazepam, diazepam with anxiodepressed patients". Is this a word that you think you can source according to our requirements, or do you just not really give a fuck about our requirements? Please respond. Equinox ◑ 03:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding
I was given this page to follow for formatting: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Entry_layout LinguisticsGirl.Librarian (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I am also confused as to why a word is listed as a Derived term (in this case anxiodepression under anxio-) if the Derived term is not an accepted word.
 * My guess is that the person who linked to anxiodepression back in 2009 (User:Ruakh, who is still editing here ten years later - you could ask them if you like) thought it was valid but never got round to making it. We have got a lot of red links on Wiktionary, all of which in theory should one day be turned into blue links (but the possibility of that happening is nil - we are always gonna be a work in progress) --I learned some phrases (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that, if an entry shouldn't exist, links pointing to it shouldn't exist either. But it may be the case that the editor simply didn't know that the entry was not inclusion-worthy. In theory we could request verification of linked words before an entry exists, but in practice we only ever verify words once they have an entry. So the validity of the link would not have been contested until the entry was created. —Rua (mew) 16:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotations at yesterdays
The quotes you added were nice ones. One problem, however, is that they aren't valid here because they are not on permanently recorded media (a term I personally have never 100% understood, but blogs and Instagram are definitely not it). There's a section at Criteria for inclusion which explains a bit more. Thanks for your collaboration. --I learned some phrases (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Entry formats
Hi, the usual way we add quotes is this way: An even easier way is to just use Q. It will put everything in place for you. Thanks! Julia ☺ ☆ 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Definition.
 * 2) * date, Author, “Article”, in Work, page #:
 * Here is the quote.

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail
Hello ,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)