User talk:Logomaniac

 Welcome to my user talk page! Feel free to leave me a message here - although I have left the project, I will probably see messages left here at some point. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Steel Blade 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!! Logomaniac 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New entries
Please keep in mind that this is a multi-lingual dictionary. So, each new entry needs a Language header at the top to identify the language of the entry. --EncycloPetey 15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done so at s.a., so you can look at the page history and see what I changed. Aside: Note that abbreviations and their kin are the one group that uses a template for the level 3 header.  For nouns, verbs, etc., we don;t do that. --EncycloPetey 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing: In defining an abbreviation, you need not say "An abbreviation used for...". The header already lets the reader know that the entry is an abbreviation. So, it is not necessary to repeat that information, just as we wouldn't define cat: as "A noun that represents...".  While the word itself is an abbreviation or noun, the meaning of that word is not "an abbreviation" or "a noun". --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to add a headword. Those welcome links are there for a reason. SemperBlotto 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Satorday
Hello. You added this as a common misspelling, but I don't think it's common. Where did you find it? Note that almost every "Satorday" in Google Books is a scanno, due to the similar letter shapes (especially where the text has serifs). Equinox ◑ 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Righto. I'll delete it. We only bother to keep the really common misspellings, or we'd probably be overrun by them! Equinox ◑ 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have explicit criteria on misspellings, but the correct word should be very common or the misspelling should be a high (>15%?) percentage of the uses (but not be an "alternative" spelling). Many one-letter differences will generate hits exceeding 1% of uses of the correct form, more for spellings that are proximate on the keyboard or have high scanno potential. Scannos really don't deserve much consideration as headwords, though they may merit an appendix. Typos may be more worth considering, but also seem more like appendix material than headwordss. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

spelling bee entries
Don't forget the full stop at the end of the sentence please. — Carolina wren discussió 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

departure
I see you fixed this word recently. How did you know it needed fixing? (I ask because it was listed at WT:TA and I'm wondering whetehr anyone (but me) ever looks at that page. It seems that, at least, no one is listing stuff there, and I was getting disheartened.) &#x200b;  —msh210  ℠  20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

S.:
Hi, when creating entries for abbreviations please use for the heading. Similarly, for an acronym: use and for an initialism: use. Thanks, and I hope you'll keep contributing. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK can do! :) Logomaniac 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that have done - I just went through and fixed all the abbr. entries that I had added today. Thanks for reminding me sooner rather than later . . . ;)  Logomaniac 18:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, there is current discussion about this in the Beer parlour. Certainly not everyone agrees with PalkiaX50's instruction. &#x200b;  —msh210  ℠  19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
I don't think we really do trivia sections. If there's something really important about a word and it isn't a usage note, it belongs on Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We do. See WT:ELE. &#x200b;  —msh210  ℠  19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, very well, I stand corrected. Not sure how useful "this word was in a spelling bee" is, though. As for "if people found the winning word [...] they could make sure that this was actually the word they were looking for" &mdash; don't spelling bees define the word to be spelled, so that you could just compare the definitions? Equinox ◑ 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, go for it, if you think it's useful dictionary content. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We once had a category for the Scripps words, but the community elected to abolish the category and remove the information form these entries, so don't be surprised if your work is reverted. Persoanlly, I'm ambivalent on this particular issue, but thought you should know. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm against it. It could go on a talk page though. SemperBlotto 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To let y'all know: I've brought the Spelling Bee words discussion into the Tea Room. Hope we decide this quickly, and until the discussion is closed, I'm not going to put in (or take out) any more of my trivia sections... :) Logomaniac 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
Hard redirects are not used for alternate spellings for entries on Wiktionary. See Redirections for a bit more detail. Since I was not certain whether Sabean or Sabæan were misspellings or alternate spellings of Sabaean, I deleted the redirects. See pæan for an example of the type of soft redirect we usually use. — Carolina wren discussió 21:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is one spelling that is considerably more common that the others, you'd generally create a full entry at that most common spelling, such as for example, the entry at paean, and a compact entry for the alternative spelling(s), in this case pæan and pean. (Note that pean is an excellent example of why we prefer soft redirects, as not only does pean have another meaning in English, it is also used as a word in another language.) However, if as with color and colour, one spelling is preferred in one context, while the other is preferred in another context (often US/UK spelling differences, but not always), then both entries will usually get full entries. Hope that helps. — Carolina wren discussió  01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sacraments and what not
I've merged this all onto this page - everything in italics I wrote on Equinox's talk page.

Nice to see some methodical coverage of missing words. A couple of things that might be helpful: (i) if the plural is -es, you can just write, and (ii) some of these words should probably be glossed as. Anything that only has 20 or 30 matches in Google Books must be quite uncommon. Equinox ◑ 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

''Hi Equinox! i see you've been fixing a lot of my bloopers today - tx for doing so and I hope you don't mind. I'm extra tired - still catching up on sleep from the 4th when I stayed up all night at the fireworks - and since most of the words in the English language (and that I create) are nouns, it automatically slipped into the def. I did put in the declension or whatever it's called template (en-adv), I hope?! Anyway, hope you have a good day... and I'm not trying to be so careless. :) BTW, once I get all the way through the first page (granted, it could be a long time), can I go through and delete the blue-links and strike the ones that I couldn't find anywhere except on this site!? it'll look a lot better ....... and I just updated my signature!  how do ya like it?  I wish the smileys didn't have so much space around 'em... L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)''


 * Unless you're actually checking against the OED, you need to be careful about removing any blue links, because in some cases there might be further senses: see User:Brian0918/Hotlist. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * HA HA HA that was funny, I click save on your userpage and then I see the little orange box saying, you have new messages and what do you know ... I don't usually bother to do a Google (or GB) search, just looking to see if I can find it in my (other) dictionary and possibly WP before I put it in, and if I think it looks rare or something then I look for it on Google. Should I do the G. search every time or is what I'm doing now OK?  :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know about that, it was just a curiosity. Also as I'm only on number ~300 or something of the huge monstrous 1st page of what, 12 or something ... this may as well be a lifetime project!  I don't have any way to check the OED.  Is there a free online version of it or do I have to have a copy or a subscription to something?  (I do know of a way to check the AHD - Yahoo! education something has it online.)  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't have to look on Google Books (and/or Google Scholar, and/or Google Groups a.k.a. Usenet). I usually do with obscure words, because it gives you an idea of how common they are in actual texts; dictionaries sometimes let a few nonce words and fossils slip in, whereas we normally need to be able to produce three citations per WT:CFI. BTW, I assume you're not actually copying definitions verbatim from any dictionary, right? We obviously can't do that for legal reasons! Equinox ◑ 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OED needs a paid subscription: it is online, or at least some or most of it &mdash; I gather that putting it on the Web was a huge undertaking &mdash; but it's not free. The "real" dictionary I mostly use is Chambers, which goes back as far as Shakespeare and is probably the best single-volume one in the UK. (The physical OED is huge, many volumes.) Equinox ◑ 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * NO OF COURSE NOT!!!! Unless of course, there's really no other way to phrase it, then I grin and bear it and use the words of the dictionary (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1990-something, it's the only "big" dictionary I have - got it as a prize from the NSB, but the dictionary itself is so unwieldy that I just use the online version (which I was also provided a subscription to)).  ;) but no, as often as I can I let the definition swirl around in my brain for a couple minutes (while my really slow computer and really slow Internet connection load the edit page!) before I try to put it in my own words.  (It's kinda tricky!  Now I know why they always have us try to paraphrase things in English class . . . .!)  Trying as hard as possible not to plagiarize, but sometimes it's kinda inevitable ... L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)    P.S. - is this what one would call a talk-page war?!? hee hee hee I've never typed so fast in my life......... XD


 * We absolutely can't use the identical phrasing of another dictionary, even for the hard words! Do you think you'd be able to make a list of the ones where you copied directly? They will need reworking. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  But what if the definition in W3 is just " alternate spelling of (more common form)" and there really isn't any other way to put that in WT? I think that's about the only things I've been not able to change.  Sorry If I scared you there!  :)  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think anybody is going to kill us for using them as a source for an alternate spelling. "Sometimes [plagiarism]'s kinda inevitable" sounded like something worse! (Oh yes, about writing lots of messages: you can expect some stupid number of e-mail alerts in your inbox later, if you have that option turned on. Heh.) Equinox ◑ 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ''ROFLOL!!!!! (not literally, of course!) ha ha I didn't mean it quite that way. :D  I'm being called to supper, will finish discussion later so don't be alarmed if I don't reply for a while.  !  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Back from supper (omelet(te?) and hash browns) and I know I had something to say . . . Oh yeah, I found my train of thought (It often leaves the station without me... &#9786;) I want to re-ask from my smalltext above - what do I do with words that either don't (and will probably never) meet CFI (remember Satorday?!) or words that, even if they do appear in OED or something, can't be found anywhere on the Web except for on this page? Can I strike them on the Hotlist page or should I make a sub-userpage to remind myself not to create (or re-create) 'em?  Thanks for your input . . . . . . and I should get back to the list. . . . . : )  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)''

Really, the best thing to do with those troublesome words is to skip them. I know it's tempting to do one word at a time, in sequence, and strike them all as you go, but there are going to be some words that cannot be easily "done" unless you have access to certain old texts that won't be on the Internet any time soon. I think the best strategy would be to make a "first pass" through the list and do whatever you can make sense of, and then go back to the start when you've finished and look at anything that's still blue. Of course, we'll all be long dead by then, so it works either way. Better that than add something inaccurate, or wrongly strike a word, just so you can say it's "done". Equinox ◑ 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(back to the margin) Yeah, I planned to do a several-pass thing on the letter S... 1) first see what all I can put in out of W3'' (you know what I mean! not copying, just summarizing), and then 2) to go through and painstakingly look each word up in all the places I can think of, and ignore ones I don't find, and 3) then to go back and check the still-red ones, and if they're not and never will be CFI, I will do something to 'em, but since (as you said) I'll probably be long-dead by then, we'll see. (On the upside, it hasn't been even a month since I joined, which has seemed like forever, and so I probably have some time.) Whew!  It is making me yawn just thinking about it . . . . : P    Back to the millstone . . .  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 00:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)''


 * One more thing: (sorry to keep pestering you!) since I'm not as familiar with the different bots (except Interwicket which is appearing very frequently on my watchlist), does someone have a bot that creates plurals from existing red-links in definitions or should I be doing that too?! (I was going to ask why the plurals and stuff were turning green but then remembered.  I should check what I'm turning on in the preferences before I ask any more stupid questions!)  I think that's all for now.  :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The plurals need to be created by users, since bots can't confirm that they are correct. Equinox ◑ 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I will start doing so. (It's not too much of a bother, but my computer takes forever to load pretty much anything :) so I don't usually.  That's also why I tend not to do Google searches...)  Thanks for telling me, hope you h ave a good day and I'm in the 400's now! :D  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for entries
Hi. Your work is very good, I'm just wondering where the words come from? You seem to have an alphabetical list. Nothing nasty; as long as the words exist and are not being copied from another non-free source, great! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then, I just wanted to ask. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadducism:
Hi there, please note that the alternate forms/spellings header is always the first header in an entry after the language header. Thanks :), 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem, while I am lucky enough to have a (usually) cooperative modem I am no stranger to crappy connections >_<... 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can do that, obviously hadn't noticed yet :). Somehow my brain is wired so it makes more sense to have it after the definition ...  but this way works as well.  if you don't mind my asking, where does the 50 xylophone players thing come from in your username/signature? :)  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Oh I just got bored and rearranged the letters of the abbreviated name PX50-->50XP and reassigned them with different meanings. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I was just wondering if you had an extra-huge school band or something!! (that is a lot!!) :D L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, no ;) I don't play any instruments as yet but I will be learning to play guitar sometime soon :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you . . . I can sort of play the piano and sort of play the recorder, but not really well (and I always forget to practice!) but have never tried guitar. :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

compoun words
How nice to see all your contributions, I would like to suggest before adding more, look at how I have been fixing the noun line on words that are compound with coding, such as saddle shoe. Also see saddle stitch for the way I added "|es| at the end of the noun code, so that the plural will be spelled stitches, not stitchs. Goldenrowley 04:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

sagy etc.
Since you've asked who else is working on the big OED list: I haven't lately, but I did have a good long bash at the Js, Xs and (I think) Zs a while ago, so most of the remaining words there are rather obscure. I always watch Recent Changes and like adding alternate spellings, so little surprise that I created sagy:. A quick search did not find any quotations for sagier:, sagiest:, though. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic creation of inflections
You can create plurals and verb forms semi-automatically using User_talk:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js (scroll down the page to find out how to enable it). Red links become green, and clicking them will create the page for you. Equinox ◑ 19:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to work for me: I see saginating as green on the saginate page you created. You could leave a message for User:Conrad.Irwin if you're having trouble, since it's his script. P.S. There's a shorthand way of writing regular verbs that lose the e in -ing: or  will tell the software what you mean. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sahaptin
I don't understand what your sense 4 is supposed to mean. Can you explain it? Equinox ◑ 23:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper nouns
Hi, there's for cities and languages and whatnot. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough it's just ===Proper noun=== . Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From P.B. Pilhet on Wikipedia
Hi Logomaniac!

Sorry I took so long to reply to your message - like you, I've been getting dissatisfied with Wikipedia and I haven't checked back there in ages! You're welcome for the link to WikiChristian :) Though I think lately they've been having some problems with vandals, so the site management has restricted editing to admins-only... :(

God bless! Justin (P.B. Pilhet)


 * Hey P.B. (I hope you don't mind if I call you that - I have 3 different friends named Justin already and I don't want to add to the confusion), thanks for replying! :) I probably won't be using WikiChristian (or WP) anyhow, i have plenty to do here to keep myself occupied, as I have informally signed myself up to fill in entries off of the letter S on this list which will probably be a lifetime project . . .  Have you started school yet?    I just signed up for the Wikiproject Christianity today, even though I won't be doing much on it.  GLYASDI, L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Section editing
It is convenient for other contributors if you use section editing, especially on big pages like the discussion pages. It makes it easier to click directly to the section using the edit summary. If you have your own efficiency reasons for not doing it the way you do it, it's not a big deal. It might also reduce the likelihood of edit conflicts. Anyway, keep up the good work. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the problem is different. What I have noticed a few times is that there was no section heading in the edit summary for you edits, which means that I can't click to the section that you've edited. I noticed it today for your suggestion of some additional mining glossaries. One way that happens is when one edits the entire page. Another possible explanation is that the editor has deleted some or all of the material at the head of the edit summary between and including "/*" and "*/". (I sometimes accidentally delete the "*/".) That material is what provides the clickable section link for editors who might want to comment on what you have said. Looking at a couple of your edits, I'd bet on that. If it isn't one of these things then I don't know why the section header doesn't appear.


 * BTW, Have you gotten yourself all tricked out at WT:PREFS, in addition to "my preferences"? Some of the tools can speed up various processes, especially "popups". DCDuring TALK 19:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

cats

 * see User talk:Mglovesfun

You're better off adding as these are not delete candidates by any margin. See WT:RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean speedy deletion candidates, they might not pass an rfd. If an entry is well-formatted, it would be rare to delete it unless it's clearly not dictionary material (Jeb Bush or whatever), which I can't say for Siberian cat. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Westchester?
You wouldn't happen to live in Westchester County, NY, would you? I ask because of the timing of your query about desegregation settlement and your mention of a communication from a State Senator. A desegragation settlement is a legally binding settlement agreement on the subject of desegregation. If it's the Westchester one, it is a housing desegregation settlement affecting the towns of Westchester. DCDuring TALK 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Literalness
When I am anything other than literal, I find that I miscommunicate. I'm sorry. What I has trying to say with the remark that provoked you was that much of our content is easy it understand it you part of a small subset of our users. I have always thought that we are supposed to be meeting the needs of a much larger group, ranging from early-stage ESL learners, language teachers, soccer moms, authors, translators, to professional linguists and plenty of others. It is mostly learners, especially anons that concern me. The miscommunication was two-sided. You didn't need to apologize, though I appreciate it and beg your toleration of my lapses. Reading the exchange it was fairly clear where the miscommunication occurred. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ta!
4posts-ifmoreinfo>pl alow vois-tech from myside:)--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

About Old English
Er...what prompted your recent edit? G is, in fact, used for /j/ in Old English. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 17:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was an error. :o L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 18:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

From WT:BP
After some thinking about it, I'm also feeling like complaining a bit. Bear with me for a moment, please. I don't get why it is that I, a 13-year-old, am the only one who a) is able to read / takes the time to try to read 史凡's posts and b) have suggested and am doing something helpful?? This week I found a very apt song for this situation. I'm glad that I can help by translating his posts into readable English but please, does this have to be the only solution? :P L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t blame you for feeling exploited. Facilitating 史凡’s communication must take a significant amount of time and effort. Rest assured that your work is appreciated, by all parties, I’m sure. Certainly, this is no optimal solution. I think that the best hope lies in audio recordings, and that once 史凡 gets used to creating them and uploading them to MediaWiki Wikimedia Commons, he’ll find it a far preferable modus operandi to expending his “functional reserve” in typing here; whatever can be done to facilitate this recording-and-uploading process should be done (I, for one, can’t help with that, given my minimal technical expertise in that respect). Of course, no one could justifiably ask you to perform this translator/transliterator rôle; however, no one did ask you — you took it upon yourself to do this, and you have every right to withdraw your service, if you find the burden to be too great or the recompense to be too meagre. This is the harsh truth of volunteering, I’m afraid. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't like translating his posts. I'm glad to be able to help.  It's just that I intend it to be a temporary solution while we're trying to figure out audio.  :)  I just get a little discouraged at times when it seems like none of the adults around here are acting like one.  I'm also pretty tired today so I apologize for being more irritable than usual.   L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I’ve moved our thread to your talk page, since the discussion was getting a little off-topic. There’s no need to apologise; you have been nothing but civil, and your grievance is legitimate. FWIW, I’ve posted some links on 史凡’s talk page. There isn’t a lot more I can do to help him; it’s up to him now. BTW, I’d say that the rest of us less-helpful editors are acting like adults: An inhæring quality missing from most stereotypes of teenagers is the altruistic desire to solve problems and help others; though usually naïve, and at its most unrealistic culminating in crusades to “save the world”, it is nevertheless a noble impulse, and one that tends to become lacklustre with age as cynicism, disillusionment, and a desire for guaranteed personal benefits become weightier concerns. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading my post, I can imagine that it appeared to be very patronising. It wasn’t intended as such, and I apologise if that’s how you took it. It was meant as a compliment. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

oreides
I can't find this plural in use. Can you? Equinox ◑ 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I didn't check :/ - Webster's Third gave it as countable so I just went ahead and added it figuring that if it wasn't attestable it could be deleted later. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that errors (even, sometimes, entries created from stupidity) can persist for months or years, because we have quite a small userbase. I try to check plurals on Google Books before I add them, and if there are only two or three examples I might not bother with them. On the other hand, there are more books in the world than Google has scanned, so it can be difficult to know for sure. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Birthday
Did Wiktionary say it was my birthday? It isn't! Equinox ◑ 16:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation
Could you do the honours please? Thanks. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthocerotophyta
Misspellings should not be listed under entries as "alternative forms". Misspellings are second-class pages that aren't usually counted as real entries. They should never be linked to from regular entries. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that.  had told me on IRC to work through Special:LonelyPages and I wasn't quite sure what to do with the misspellings.  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 23:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Misspellings are supposed to be lonely. :) --EncycloPetey 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * aww, poor little guys... :( L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
I see you spend quite a lot of time removing vandalism, which is much quicker and easier using the admin 'rollback' function. If I nominated you as an admin, would you (or do you) accept? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care, actually. As long as I'm on the laptop "undo" works easily enough, and there's always people behind me (thank goodness) to  entries that I've marked.  If you want to nominate me I suppose that's ok ... thanks for asking! :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You would make a good admin. It doesn't have heavy responsibilities. It only requires the kind of good judgment you have been displaying. You can ask for whatever help you need for a difficult situation. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then, if you say so :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-10/User:Logomaniac for admin please put your name next to acceptance. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I didn't realise you were a woman. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK done. and yep :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * New buttons now available. SemperBlotto 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. Please add an entry to Wiktionary:Administrators
 * Done and thank you very much! L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 16:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are now allowed to block vandals! SemperBlotto 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why to block IP addresses that vandalized once and then stopped, if you want me to I will. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the specifics of what is under discussion, but it is occasionally better to put in a limited-time block on an IP rather than waste time on a persistent vandal. For some IP addresses (at schools etc) we wouldn't want to have a long block, but something to discourage an individual during a single session at the computer is often warranted. I've had some luck even with 15-minute blocks. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All right then, I will, it just seemed a waste of time to me. And a bit harsh for the IP. *shrug* L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would only do it to a repeat offender. Sometimes someone types in some nonsense, saves it to prove that they can do it, and deletes the nonsense in a minute or two. No problem. Someone serially vandalising several entries or reinserting the same material after being reverted may need a more vigorous response. Anons are hard to communicate with, too, rarely noting a message. Try to send messages. Maybe we can learn from a fresh approach. Have you looked at the template messages in Category:Welcome templates ? DCDuring TALK 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'll probably never use the arabic one, but yes I do know the other three. :) And yes I agree on the repeat offense part: vandalism that just looks like a silly "hm I wonder what this button does!" I would tend to overlook, and thank you for the suggestions! L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary when new pages are created
Some pages especially on Wikipedia are not created as that but the information is known, even though I don't favor that but many of those added includes the information about that article added that is not the first few words and the first sentence of that article. Pumpie 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When new pages are created - the edit summary is partly written with information of that article and not the first few words and the first sentence written there. Pumpie 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Pumpie 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

re: 24.189.39.248
In response to what you asked on Caladon's talk page, no, I don't think the IP had the slightest clue their edits were being undone. I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me that Wiktionary RC patrollers are far too hasty to deal with vandalism by reverting and blocking rather than going on to talk pages and explaining. Most IPs probably don't know too much about Wiktionary or wikis in general, and blocking for mistakes or policy violations has probably cost Wiktionary quite a few possible editors. By the way, I notice that you have quite a few interesting words on your user page. Have you considered nominating them for Word of the day/Word du jour? (in case you didn't know, Word du jour is part of the proposed main page redesign which seems to have died down a bit, mainly because people are reluctant to have 3 daily main page features. It will probably be revived at some point, but for now it will sit collecting dust.) --Yair rand 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, is there an English definition of hautbois? I thought that it was only French and that's why I suggested Word du jour. If it is also English you'll need to add the definition as it's not there yet. Or was that just a mistake from copy-pasting? --Yair rand 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't know. It's supposed to be some sort of organ stop.  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

big band
Obviously you're not a fan of swing music. Anyway rather than complete your RFV nom which you didn't put on RFV, I did a slight revision and and added a pedia link to the Wikipedia article. As for goo-goo, ga-ga, goo-goo and ga-ga meet CFI, but I can't see goo-goo, ga-ga doing that, so I deleted that instead of finishing off the RFV for that. — Carolina wren discussió 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Logomaniac!
Thank you for your welcome. I listened and I’ve created an account. My english isn´t very good so I won´t participate much. I have an account in the basque wiktionary and I usually do my contributions there. I use the english wikitionary to add the word’s translations in the basque wikitionary and sometimes I also add the basque translation in the english. Good bye. --Ikatz 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ultimateria for admin
Perhaps you'd be good enough to start the vote and supply your own reasons, since you wrote on his talk page that you were considering it anyway. With the current renewal of hysteria any vote of mine will be unfairly disadvantaged by paranoia. Equinox ◑ 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nouns with no attested plural
Re acronyx:: in case you didn't know, you can also use where no plural can be attested (but you aren't sure it's uncountable) and  where it's e.g. some strange Greek or Latin derivation and you don't want to guess at what the plural might be. Equinox ◑ 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I didn't know that. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 15:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Competition
If you submit more than one entry in a single edit, the "subst"ing doesn't seem to work properly. Should be fixed if you just re-edit. I'd do it myself, but that would put my signature on it. --EncycloPetey 15:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I figured out how to fix it for you, and the problem was actually in the wikilinking. --EncycloPetey 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realized what I had done wrong, but before my computer would get around to loading the edit screen to fix it our family was running out the door .... thanks! L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 18:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blatant cheating! Now you're changing the rules, huh? A clever little trick, but it won't fool us. Don't make me squeal to EP about this. --Rising Sun 19:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I beat you to keep one's head above the water (also, does pressing count, I thought it was just multi-word idioms) Conrad.Irwin 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops and whoops. I'll remove those two. Apparently didn't look through the previous entries as thoroughly as I had thought ... L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, the old jokes are the best ones after all. Conrad.Irwin 17:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

spell off as verb
"To have two or more participants spell words one after the other until a champion is determined." Who is the subject of the verb? Are the two competitors "spelling off" (in which case the definition, "to have them spell..." should be "to spell...")? Equinox ◑ 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the participants are the subject of the verb. I'll change the def.  Also is there a way to remove the third-person singular thingy in the verb template as this is a verb that always refers to several people? L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 15:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you certain it couldn't be used like this in the singular: "Chris spelled off against Dave"? Equinox ◑ 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could ... But "Chris spells off against Dave" doesn't sound quite right. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It might work in context. "A hush falls over the audience; the cameras zoom in, focussing on the lip movements, as Chris spells off against Dave; and a chorus of oohs rises as he begins: double-you, I, cee, kay, tee, I, O..." Anyway, real-world citations are probably the best solution. Equinox ◑ 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ayuh
Hello. Is that pronunciation correct? For me it's unpronounceable. Is there an sound in standard English? Maro 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure, lemme check w:WP:IPAEN again. .... Whoops, no, I'll remove  from that. Thanks for noticing! L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

IRC cloak
I would like the cloak wiktionary/Logomaniac on freenode, please and thanks, L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hi
I've been here for a while, but thanks :-). Logan Talk Contributions 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving?
I hope you'll be back soon. Good luck in what you're doing. We'll miss you. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m also sorry to hear of your impending departure. Do you intend to return? I hope so; you’re a valuable, friendly, and helpful contributor who will be sorely missed if you do not. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll be returning - at least, probably not anytime soon ... L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB
Did you know that you can select "Hide patrolled edits" in RC, to search for vandlaism more easily? --EncycloPetey 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, but it's much more fun (to me, at least) to be able to watch what other users are doing as well. :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Special:Contributions/Llusiduonbach
Thanks for the head-up. He is making a few mistakes, but otherwise the contributions are genuine. Just heard that you're leaving; what's that all about? Cdhaptomos 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I realized that Wiktionary is just taking too much time away from real life. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:trans-top
All nicety aside: that was a poorly-planned edit to make just before logging off. All the translations tables had blue on the left and yellow on the right. I've reverted, but it will take the server hours before the correction goes into effect project-wide. The result: Wiktionary entries will look sloppy for many hours as the server labors through a backlog of re-rendering all English entry pages for all of Wiktionary. This is why we discuss changes to high-use templates before enacting them. Such changes may make us look bad, and will always add to server strain as they go into effect. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OOPS L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 13:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conrad.Irwin told me (over IRC) not to bring up a discussion as it'd take a year and lead nowhere ....... and then he left ....... and I was tired and didn't realize it needed to be done to trans-mid and bottom too (I think?) ..... and then it was time to get off the computer. :P  Sorry! L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 13:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Conrad.Irwin 13:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the short argument for not changing it is that people need a visual clue that the content of this section is not the same as the other sections. The yallow background does this well.  If all the collapsible boxes all have the same color background, then users won't appreciate that the yellow ones contain links in a different language as the entry (but the same meaning), while the blue boxes contain links in the same language as the entry. --EncycloPetey 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kąġi Oȟąko
Many thanks for your welcoming words. As you may see it soon, I will —often — need your help, mainly about technical “details”.

Cheers! ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Hi, Logomaniac!

I have problems with templates (e.g. see the troll article, under the Scandinavian sections)… What's more, I created a template (Template:nb-noun-n1b) by error, then emptied the text part. How could this page be suppressed?

I would be very grateful to you if you could help me with this — and I hope it is not something which will tag me as a vandal. That was not my intention.

Many thanks forward. ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 14:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
but no thanks :) I like the anonymity now. Bye, 81.68.255.36 16:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

intervencionista
Apparently, this word can mean both interventive and female interventionist....cheers, Razor</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ... :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Logomaniac/Sign up sheet
Perhaps this should be moved to the project namespace (Sign up sheet)? --Yair rand 04:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh hello. Sure, if you'd like to. It definitely needs expanding if it is to be ... used by anyone. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 21:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See also WT:TODO (welcome back!)Conrad.Irwin 21:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha thanks cirwin! I couldn't resist coming back for april fools ;) Yeah, I had intended my page as sort of a complement to TODO (didn't that use to be CDPR?), that is, for larger or more involved tasks as opposed to the sort of one-off nature of TODO. L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 00:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-05/User:Logomaniac for desysopsing
I'm surprised no one has yet apprised you here of this vote, but, well, I'm doing so. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)