User talk:Matricularius

Conrad.Irwin 11:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

cute
Why are you so attached to that example sentence. It's a terrible one that doesn't belong there for several reasons. Want 'em? So. Why are you so attached? -- Thisis0 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It's way too long.
 * 2) Example sentences impart a clear understanding of how the word is used, with a context that gives understanding and clarity rather than confusion.
 * 3) It uses the word in an attributive, humorous, figurative, jocular, slightly insulting way -- not in any way that conveys basic usage.  Again, something in a Quotations header from a printed work would be the way to convey this type of expanded, figurative, jocular usage.
 * 4) It's not patently clear which sense of cute: this quote is referring to, hence, under which sense does it belong?  Good example sentences are very clear about which definition is being employed.
 * 5) Example sentences are there to help give you definition and usage through clear context.  So, yours is funny but gives no important information.

heft - translations
Hello there, just a quick note to draw your attention the preferred templates used for Translations tables, namely, and. , and  are likely to be phased out at some point. For more guidance/policy of formatting see WT:ELE. Regards, --Williamsayers79 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wijzigingen op pijnlijk/pijnlijke
Hallo Matricularius. Ik zie dat je op "pijnlijk" de voorbeeldzin weer op het artikel geplaatst hebt. Ik had het weggehaald omdat het een nogal nutteloze en lange zin is. Ik heb liever dat je er een betere zin of gewoon een woordgroep zet (korter, die niet-Nederlandstaligen makkelijk kunnen ontleden/begrijpen). Ten tweede, op "pijnlijke", had ik opzettelijk de formulering "form of pijnlijk" willen vermijden omdat ik denk dat niet-Nederlandstaligen dan zouden denken "What form?". In plaats daarvan had ik een tabel toegevoegd die ik graag op andere artikels van Nederlandse bijvoeglijke naamwoorden zou willen plaatsen. In die tabel is een link naar waar het staat uitgelegd, in plaats van dat je het overal opnieuw moet uitleggen. Wat denk jij over beide wijzigingen? Groeten, SPQRobin 13:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any answer? You can speak Dutch, I guess? SPQRobin 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Translations
Translations are definitely at level four - not level three. SemperBlotto 11:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look at the examples of header levels and structure in WT:ELE. Robert Ullmann 12:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * re this edit Translations is always a level 4 header. Are you reading this? If you have an issue, reply here. Robert Ullmann 13:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly that Translations is a level four header, yet you continue to change it to level three.

Blocked 1 day: ignoring notice to stop changing page formats incorrectly. You must reply. If you get the message, and explain that you now understand, and will not repeat this, you will be unblocked immediately. If you do not, and you continue, you will receive increasingly longer blocks. Robert Ullmann 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (note that unlike the 'pedia, you can't edit your user page when blocked, you can send email) Robert Ullmann 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A question about opoe
Hi Matricularius, an anonymous IP left the following information on Feedback, do we need to fix that entry? Conrad.Irwin 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tbot/tbot_entry opoe (Dutch)
Opoe is Dutch as stated but it means grandma not grandpa. Another word for grandma is Oma


 * Yes, he's right (and probably Dutch, from the Netherlands) -

done, and a bit more (I prefer action to talk) Matricularius 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We still need to fix the translation table(s) at grandfather, which is where this came from. Robert Ullmann 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Conrad.Irwin 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (If you are ever looking for something to do there are a few other dutch terms listed on Feedback)

god
Hi, can I ask you why did you do this ? All of those translations you queued for ttbc where in fact the translations for the "deity, supreme being" sense, and the other meaning of "idol" is already covered at idol:, so there's no reason to duplicate it at god: too. --Ivan Štambuk 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello?! --Ivan Štambuk 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether a terms translations also appear at its synonyms is irrelevant anyway, even if that were 100% (certainly not the case) the reader cannot be expected to guess (or count if he thinks of it), nor can we ever know if that would also apply to the hundreds of language still extant. The problem is they were nearly all entered when no choice was available yet, so contributors didn't have any cue to think about whether applicable to deity and/or idol senses, the question is precisely how many deity-words are also used for idol-meanings, and there must be various other terms specific to idol-meanings. Matricularius 07:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I understood you completely, but yes - none of those translations included "god-non-idol" sense (try clicking on the actual entries and see what they translate to), and it would be a shame to dump such a large amount of translations (including some in rare languages that are not likely to be checked in months/years) to TtbC list just because the translation gloss wasn't too specific (I'd say it was deliberately put so concise because mythologies of almost all religions/languages/cultures have unambiguous general word for "deity, supreme being"). After all, "deity, supreme being" is the primary sense of god:, and an idol: is it's figurative application, already covered at idol:. --Ivan Štambuk 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Second formal warning and block
You have been told repeatedly not to change the Translations header to level 3. edit

Blocked one week. Response on this talk page when the block expires before continuing to edit is REQUIRED Robert Ullmann 12:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't get it. Your edits indicate a much clearer understanding of our format that most people have, yet this one point won't sink in? And you won't even reply? WTF? Robert Ullmann 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)