User talk:Rodasmith

Hangul
Thanks for your hangul stroke order imgs. I just added them to en:Hangul.

If you know the stroke order for bansiot ㅿ, could you create an image of it, and maybe of yes-ieung ㆁ as well? (The latter is easy, if you have the fonts for it, but I have no idea whether ㅿ has two strokes or three.)

Please drop me a note on my page if you're able to do so, since I don't keep a close watch on wiktionary articles. Kwamikagami 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't really know how the obsolete jamo were written. It's not clear to me whether the bottom line of bansiot was written separately, as with, or as a continuation of the initial stroke, as with .  As for , I guess I could just edit the  image to extend the upper stroke, but do we know for sure whether the upper stroke was written before or after the circle? Rod (A. Smith) 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Naw. I assume ngieung was written with a single stroke, starting at the top. That's what you'd expect from calligraphic norms. But if we don't have bansiot, which is the unpredictable one, there's not much point in having ngieung. I'll check around. Kwamikagami 06:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Index:American Sign Language
I created Index:American Sign Language before you standardized handshape names, so it uses a different set from that used by, well, everywhere else ASL is on enwikt. Shall we scrap the index?—msh210 ℠  20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but there is certainly value in having an index. I liked how yours distinguishes between two-handed signs of a given initial dominant shape and one-handed signs beginning with that shape. I'm open to your suggestions or to your being bold. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (I missed your response even though I had watchlisted this page. I only now thought to look back here to see whether I had perhaps missed seeing your reply on my watchlist. Hence the delayed response.) I agree there should be an index, but think that the handshapes by which the entries are indexed should conform (and conform in name) to those used in the pagenames, so as to avoid confusion. Splitting by number of hands is good, too, I suppose.—msh210 ℠  23:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (I should have replied here in the first place.) At some point, I could work on converting the indices to use the new phoneme names if you don't beat me to it, but I wouldn't complain if you scrap them before I get around to that. Sometimes it's easier to start from scratch. By the way, have you noticed the sign language edit tools? For me, they make it easier to compose entry names.  Give them a shot. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Oh, you can keep the discussion here. I'll check back sooner or later.) Re "Sometimes it's easier to start from scratch": that was the point of my original post in this discussion.  And I did not see the edit tools, no. Where am I looking?—msh210  ℠  23:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When you are editing a page (or section), look through the drop-down list below the edit box. It contains a "Sign languages" entry. Select that. Your suggestions there are of course quite welcome. Rod (A. Smith) 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

5@SideForheadhigh-PalmDown-5@SideForheadhigh-PalmDown Wiggle-Wiggle 5@SideTrunkhigh-Palmdown-5@SideTrunkhigh-PalmDown
Not to be rude, but who in the world is going to enter that in the search box?


 * Confusion doesn't seem rude at all. ;-)  It's not about entering things into search boxes.  If it were, what would you name the entry?  SNOW:?  That search term should locate the entry as well, if we simply redirect appropriately.  :-) Rod (A. Smith) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:de-verb-strong
Hello, may I request you to modify your template (by augmenting the number of arguments by one) in order to include the Konjunktiv Präteritum form of the strong verb. For example, many strong verbs have a vowel mutation (Ablaut?) which makes them differ from Indikativ Präteritum forms: helfen - (Ind. Pr.) half - (Konj. Pr.) hülfe; werfen - warf - würfe, stehen - stand, stünde and so forth. I think it is related to the Präteritum Singular and Präteritum Plural mutations in Old Norse verbs as well, probably some rudiment in both languages. Since I am not conversant with templates, I would rather refrain from modifying the template. Bogorm 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. To use the new optional parameter, use the parameter name "past subjunctive" (e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=helfen&diff=5751985&oldid=4788777).  Let me know if there's a better simple English name for that.  Rod (A. Smith) 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Geor
I've added the class Geor to this template, following the agreed format for all of the Category:Script templates. I'll remove script-Geor from the template, if that's okay with you. If you are still using class="script-Geor" in your style sheet or any other applications, you should update it. Regards. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 21:49 z 


 * Yes, of course that's good. Sorry for the delay.  I somehow missed the "new messages" notice.  —Rod (A. Smith) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

my first ASL entry
Would you mind looking at, correcting, and, if necessary, commenting on my first ASL entry, A@Near Seven? Thanks.—msh210 ℠  20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And, now, would you mind also looking at my second ASL entry? It's Kc@Inside-PalmForward 1o@Inside. Thanks much.—msh210 ℠  21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Esperanto question
I came across a bunch of Esperanto roots that say in the entry that they are "not official" (list: -ent-, -enta, -ento, -unt-, -el-, -unta, -unto, -ut-, -uta, -uto). Do you know what that means for Esperanto (should we include it)? This info was currently under no L3 heading. Should I put it under Etymology, or Usage Notes? Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a publication several decades ago that is often regarded as defining Esperanto's official list of roots. La Plena Vortaro, or some such. I assume that those "not official" roots are common ones not found in that publication. I think Wiktionary's approach would be to include such a root if several words can be attested for it, in which case I'd note in the Etymology section that the root was borrowed after the Vortaro publication if that's the case, or otherwise with a usage note explaining that the root did not make the cut for the Vortaro so its use may be restricted to informal situations. If you're not sure when the root was borrowed, a vague etymology note about its absence from the Vortaro should suffice, perhaps with an  note. —Rod (A. Smith) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ASE Skill Level Upgrade Approval

 * I, Michael A. Cooper, as an ASL Native user, have noticed significant improvement in Rod A. Smith's ASL skills. I authorize for his ASL skills to be upgraded from ASE-2 to ASE-3. Congratulations on a great job! :) ECUgrad96 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons images of Michael C.
Just happened across commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. You might want a look-see, to avoid deletion.—msh210 ℠  22:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I really do hope to start photographing ASL natives producing signs for entries, but now I'm not sure how to go about recording their consent. —Rod (A. Smith) 23:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of that is about images taken in situations where getting consent is not easy (or whatever). In your case, all you need is a standard photo release. I'd suggest you ask Mike Godwin (WMF General Counsel) if he can gin one up for you that is approved by WMF. All it is is one or two paragraphs stating that the subject understands that the photo/video recording is to be used in commons, and released under the CC license (or whatever is best, might take a bit of thought). Subject just signs and dates it, is usually valid for photos taken on that one date. Robert Ullmann 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah? Well, Hitler never signed a photo release!—msh210 ℠  17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of 0
When you cleaned up 0 you added a left-aligned table containing  to the etymology section. While it looks fine on IE 8, Firefox and Chrome force this table (and the rest of the page contents) to be lower than the bottom of the first right-hand side image. This leaves a huge blank space, sometimes forcing me to scroll just to see any of the content (when I also have the ToC on the right). Would it be fine to just remove the table part, and inline with the rest of the etymology content the code snippet I show here? Cheers. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I haven't done any cross-browser compatibility testing, but your suggestion seems right. —Rod (A. Smith) 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New User
I am a new user to Wiktionary. I have been seriously programming computers since I was 10. Three years ago, I set out to learn ASL. What hampered me the most was not having a computer-typeable method of ASL transcription to aid my memory. So I ended up creating one for my personal use.

At this time it has become so useful to me that I was hoping it might be of use to others. I came across your Wiktionary:About sign languages article discussion about using English to describe the signs. I would like to know if my non-English code for jotting down signs might be of use in this area. http://aslsj.com and http://aslsj.blogspot.com/. - Tom 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your take on this is interesting. I had created a terse system, using symbols instead of English, but the response here was that the system was practically illegible.  Have you read about any other notation systems for transcribing signs?  —Rod (A. Smith) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My take is a code that is concise and typeable. I share the above sentiment about your encoding for SNOW.  My system would transcribe this as Bavlnvw.  This could be transcribed by a rudimentary computer program as a sequence of steps with Handshape, Area, and Movement aspects.  (Greater-used hand represents the right hand for right-handed signers and the left hand for left-handed signers.  Lesser hand would be the opposite.)


 * This actually assumes that the hands are side-by-side. Other arrangements would need to be specified.


 * My code always starts with a capital letter representing the greater hand handshape: B. An adjustment letter, within the range of a-f m-q, may follow.  In this case, the letter a represents the thumb extended on the B handshape making "Open-B."  This is not exactly the slight claw / fingers spread out that SNOW actually uses.  But, if you signed it using exactly this handshape, an experienced ASL user would still recognize it.


 * After the handshape and adjustment, the palm-orientation (from vsik) may be specified. (If not specified, the palm-out orienatation is assumed.)  Bav means Open-B palm-down.


 * The Area aspect involves the greater hand's position around the body and the lesser hand's relative position from the greater. The assumption for most hands is side-by-side and not touching, therefore this was omitted.  The greater hand's position (from bcdnopq) is specified immediately before the movement style code (glxz) when the hand is close to the body, and immediately after when away from the body.  Bavln has the greater hand's position in front of the forehead.


 * Of the movement styles, l (parallel movement), x (opposing movement), and z (following movement) require two hands. Since the second was not specified explicitly, the lesser hand is assumed to also be an Open-B palm-down hand.  (The lesser hand is side-by-side with the greater hand.)  The movement direction (vhsroi) is v for downward.  There is a letter w after the movement which represents the wiggling fingers of the handshape during their downward movement.


 * I suppose that the real question is: how much ASL / ASL transcription code will a student need to know in order before they can use the ASL dictionary entries? - Tom 07:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool signature
Hey, how can you get a signature like yours? When I try it, the entire signature becomes a link with the brackets etc. even showing. Could you tell me? Mallerd 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you try clicking "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" in your preferences? That should do the trick.  —Rod (A. Smith) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that did the trick, thanks User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

!o^@Inside-PalmBack
What do you think?—msh210 ℠  17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I love it. Love it.  Good title, good structure, good definition.  Good job.  :-) —Rod (A. Smith) 17:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now let's how quickly it gets deleted. —msh210  ℠  18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

NEW BATCH
Rod, here is the list of the students' names that corresponds with the signs:

WRONG- Krista Y. STAND-Amy DRINK-Bryan JUMPNatalie FOOD-Catherine DANCE-Kathleen IMPROVE-Anthony (Tony) COOL-Austin WELCOME-Kyle Johnston ABSENT-Amanda Lam YES-Megan SAME/SAME-AS-Daniel WHAT- Jefferson

ECUgrad96ECUgrad96

another ASL entry
As with my previous ASL entries, I'm running my newest past you for both accuracy and format, since I trust myself on neither. Thanks!—msh210 ℠  23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good sign to add. I think your right about its being a conjunction in that sense.  I've also seen it used as a command, where I might gloss it as a verb like PUSH-ASIDE, as in the following:
 * lean-left: {ENGLISH GRAMMAR}, lean-right: {ASL GRAMMAR}, DIFFERENT. lean-left: {MANY SMALL WORDS, EXAMPLE -O-F-, -T-H-E-, -B-E-, -A-B-O-U-T-}, lean-right: {PUSH-ASIDE}.
 * We'd better get MC's input on this. —Rod (A. Smith) 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ASL photographs
I like the photos: a really nice addition to make all this PalmAcrossFingerForward stuff less esoteric. I suppose the ideal thing in theory would be a way to map the text notation into (animated?) stick figures, but that's not going to happen any time soon. These fill the gap quite well. Equinox ◑ 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like them. User:Positivesigner has started to add icons based on SignWriting to entries and to the ASL index.  Those seem pretty helpful.  I've stumbled a few times on animation/video.  In the end, I think each entry must be printable, but video and animation definitely can make some sign language entries easier to read.  There are so many challenges and so much fun work to do here for sign languages, lots of contributors can stay busy for quite awhile.  :-)  —Rod (A. Smith) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:ASL rename?
In case you weren't going to see it WT:RFDO. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. —Rod (A. Smith) 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek character transliteration
In 2007 (my apologies for not noticing) you contributed to discussion at Wiktionary talk:About Greek/Transliteration on that subject. Conrad.Irwin has asked me to look at a mapping file for automatic transliteration of Greek. I have done (am doing) this and have put a table of values at About Greek/Transliteration-new.

I am not aware of any substantial differences between this table and the old one - except that the stressed vowels and combinations of them are now listed in full (I hope). You (along with User:Doremítzwr) thought that η/ι and ω/ο should be differentiated. Now is a suitable time to address this. I sahll soon be absent until 22 Sept, so any answers will be delayed. Hopefully none of us think so strongly (I don't) about this that we cannot reach friendly agreement :) — Saltmarsh απάντηση 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization status
After I started adding signs, I realized that the index (to which I assume I am supposed to add my signs) is not in very good shape. From what I can tell, you are in the process of migrating from the version sorted by handshape to a version sorted by "groups" of handshapes (AIS, 1DT, 3HVN, 6M, 9O, 45BC). Although I am a fan of organization and would help if I knew where to start, the new index pages do not display a consistent format (some are lists with SW symbols, while others are tables with sort criteria which I can't figure out, and some are pairs of tables which have the same signs twice). Needless to say, this makes the potential contributor (me, in this case) more than a little confused about how to add signs in a orderly fashion to the list. Eventually I decided just to add the signs to the old index, but I'm guessing this isn't the reaction you want. Is there a consensus about the format of the index? because I would be willing to at least start fixing them to have a consistent format and strict ordering.

Also, the Sign Jotting symbols confuse the heck out of me. One of the reasons I decided against trying to add symbols to the index is because there isn't any good documentation on how to use the right symbols (in particular, finding the right image by name), in what order, and what to use multiple rows for. In short, I need a conversion from title format (which is well-documented) to SJ format (which smacks of OR more than anything else here). And the index appears to be sorted by these symbols too, although not in an easily replicable manner. So, yeah. I'll just keep adding to the old index and migrate them all to the new one if and when it becomes operable. —Di gama (t • c • w) 21:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The new format using SJ is still in early draft status. It's not yet clear what roll SJ may eventually have here, if any.  User:Positivesigner is working on the ASL index using a combination of spreadsheet macros and manual edits.  When he finishes his initial pass, the next step is presumably to discuss the alternative index formats with all interested editors.  That discussion will probably occur at Wiktionary talk:About sign languages, so you may want to bookmark that page.  I will probably also add a note to WT:BP when the discussion begins.  In the meantime, yes, it's perfectly sufficient to add new entries to the phone-based index pages.  In the end, we should have a set of bots or other automated tools to keep the sign language index up-to-date by combing through Category:American Sign Language, but we're nowhere near that at this time.  —Rod (A. Smith) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have any ideas for how to arrange the ASL index, this would be a great time to suggest them. —Rod (A. Smith) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I had to organize them, I would have them sorted by: dom. handshape group (opotional), dom. handshape, dom. height, other dom. location params, palm facing; then nondominant hand parameters (same order as above); then subsequent positions (same order as all above); then transitions. I very much doubt that there are any signs which are so similar as to require all of these, but I think it is important to have a definite relative order for any two signs in ASL (and any other sign language, if applicable).


 * The idea of having a table for the index is a good one, but it should be done only after all the initial headers are through, not having one huge table for the whole index. There should be headers for (ex.) dom. handshape (4, 5, Claw 5, B, Bent B, Flat B, Open B, C, Flat C), then height (Upper Face, Lower Face, Upper Torso (Neck - Chest), Lower Torso (Trunk-)), then tables with the SJ symbols (optional), the link and name, and the gloss. Specifically, the gloss should be separate from the descriptive name, because they easily get lost, and it would be nice to browse the glosses in a separate column. Extra information (as in the current tables) is not that helpful and can be confusing if they do not represent the sort criteria in order (and considering how many sort criteria there are, it would take up way too much room).


 * A list option like in 45BC is also an option; instead of a table, each entry would be its own table, holding the SJ, followed by the entry name, and then the gloss. The difference (I leave it to you to decide whether it is a advantage or a disadvantage) is that in the list format, the cell boundaries of each entry do not line up with adjacent entries. Although this can look worse overall, it does avoid the large white spaces likely to show up due to the variable length of the SJ strings (the large table would use the longest SJ string in the index for the cell boundary).


 * Ultimately, the format is not that important, but the sorting is. Although I don't insist that you use my suggested sort order, I do insist that they are in "absolute order:" that is to say, every sign must be in a situation where it "must" go between the two adjacent ones and nothing is left to choice or whim of the editor. —Di gama (t • c • w) 03:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestions. I don't have energy at the moment to start a structured conversation about finalizing the index structure, but if nobody beats me to it, I'll start one soon and note your above suggestions.  —Rod (A. Smith) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal process for requesting ASL page moves
Obviously, mistakes can happen when naming ASL pages, and unlike anything else on the page, page moves cannot be done other than by an administrator. I propose that there should be a process so that I (for example) could request that page X be renamed to Y because the original editor:


 * 1) Did not use proper entry name format.
 * 2) Was overly terse so as to give an incorrect interpretation of the sign.
 * 3) Described the wrong movement or handshape.

Obviously, the latter two can be subjective, so such things would need to go through a vote like CFD or other similar administrative action (by an admin who is competent in ASL, of course). Unless I've missed it (and please tell me if I have!), we have no such process currently. —Di gama (t • c • w) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, I add #4: the original editor used a description inconsistent with similar signs. I find this one of importance because we want to give a consistent front for sign names. As an example, ends "how" on "C" hands, while  ends on "BentB" hands. I would even go so far as to say that "how" does not end on C hands in any ASL dialect, and would therefore put it up as a candidate for renaming. —Di gama (t • c • w) 02:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with your assessment of the second handshape in that phrase. It's not C because of the extended thumb.  It's not exactly bent B, either because the fingers are lax, but bent B is closer than C, so the page should be moved as you say.  And yes, we lack a process for requesting such moves.  Does  ("Request for ReName") seem right?  There are no ISO 639-3 codes beginning with "rf" yet, but such codes could eventually be assigned, so I think it's best to avoid "rfm" ("Request For Move"), "rfr" ("Request For Rename"), etc., but let me know if you have other ideas. —Rod (A. Smith) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Autoconfirmed editors can move pages, so there should be no problem. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on move rights (and I see I can move pages now, so I think you're right on that count). However, I still think that there are moves about which I am not sure enough to unequivocally declare that my way is better, so I think a template should be created to encourage discussion. In response to Rodasmith, though, while thinking about what the template would say, it occured to me that it would be pretty ASL-specific (or at least sign-language-specific), so I think a name like would be better.


 * OK. I've created, mostly by plagiarizing .  Its only parameter, {1}, is the suggested new name.  Does that do the trick?  Feel free to change the template as you see fit.  —Rod (A. Smith) 00:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Phone name for variable locations
Replied at Wiktionary talk:About sign languages. This should answer your questions about why I renamed the "..."-titled pages (although I admit I renamed the pages before I saw your argument). —Di gama (t • c • w) 02:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Production text changes
Replied at Wiktionary talk:About sign languages. —Di gama (t • c • w) 08:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Again. —Di gama (t • c • w) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And again. —Di gama (t • c • w) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New Handshape images
I just blitzed through 225 new handshape images (taken of my own hand), five different directions for each handshape. I'm a little burnt out now, so I thought I'd pass you the baton to find your thoughts on how they should be put to use. Also, I'd like to know if you make any of these handshapes different than I did -- I'm not so sure myself about some of them (particularly, look at FlatC, E, OpenM and OpenN, and SmallO). They are on display at commons:User:Di_gama/2009-09-17 handshape images. —Di gama (t • c • w) 10:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's quite a useful set of photos.  Your E is correct, but I usually make mine differently.  In my E, the four fingers are more extended at the base and more flexed at the medial and distal joints, resulting in no contact between the thumb and finger tips.  Some ASL natives call my E variation a "screaming E", which they seem to view similarly to typing in all caps, but other ASL natives make their E hands the same way that I do, so I classify it as an accent difference.  Your G is a bit more extended than mine.  In my G, the index finger is bent at the base joint such that it is nearly parallel to the proximal phalanx of the three curled fingers.  In that configuration, it is more easily distinguished from the 1 handshape.  In my K/P shape, the thumb pad touches the radial side of the joint between the medial and proximal phalanx of the middle finger, helping distinguish it from 2/V.  My M and N handshapes are more lax than yours, such that the inner side of the medial phalanges of the first fingers rest over the thumb and the thumb tip protrudes at the medial phalanx of the ring finger.  Your M and N appear to be compressed enough to move the points of thumb contact to the inner side of the base phalanges.  Upon trying my T, I was surprised to find that it matches yours exactly.  That is, although my M and N are looser than yours, my T is just as tight, with the thumb protruding between the base phalanges of the index and middle fingers.  Your FlatC, OpenM, OpenN, and SmallO are exactly like mine.
 * I know photos are time consuming, and the Commons somehow seems cumbersome, so thanks for taking the time to add those shapes. The first uses for them I imagine is in the ASL index pages and the handshape appendix.  I'll hopefully be able to work on incorporating them this afternoon or evening.  —Rod (A. Smith) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your mention of the G shape reminds me of a particular method of variation, where the thumb and index, while parallel, rotate from straight up (more or less as pictured) to 90° bent. The handshape of the LITTLE-BIT sign comes to mind. (I just looked it up, and although my dictionary claims it to be a G hand (which is, in turn, described like mine), it shows a picture of the index bent to 90°, with the thumb parallel and more or less the same length outward.) In fact, I think this may qualify as a separate handshape. If I were to name it, it would (by our uses of the words) be most accurately described as SmallFlatC, although a name like BentG would be more intuitive.
 * Your description of my (incorrect) thumb location in K/P seems to agree with my sources, so I think I will upload fixed versions of those.
 * As for "tenseness" in M and N, I will certainly admit that I was very tense when making these photos. (Since I was taking these pictures on a timed camera, I would hold the poses for a while, which makes them look a lot "tenser" on the whole than if I were just making these casually.) My aim was to make images of "ideal" handshape versions (i.e. some of these require much more premeditation than one is likely to use, but this is what they are "supposed to look like"). Indeed, in practice, my "M" is produced with the distal joints of my fingers totally relaxed, my pinky bent close but not touching the palm, and the thumb touching the proximal joint of my pinky, about even with my ring finger. The real element of recognition in this handshape in common usage, I believe, is the relative positions of the ring's proximal joint (high) to the pinky's (low), not the visible presence of the thumb. Ideally, though, I believe the thumb is supposed to stick out at least to halfway along the fingernail.
 * My scientific explanation for your observation with T/N/M is that in order to reach the farther fingers, you are forced to oppose your thumb (articulate the CMC joint), which pushes your thumb outward and makes holding it inward more difficult (or at least less natural).
 * As for E, I was very unsure about how tight to make it. I can imagine it anywhere from having the metacarpal joints on the fingers tensed backwards (slightly beyond straight out) and the PIP and DIP curled fully inward, with the thumb across (I think this is your "screaming E", maybe a little "louder"), to having all joints curled in (like S) with the DIP joints touching the length of the thumb (fingernails are not visible in this version). I opted (in the pictures) for a compromise where the edges of the fingernails touch the thumb (in practice this is actually quite painful). I just checked the books I have and they are a lot looser (perhaps I should not be surprised). The fingers all appear to be bent so that fingernails are forward, but they do not touch the palm. Likewise, the extension of the thumb varies, but it ranges from having the thumb's fingernail under the index finger to under the ring finger, and without touching the fingers. Is this one worth retaking, and if so, what handshape should it exhibit? —Di gama (t • c • w) 00:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to take the E photos again. The shape you made is normal and quite recognizable.  (If you were to take any again, it would be G to distinguish it from 1 by bending the index finger at the base.)  Your pictures are so clear, I wonder whether they can be shown as a tiny icon in the production descriptions.  —Rod (A. Smith) 05:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing I'm not sure about is where G falls on the index-bend scale. Like I said, I can name a BentG-type sign (LITTLE-BIT), but G (from what I can tell) is normally done with the index at 45° to 0° with the thumb behind. The source I would claim is the observation (when watching ASL alphabets) that G and H only differ in the position of the middle finger (the thumb moves slightly, too). By extension, G should therefore have a straight-out index finger. When I ask myself, though, I generally make about 45° on the index finger in normal usage.
 * The icon idea is a good one, but I'm not sure how it would be carried out. Where would the icon go? If we put it before or near the prod link (3@InForward.jpg or  3@InForward.jpg shape), it may look too cluttered (I still have some problems with redundancy in the description, although the links improved the situation somewhat). We could try a float=right-type option, but it might conflict with any other production images, plus it would be too large (people would think that was the actual sign, not just a component handshape). —Di gama (t • c • w) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I was just now going to suggest showing the shapes at the beginning of the production sentence, showing one shape for one handed signs and two shapes for two-handed signs.  Unfortunately, it looks weird to put two right hands next to each other, and the arrangement seems to suggest a specific hand orientation, so I'm not so sure about this now.  —Rod (A. Smith) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it makes any difference, most of the images are horizontal-flipped, because I switched hands occasionally. (You might notice a light angle disparity.) Actually, I made most of them with my left hand, because I'm left-handed, but I felt that it would be more dictionary-consistent to use all right hands (although this dictionary seems to make a considerable effort to remain handedness-unbiased). So if you wanted you (or I) could flip and re-upload the images to get a left hand sign. —Di gama (t • c • w) 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken/\xc2\xa0\x2e
I came across this entry you made. Where did these all come from? Can it/they be deleted and any usable content put into Appendix:Unsupported titles? Cheers --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Mediawiki used to show those pages with reasonable approximations to the intended entry name. Apparently Mediawiki has changed. Clean them up as you see fit. —Rod (A. Smith) 18:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved the content to Appendix:Unsupported titles and left behind redirects in case Mediawiki decides to use them again. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the second block in 9 days. Shouldn't it be longer? Also, where do I report vandals? Enigmaman 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WT:VIP is the place to report such things. I wasn't aware of the previous block.  A longer one wouldn't hurt, but probably wouldn't help either.  Meh.  —Rod (A. Smith) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for three months now. :) It appears to be a static IP that keeps returning to vandalize. Enigmaman 06:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:ase:English derivations → Category:ase:English initializations
It bothers me that this category, while fine for spoken languages, does not fit well for sign languages, since there are more ways than one for a sign to be derived from another language. Initialization is the specific act of taking the initial letter in a given language (almost exclusively English for ASL) to form the handsign for the sign. I consider this to be separate from "loan words" like, and as such they should be in a more specific category. It may be more consistent with other languages to create this as a subcategory and move all the pages in the original (much fewer than there should be) into the new one, but I think all words either belong in one of the two groups mentioned above, or the group of non-English-derived ASL signs, so that Category:ase:English derivations has no articles in it directly. —Di gama (t • c • w) 05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. How about we move this conversation to Category talk:ase:English derivations and link to it from Wiktionary talk:About sign languages, or vice-versa?  —Rod (A. Smith) 18:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done and done. —Di gama (t • c • w) 03:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting the bot up and running
I thought you might want to weigh in on the vote. It pertains to the bot I referenced in our discussion. —Di gama (t • c • w) 04:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes/2009-12/Proposed CFI exception for SI Units
In light of your participation in Beer parlour archive/2009/September, please contribute your thoughts to Votes/2009-12/Proposed CFI exception for SI Units. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

another ase entry, and some ramblings about dimensionality
I've tried my hand at another ase entry, B@InsideChesthigh-PalmDownUlnarAside-B@InsideChesthigh-PalmDownUlnarAside B@SideChesthigh-PalmDownUlnarAside-B@SideChesthigh-PalmDownUlnarAside. Note that there's no gloss. Please tweak in any other way needed, too.

About the pagename ("PalmDownUlnarAside"): Note that orientation of a three-dimensional asymmetric object in space requires the specification of two directions. For example, I can say my hand has its palm up, but you won't know which way the fingers are pointing (forward? right? left?); or I can say the fingers are point forward but you wont know which way the hand is rotated (palm left? up? down?). Once I specify the palm is down, as for this entry, I then have to add one more bit of information. That can be done by saying RadialAcross, or UlnarAside, or TipForward, or BaseBack. Or I can start differently and specify that the thumb is medial (RadialAcross), which would then leave me one more bit of info to add: either PalmDown, or BaseBack, or TipForward, or BackUp. Other possible pairs of specifications also exist, of course, such as BaseBackBackUp. My point is that there are lots of WT:ASGN-meeting ways of specify the same orientation in a pagename, which means that either (a) one way should be specified, and all entries should match it or (b) there should be lots of redirects. Either way, WT:ASGN should mention this issue and how to deal with it. What do you think? &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recognized that the distinction made by Liddell and Johnson between "facing" and "orientation" is phonologically important in some signs, but in order to keep page names from running too long, I introduced some shortcuts in the naming system based on the observation that common patterns in hand orientation of the hands make it rarely necessary to specify more than one facing/orientation feature. When a hand is below the shoulders, the elbows are typically at the sides and the natural hand orientation is with the tip pointing forward, the palm oriented to face toward the center. When the hand is higher, the elbows are typically below the hands and the natural hand orientation (still with the palm facing the center) has the tip pointing upward.  When the hands are facing or orientated other from than the natural default, only a single change to that default is typically needed to specify the hand facing/orientation.  In your example, the hands are below the shoulders, so the default is for the tip to point forward, palms toward the center.  If we specify PalmDown as a deviation from that natural orientation, it can be assumed that the tip is still pointing forward.


 * In general, if a sign requires pointing in a particular direction (other than forward for postures below the shoulders or other than upward for higher postures), I just specify the hand part that points and the direction it points. Otherwise, I specify the direction the palm is facing if it is not facing toward the center.  It seems that only a very small percentage of signs require anything more detailed for facing/orientation.  Since facing/orientation is the last component of a posture, the index-based browsing will locate a sought sign without any facing/orientation redirects.  I realize that relying on such assumptions is a bit of a complication, but it's the best English-language-based naming system I could come up with.  Quite open to refinement, though.  —Rod (A. Smith) 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point that, when only one change to the default is present, only it need be specified is a good one, and one that I didn't see articulated at WT:ASGN. Do you think it ought to be added there, along with an explanation of what the defaults are? the entry I just made then should be at B@InsideChesthigh-PalmDown-B@InsideChesthigh-PalmDown B@SideChesthigh-PalmDown-B@SideChesthigh-PalmDown, right? The index-based browsing's finding the other pagenames is a good point too, though in cases where there truly are at least two equally good pagenames perhaps redirects are still in order. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, WT:ASGN should better articulate the strategy for naming facing/orientation based on defaults. Your new entry pagename seems right.  Redirects from equally plausible pagenames seem helpful, but hopefully a well-articulated naming strategy will minimize the number of those redirects.  —Rod (A. Smith) 23:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Hi. We use IPA in ===Pronunciation=== sections. You can add harakat like this, instead. --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. In Korean entries, we use the Korean equivalent of harakat in pronunciations sections.  It is, literally, a pronunciation of the word, so it does seem to belong in the Pronunciation section.  IPA is not the only way we transcribe pronunciations in the pronunciation section.  We also use SAMPA and several ad-hoc pronunciation systems.  Is there some guiding policy beyond WT:PRON and About Persian?  —Rod (A. Smith) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is no formal rule specifically prohibiting harakat under ===Pronunciation===, but it is our de facto policy to show harakat in the inflection line using the head= parameter. Why would you want to spend an additional line for this information? --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because we should eventually include literary, colloquial, and regional pronunciations in each entry, which won't all fit in the entry headword/inflection line. Also, to help users and search engines locate our entries, and to help readers who are familiar with a particular transcription system, each entry should include IPA, harakat, UniPers, and BGN for each pronunciation.  —Rod (A. Smith) 01:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

수리남
Shouldn't this be listed as a country, not a city? ---&gt; Tooironic 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Fixed.  —Rod (A. Smith) 07:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes/2010-04/Voting policy
I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, msh, but I missed the vote. For what it's worth, I probably would have voted in support based on the analogy of contributor-hood with citizenship for national votes. —Rod (A. Smith) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sign Language Videos and Barriers to Entry
I heard you've thought about ASL video, and I see you've done a lot of work on the sign language policy. I'm a multimedia programmer, and a friend of mine is an ASL interpreter. We're thinking about getting more videos into the ASL definition pages, and also getting more ASL definition pages generally. We think the best way to make this happen is to minimize the barrier to entry, so that an average ASL speaker or even student could contribute an entry. We intend to work with our local deaf community and universities.

We don't think these participants can realistically be required to write entry names and headword lines in the form currently specified. I agree that the movement encoding is valuable, but for this "crowdsourcing" to work, it can't be mandatory, in the same way that you wouldn't delete an English entry for lacking an IPA pronunciation guide.

I think the logical way forward is to (1) allow glosses like "PLEASE_(ASL)" to serve as redirects and disambiguation pages, and (2) allow stub-entries to be named and labeled by gloss alone. Stubs, to reach completion, should be upgraded with full headwords and moved, leaving the gloss as a redirect. My hope is to allow amateurs to put up a simple page like User:Bemasc/BOOK_(ASL), which was deleted when I posted it at BOOK_(ASL).

What do you think? Bemasc 02:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may butt in here, I like the idea of (2): make many entries, post them somewhere (see further on), and someone who can should move it to a good title. Even without (1), this will aid contribution. That said, I'm not so sure about (1): if we do it, perhaps it should be in a dedicated namespace Sign Gloss or some such, used only for temporary entries, disambiguation pages, and redirects, as you (Bemasc) suggest. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be easy for contributors who don't know the sign language entry naming scheme. Sorry your entry was deleted, but I expect it would be difficult to get admins here to warm up to the idea of using temporary page titles in the main namespace.  We could follow msh210's suggestion of using another namespace, or use Requested entries (American Sign Language) for temporary entries (even for temporary entries with lots of detail but whose proper page title isn't yet determined).  I'd support either approach.  —Rod (A. Smith) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much like msh2010's idea of a gloss namespace. I think that would allow novice users to produce complete standalone definition pages with videos, without having to edit any other pages.  "Sign Gloss" seems like a fine prefix to me; a page like "Sign Gloss:BOOK" could contain several sections for different sign languages.  I do wonder about the amount of work required to populate the namespace with links to all the existing sign language definitions, and then keep them synchronized ... if indeed that's desirable.  Anyway, unless there's a need for further approval, we'll plan to move forward using the namespace approach for now. Bemasc 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is such need. A real namespace (which the software running the Web site recognizes as a namespace) has to be made such by those who can (no one at enwikt can: we need to apply to those with access to the software), and they'll only do it if they see that enwikt supports it, so we need to bring the issue to the Beer parlour. OTOH a so-called pseudo-namespace, where the page [[Sign gloss:FOO]] (or [[Sign Gloss:FOO]]) is actually in the main namespace, leave a lot of redirects and pages in the main namespace that don't meet our policies on redirects and entries, so also need approval (actually, a vote). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I started a thread in the beer parlour. Bemasc 19:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Old vote on lemma entries
About the vote Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2, do you intend to get it started at some future point? If not, would you withdraw the vote, so I could remove it from WT:Votes? --Dan Polansky 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have left a note in the vote stating that it can be considered withdrawn; revert me if this is not okay with you. --Dan Polansky 05:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for tidying up. :-)  —Rod (A. Smith) 16:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Inflection templates - poll 3
You have voiced your opinion in some of the polls about renaming of categories for what was previously called "inflection templates", templates that are planned to be newly called "headword templates" or "headword-line templates" in the name of their category. I would like to hear your preference in the poll number 3, whatever your preference is, if you would be so kind: WT:BP. Thank you for your input and attention. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WT:RFDO
You input would be helpful. Thanks. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Demonyms
Do you know any authoritative online link that explains that demonyms are not proper nouns (but are capitalized anyway)? I saw the note to that effect that you added to the definition, and I was so surprised to learn that they are common nouns. I have sought further reading about it online, with no success. Thank you. O&#39;Dea (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Butting in: a proper noun usually refers to a single specific thing, like "Eiffel Tower". A demonym is just an everyday thing that can be pluralised &mdash; an Englishman, two Englishmen &mdash; despite the English convention (fairly unusual in other languages, I think) of capitalising it. Equinox ◑ 00:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Equinox, I know that Julia and Germany and Microsoft are proper nouns, but I assumed a "German" was also a proper noun, deriving its condition from "Germany". It seems I was wrong, but it turns me upside-down to learn it. O&#39;Dea (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We could probably find something authoritative, but just consulting our definition of proper noun:, it's clear that demonyms are not proper nouns because a demonym like "German" refers to any member of a group of people as opposed to naming a particular person. Note that you can qualify common nouns like "cat" or "German" with determiners and regular adjective phrases like "the second...", or "any juvenile...". —Rod (A. Smith) 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RFV on Esperanto for as a particle
Your addition of a particle definition to the Esperanto for article has received a request for verification. Can you supply citations to back it up? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

CU
Just letting you know about [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/March]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of CheckUser
Hello. As this account has been inactive for over a year, per the global CheckUser policy I have removed your CheckUser rights. Thank you for your past contributions to Wikimedia! --Rschen7754 21:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about template
Template:compactTOC-ase It seems like you made this and have a kind of alphabetical order for sign language gestures. Did you create this order arbitrarily or is it standardized somewhere and you adapted it here? If you respond on your talk, please use Template:ping so I'm notified. Thanks and happy new year! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking Email to Account
Hello,

Pardon me if you are not the right person to ask, but I do not have my email linked to my account and attempting to do so prompts me to enter my password, which I do not remember. I was wondering if it is possible for an admin to add my email to my account? I am still logged in to my account of course and can use it to verify if necessary. LissanX (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) LissanX (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Admin rights
Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 20:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)