User talk:Romanophile/archive

ಥ_ಥ
Please don't go. I know what it's like to feel unwelcome at times. But I think that if we let incivility drive us away, then the responsible parties will never have to acknowledge the impact of their behaviour, and nothing will change. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also felt unwelcome at times and you have inspired me to take the same route as yourself. Pass a Method (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? You’ll just come crawling back up here everyday. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, as I expected, I was going to be unblocked. No matter how miserable I feel, I’m probably doomed to being eternally committed to this project, quite honestly. I do appreciate your sentiments, though. —Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I might. But i defninitely want to get rid of my current account. I tried a name change but was flopped. So i might as well go for a complete disposal. Pass a Method (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Kephir is just being arrogant today. You should be able to reapply for a fresh username. --Romanophile (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you speak to Kephir for me please? I attempted to reason with him to no avail. Pass a Method (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't had any problems with you at all so I would be sad to see you go. *hug* —CodeCat 15:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

requests
There seems to be an aversion to including more requests in the English request section. People think of the request section as a place to solicit words that people actually desire to know. It’s not supposed to be a to‐do list that lets the users know which valid words are not yet included. I’m tempted to quit requesting words, and since it’s improbable that the page will ever really be cleaned up, the action may be long‐term. Plus, I dislike English, so requesting more English words is illogic. --Romanophile (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

headword PoS
When adding, could you also include the second parameter for the part of speech? —CodeCat 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Before I do this, can you tell me for certain that this is the common practice here? Because I myself don’t recall this being mandatory. --Romanophile (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It became recommended practice ever since categorises into lemmas and non-lemmas. This is done based on the specified category, so it's desirable to always have a category. —CodeCat 15:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K., I fixed the heads now. You can check them to be sure, if you wish. --Romanophile (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Please note that Russian IPA require a word stress as a minimum and not all words are pronounced regularly, so a better knowledge of Russian phonology is required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. My pronunciation additions were more like test edits, which is why I only made a couple of them. --Romanophile (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"ASS"
What was that about? — Keφr 12:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Test edits to see if anybody would soon notice my vandalism. I thought that if I vandalised articles that only I worked on, nobody would (soon) notice.
 * 2. Boredom and lack of respect for the community. --Romanophile (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Since you're not an autopatroller (for good reason, apparently), all your edits are listed in Recent changes as needing to be patrolled. That means those of us who patrol recent changes will see it, if we have time to check thoroughly.
 * 2. How about respect for the people who use the dictionary?
 * If you're tired of contributing, take a break- don't take it out on the dictionary. I routinely block people for doing what you did there. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought that I was one already, but that’s O.K. Even if I never vandalised, I feel more secure when somebody else is reviewing my edits. As for respecting our readers…hmm, I could, but I don’t expect people to read the entries that I create. I create them because I feel that the project is incomplete and that they must be documented somewhere. But to answer your question, I’m not going to obstinately argue for my right to vandalize, so you could say that yes I will ‘respect’ the readers in this fashion. --Romanophile (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That'll teach me to post messages when I'm in a hurry. You actually are an autopatroller. Your edit showed up because an IP marked it for deletion: people do read your entries. Even if you add entries for your own reasons (which is perfectly ok), what you did was completely against those, too. Whether you respect the community or not, whether you respect the readers or not, have some respect for the dictionary and for what you're doing- if you're not going to do it right, don't do it. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Scots Wiktionary
I don't know too much about the Incubator, but I see that you had made some edits to the Scots Wiktionary there. I want to ask you if you know why entries there are all written mostly in English? I mean it even has the word "English", "Etymology", "the", and other things, that are not used in Scots. The term for English in Scots is Inglis. So why? Is it a rule on Incubator to write in English first for all the stuff besides definitions themselves, or is it just ignorance of the language by users? Rædi Stædi Yæti {- skriv til mig -} 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What? I don’t recall editing there, neither anonymously nor under an account. Can I have a link to these edits? --Romanophile (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wt/sco/noo&diff=prev&oldid=872867 Rædi Stædi Yæti  {- skriv til mig -} 05:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don’t recall making this strange edit, but maybe my memory is serving me poorly again. I’ve never seen anybody create a page by reversion, which is very strange. And I cannot I find any other contributions by the I.P. that I (supposedly) reverted. The fact that this account has only one edit, which is old, and that it was a reversion should indicate that I never had any serious interest in this project. My knowledge of Scots is limited at best. --Romanophile (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the history of our noo and found an identical edit there, which indicates that my edit was imported. The entry was imported from English Wiktionary. --Romanophile (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

qué tanto
Hi. Want to have a closer look at this page? --Type56op9 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it better now? --Romanophile (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You don’t have to insult me. And this account is three years old (older than yours, in fact). --Romanophile (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ungoliant/Kephir
There's nothing "questionable" about the way I use people's talk pages. Sometimes people do things I disapprove of. Those times, I often leave a note expressing my disapproval. In this case, I disapprove of the way Kephir and Ungoliant act toward me, and to a certain extent toward each other. Disapproving of another person's edits violates no policy. Pur ple back pack 89  17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You left him a complaint that was clearly unimportant to him, which consumed some of his time. You don’t seem very interested in repairing your relationships with either of these editors, and alerting them of talk page updates with complaints that they don’t care about is hardly going to make them doubt theirselves; it will only further their hostility towards you. I’m not certain about whatever you desired to accomplish, but if you desired to make Ungoliant compassionate and treat you better, you failed. --Romanophile (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Romanophile’s editing philosophy
Since I feel that my intents aren’t always clear from my edits, and I desire to comprehend myself more, I feel obligated to outline my editing philosophy. But for brevity, it can be summarized as this: everything has to be perfect.

Much of my work is copied from other Wikis, so as a result, I’m obligated to gives thanks to the source in my edit summaries. But I also conduct some of my own original research. I look on Google Books and sometimes Wikisource to confirm terms from dead languages.

I must always document Italic and specifically Romance words. If it is an alternative form, then I must document it. If it is a non‐canonical word, then I must document it also. I normally don’t encourage myself to include words from language unrelated to Italic, but sometimes I still do, but usually only to a minor extent. In contrast to Italic entries, everything must be as complete as possible. If I know that the term exists, but I’m unsure how to define it, I should include the section with a tag requesting a definition.

For Italic sections, everything has to be as perfect as possible. If there exists an etymology, then it must be complete (exceptions include alternative forms and non‐canonical forms). Every ascendant must be included, even hypothetical words. So for example, a French etymology for a typical French term should include its Middle French ascendant, the Old French one, the Latin one or ones, the Proto‐Italic one (or ones), and finally the Proto‐Indo‐European one or ones. (Currently, there is no widely accepted ascendant of Proto‐Indo‐European.) If an original attestation date exists, it should be included, but for inherited terms the history should say « atestiguado (en [x]) desde 0000 ». Cognates, particularly from related languages, may be mentioned, but I usually obligate myself to do this if I am copying an existent etymology that mentions cognates.

Pronunciations, like etymologies, should be complete. Since I’m not an expert phonologist, I obligate myself to use pronunciations from other Wikis instead. Although I can read an IPA spelling, I consider it dangerous to create my own. Nevertheless, existent pronunciations may be modified with parentheses. Any pronunciation file should of course be included. Homophones, likewise, are obligatory if existent (as in the case of modern French, they usually are).

Alternative orthographies and variants should be included, but if it’s an extremely obscure form, then I don’t usually consider it worth mentioning. Archaic Romanian orthography vacillates between diacritics and the absence thereof, but I like to include the diacritical forms because they’re less likey to be mistakes. I feel uneasy including those sans diacritics since it’s possible that they existed due to typographical limitations. But then again, our own project includes informal forms such as coeur, cliche and jalapeno, so perhaps including them is not a terrible idea. But again, if it’s extremely rare, then it might be acceptable to intentionally leave it out.

Plurals and inflected forms should be included when they’re available. If the noun happens to be uncountable, I could just add a usage note saying such.

Definitions, the most important feature of any good dictionary, should likewise be complete. So I should list synonyms, including dialectal ones, in order to make the definition comprehensible to everybody who desires to read it. Obsolete forms and obsolete words generally shouldn’t be used, but there exist some exceptions: 1. if the entire language is an antiquated version of the modern equivalent, and 2. if the word or sense per se is obsolete. Hypernyms (especially for foreign languages), hyponyms, antonyms and synonyms should be included and not absent. Wikcionario permits cataloguing these terms underneath the relevant senses (which I like).

Currently, I’m not sure what to do with related terms since «derivados» could imply that they came from the word, which is not always true, but if I feel it necessary I can just include them in the «véase también» sections.

Wikipedia links should be included, but usually only for nouns. Giving them to verbs, adjects and so on would be strange.

Conjugation is admittedly not a high priority of mine since 1. they can be rather time consuming to design and 2. I don’t always have access to a reliable conjugation. Currently, only Spanish verbal forms have been prioritised, but every other verbal form must be included manually. Likewise, creating entries for all non‐canonical forms is not a priority of mine, but if the entry per se includes at least one lemma word in an Italic language, then the non‐canonical forms must be included for the sake of completion.

Criticism is welcome. --Romanophile (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

æ
Are forms like "hypalbuminæmia" actually attestable? You need to check before you add them, however much you like the look of the ligature. Some of these blood diseases were only named or discovered recently, in a time when nobody uses the æ. Equinox ◑ 02:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, , , ,
 * If you browsed your contribution index, you should have noticed that I deliberately ignored the words that I couldn’t find in vintage texts, and I had to ignore many of them. This is to keep my arse out of the boiling water. I just lack the willpower to copy the citations since it’s so chronophagous. --Romanophile (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

rœlling on the floor læughing
Oh my god you are hilarious. You don't even know much about Latin, yet you've been randomly inserting æ and œ everywhere because you think they look cool. Nice meme.


 * Oh for fuck’s sake, I was a teenager, O.K.? What the fuck do you want from me? Do I need to build a fucking time machine and stop myself from making mistakes? Will that finally make you happy and shut the Hell up? Just fuck off already, assholes. --Romanophile (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good language vs. bad language
There is a big continuum of what is considered good language. One on side there are those who think that only what is specifically laid out in grammars is good, and that terms not found in dictionaries don’texist. These people are usually uninvolved in linguistics.

Then on the other side there are the hippies, usually people involved in sociolinguistics, who think that everything a person uses is correct. You could incorporate farts into your phonemic inventory and they would say “of course it’s correct, it’s just Romanophile’s English”.

As for your Portuguese, your spelling skills are above the Brazilian average, and your vocabulary is pretty good, but your grammar still needs improvement. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. If you can specify which tendencies that I need to fix, I would be very grateful. --Romanophile (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Please stop thanking me for perfectly ordinary edits. It's annoying. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh damn! Sorry, I’ll cut that out. --Romanophile (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Palindromes
You're welcome. --Daniel 05:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These should give me ideas for entries to create. I actually used one of your palindromes here: . Admittedly, it’s not an excellent example of a usage, but I could hardly resist. --Romanophile (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a classic! That phrase "Socorram-me, subi no ônibus em Marrocos!" seems to be the most popular palindrome here in Brazil for some reason. --Daniel 05:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I improved/matured on Simple English wiktionary
, on Simple English wiktionary I've managed to edit for a while now without having significant problems. When I was criticized for making mistakes by editors, I immediately changed to what they wanted me to do, instead of insisting on my own way. Do my contributions there look better than my ones here to you? PaulBustion87 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I’m not very familiar with simple English or the policies (assuming that there are any) over there, but from the recent edits that I’ve seen, I do notice a few inconsistencies between your modifications and those of the (assuming again) regulars. For starters, the defs read more like something from a normal dictionary than ones for Simple English. ‘A circumcision is’ would be redundant here, but there it’s obligatory. I can’t say much else there. Irrespective of that, I do have some general advice: You need to avoid burning bridges; just take a break. I myself would feel pretty embarrassed if I claimed that I was leaving only to come crawling back in a few hours. If you are going to make some potentially questionable edits, it’s best to make but a few of them (if any), or simply contact a administrator to discuss it in advance. The safest way to avoid becoming obstructed is to simply go with the flow. If you dislike a practice, you can discuss it and maybe it will be permuted, or maybe you will learn why the current one is superior and agree to it. --Romanophile (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually even though Equinox and Dan Polansky got angry at me, they are both against BoBoMisiu's effort to add four new definitions to the term pedophilia, that was something I agreed with those two gentlemen on. I was arguing against BoBoMisiu when I was on here just as much as they have. So not all my editing was against the flow. PaulBustion87 (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I’m not saying that all of your practices are inconsistent. --Romanophile (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've learned my lesson. I'm going to be editing in a constructive way that usually goes with the flow and when its against the flow doesn't challenge it excessively from now on.PaulBustion87 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think my editing so far here this time right now has been an improvement when compared to before?PaulBustion87 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t seem like you have done very much in this time period, so I can’t make a valorous judgement. --Romanophile (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I've dropped my insistence on my viewpoints now. For example, Equinox criticized me for insisting that only men could be rapists, in my latest edit to the rape entry, I made it more clear that women could also be rapists, . I also in the pedophilia entry was criticized by Equinox for arguing on focusing on the medical definition of the term, which is sexual attraction by adults either to only prepubescent children or to both prepubescent and early pubescent children, and he said I should focus on real world use, which views it as sex against any child under some arbitrary chronological age, such as 15 years or 18 years, and I gave up pushing my viewpoint and decided to focus on real world use and removed the medical definition, . I also was criticized for being hyper-specific in my editing by Equinox, and I dropped my hyper specific insistence on terms like "mostly or only" and "primarily or exclusively" in the geronotophilia, hebephilia, and teliophilia entries,, , . I also dropped my hyper specific wording from the British Empire and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan entries. , . Are those improvements? PaulBustion87 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

shush doesn't rhyme with plush etc
I don't know IPA, so don't know how to correct it, but sounds something more like  to me. I'll see if I can do it properly. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always pronounced shush so that it rhymes with plush. Perhaps there is regional variation in pronunciation? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In RP, the version that rhymes with "plush" is /ʃʌʃ/ and the other one is /ʃʊʃ/. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Just quit pestering Kephir"
Kephir does things questionable from time to time and it is perfectly acceptable for me or anybody else to say so, certainly without being blocked and probably without those edits being labeled as vandalism. IMO, Kephir's labeling of my edits to his page as vandalism is disruptive, and his blocks of me primarily on the basis of commenting there are unacceptable. Pur ple back pack 89  17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don’t think that he finds much valour in your opinions, and if you know that he doesn’t care about your opinions, repeatedly beating him over the head with them is just going to piss him off. It’s like listening to advertisements. If you still think that his ‘misbehaviour’ merits discussion, don’t bring it up with him; bring it up with some other administrator—privately, if you can. If you can’t make nice with him, then the best course of action is to simply minimize your interactions with him as much as possible. I hope that you will learn to respect his boundaries in the future. --Romanophile (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

digeseis
I haven't bothered to change most of these and it's not very important, but I reckon these should be marked as obsolete spellings rather than obsolete forms. Thanks for adding them, though; we're missing a fuckton of obsolete Spanish orthography (as you will have noticed). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that that distinction was purely a matter of taste, but okay, I’ll fix them. --Romanophile (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose it is, yes. You don't have to change them if you feel too lazy, it's just something to keep in mind for the future. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Secretly the government
LOL. Just to let you know, I CAN speak French. I used my purple backpack to carry around my French textbooks. Anyway, remind me to fly a drone around your backyard. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  21:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, blast. Here I thought that U.S. officials couldn’t read French and that they had no sense of humour. Ah well. Better luck next time, eh? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Next time, you should say बैंगनी बस्ता. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 03:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

honourific
Hi! I edited honourific, which is most certainly not a "non-standard spelling"; the world is bigger than just the United States, and English comes from England! Cheers Tomalak geretkal (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that they use honorific in England. See Tea room/2016/January‎. Both Renard Migrant and SemperBlotto are from England. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know
Hi there. We already have the more usual and variants. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, all right. I’ll just delemmatize my entry, then. Cheers. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete Romanian forms
Hope you don't mind me asking, where do you find these obsolete forms? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * :, , , , , , . -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, now I see! I thought you had some kind of acient Romanian dictionary :-) Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These forms actually come from a weird era of Romanian history (mid to late 19th century) when some of the elites and scholars, having relatively recently "rediscovered" the linguistic identity of Romanian within the last century or so, went on a spree of trying to hyper-Latinize as much of the existing language as possible. This was the time when thousands of words were added from French, Italian, and literary Latin (which was okay since it was aimed at modernizing the language with more technical terms, which stuck around) but a few took it even further, and attempted to create a new orthography for much of the existing inherited Latin-based vocab. They sought to purge it of influences they deemed foreign, like some of the diphthongs like -oa-, which was attributed partly to Slavic influence, and added a final -u to masculine or neuter nouns, which normally appears only in the definite articulation or colloquial speech, or presumably in older, pre-written Romanian. The aim was to make it look somewhat like an Italian language, or perhaps to create clearer visual connections to the other Romance languages. Needless to say, this orthography never really took off as most found it a bit ridiculous. So I guess while it is fair to list and call them "obsolete" forms, it kind of implies that they were actually just older, but normal and commonly used forms of existing words at the time, which isn't precisely accurate. Like for listed as an obsolete variant of ... some people might get the impression that the diphthong there arose relatively recently, in the last couple of hundred years as the shift to a Latin script happened, evolving from the earlier mole. Which isn't quite true. Yes, at some point in the deep past, such as well before the first written records of Romanian in 1521, there probably was a form like that, and also forms where the final -u was normally a part of a word (like  in the above example, even though  in particular is a learned borrowing or neologism added to the language from French in the 1800s). But the ones I'm talking about in this post are relatively modern creations, or at least modifications of existing words, that never gained much currency in common usage. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very insightful, thank you for bringing this up! I've been thinking along the same lines: how should we treat these so called "obsolete" forms considering that they were never really naturalised in the language? I'm convinced that this tendency is not exclusive for Romanian (wondering if for instance Portuguese isn't similar in this respect, thinking of actor vs. ator, where the former seems to be a revised orthographic version of the latter naturalised word). I guess for now the only place remotely close to being correct is under "Alternative forms", but maybe it's worth discussing in the Beer Parlour. On a separate note, I would really enjoy discussing the development of the Romanian language with you, because you have shown profound knowledge in the subject – I have a lot of questions of my own, so let me know if you're up for it. Keep up the good work, either way! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'm not a complete expert, but I am certainly interested in the matter. But yeah, if you actually read through the old (Google Books) document linked to above, you can tell something is fishy there. There's no way the language would have naturally changed that much since the 19th century, so you can tell many of the forms there are artificial. They even modified their surnames to an extent, haha. Another question regarding how to classify these terms is whether to describe them simply as having a different, modified orthography or actually being different forms... I think they actually tried to change the pronunciation, but again few people actually attempted writing, much less speaking, that way. I, for one, am not even sure they should be included as alternative forms since it was uncommon, being restricted to a few overzealous erudites, and part of a relatively short-lived phenomenon; might be misleading to some users. And yeah, I guess Portuguese and other languages did this to an extent too, but in different ways. Normally, modern Portuguese doesn't maintain the -ct- consonant cluster, but just opts for the -t- (most of these words are still borrowings that occurred at some point in the Middle Ages or Renaissance eras, like actor/ator). Word dewd544 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why it is useful to maintain a distinction between alternative spellings and alternative forms. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

one-time-only
I see you created an entry dependent on one time only, which:
 * 1) Is a redlink
 * 2) Would probably be deleted by the SOP police if created.

<font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The high number of hyphenated instances suggests that it might be idiomatic, and not easily replaceable or divisible. Also, I don’t believe that linking to red entries is prohibited anywhere. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lexicographer's license and registration, please.
 * The mere number of instances is meaningless. Hyphenation of multi-part terms, especially of noun phrases used as adjectives or adverbially, is common. It is highly advisable when it helps avoid ambiguity. One would like to have a KWIC display to see how the words were used. I'd bet that "one-time-only offer" is a fairly common use of the orthography. Without the hyphens it takes a little longer to exclude other groupings of the component terms (eg, one time-only offer). DCDuring TALK 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess it wasn't entirely clear the direction I was going. I was trying to nudge you in the direction of re-writing the definition of one-time-only in a way that doesn't link to one time only. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean to turn it into a worse entry? --WikiTiki89 23:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If one time only is deleted (and it's likely to be the way we tend to interpret it), the entry as written will be pretty bad. I do not consider a definition consisting solely of a "alternative form of REDLINK" to be a particularly effective definition.  At the very least, it looks bad, and we'd be better off with no link at all, i.e. "alternative form of UNLINKED WORD OR PHRASE".  <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point you're failing to grasp is that if one time only is deleted, then one-time-only should also be. Artificially changing the definition of one-time-only to something more obscure just conceals this point. --WikiTiki89 23:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, perhaps you should tack one-time-only on to the RfD for one time only <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A form-of entry doesn't need to be RFD'd separately, but I'll humor you. --WikiTiki89 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

White
How the hell am I violating my ability to be able to edit things, I just feel it's best to add at least two pictures and replace the eye with an actual picture of a white person Zhyboo (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

White article
I just feel it's a little overly dramatic to protect the white page on the wiktionary, over some simple pictures and there needs to be new pics anyway. The picture of the light skinned person with blue eyes doesn't make sense to go for a white person, only for the color of the eye. But you need to be less dramatic and unlock the page. 😐 Zeedavis (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm sorry I thought u were the one who locked the page, forgive me Zeedavis (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: genitori
No, sorry! Ma parlo un po' Italiano! KarikaSlayer (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: aviri
I'll probably make a dedicated template (like ) with all the info in it. KarikaSlayer (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

my misbehaviour
, if you received any e‐mails from me about my election, you may confirm so and paste them here. Oh, and more importantly, if you’ve had the displeasure of reading this nasty polemic by me in October of 2014, do you think that that disqualifies me? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (replied to on vote page) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven’t gotten any email or off-Wiktionary communication from Romanophile regarding his nomination for adminship. As for the polemic, I feel that being able to recognise a concern troll is a good skill for an admin to have. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have received no email from Romanophile whatsoever. To the polemic, I would say that it was ill-advised and should not be repeated. In an unrelated point, I am pleased that Dan is not trying to use his usual line of reasoning to try to undermine how admin votes work. — JohnC5 00:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No email whatsoever. I have read the polemic before, and while it was a bit rash, I can somewhat sympathize with you. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No e-mail for me either. No, I don't think that message disqualifies you. It is old history IMO. If, for the sake of argument, we say that you should be disqualified from adminship because of that message, when does that stop? It's been 1 year and a half already. Would you be qualified again in 2 years? 3 years? Well, just my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't received an e-mail either and I fail to see how it's a crime to send an e-mail saying "hey, in case you're interested, feel free to participate". Romanian Wikipedia does it all the time – and believe you me, it doesn't affect consensus because everybody tends to disagree with each other anyway. This argument is much ado about nothing. Back to the polemic, let bygones be bygones (and so on, and so on...) – maturity comes with experience and opening an old can of worms doesn't make me reconsider my vote. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saying Hi
Hi Seth, It's good to see another young Wiktionarian here.

Folk linguistics
Recently, I’ve come across something similar to what you mentioned in SGB’s talkpage. I am taking an English Literature major in college, and one of my professors claimed that Germanic languages come from Classical Latin (as opposed to Romance languages, which come from Vulgar Latin).

Now, that’s an understandable mistake to make, since Germanic languages (especially English, which she doesn’t speak well) have loads of loanwords directly from CL. But the sad thing came afterwards, when she mentioned that she has a degree in linguistics. Probably in an unscientific field, like sociolinguistics. Kind of made me lose my faith in the course. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

e-mail
I successfully received your e-mail that was unrelated to Wiktionary and was about Speed Racer and I replied to it, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin
Why when we define forms, do we not put the definition directly on their page for example

Adjective

 * 1) suitable, adapted
 * 2) ready
 * 3) apt, proper
 * 4) tied, attached (to)
 * 5) dependent (on)




 * no, because somebody decided that the masculine adjectives (when existent) should be lemma. I don’t know why, but frankly I’d be surprised if misogyny were never once a factor (Rome was indisputably patriarchal). Having an inflected form contain the same information would create extra work because then info from one place would have to be pasted there as well. If the form had unique senses, that would be another matter. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * would it be possible to petition wiktionary for a system to automatically copy the definitions to the forms? I'm primarily thinking from a user's perspective, sometimes when interent is slow it can be difficult to get to the actual definition of the word I'm looking for.


 * you could try asking on the Beer Parlour: . Whether you’ll have any success, I can’t say. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Latin third declension
Do you mind checking these edits? Not really sure they're correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of Latin is not at an expert level, and I think that locative nouns became rare after Old Latin mutated., do you have any comments? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Didn't he just substitute all the locative forms with accusatives? Dead wrong, I reckon. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I always hate checking edits to those appendices, because it's so hard to see what's changed in the diffs alone. But I reverted the whole bunch anyway, because I found one mistake and to me, that makes me lose any trust at all in the anon. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you anyway! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

the -ilk rhymes
Hi. Are you sure about nonsilk, nonmilk, soymilk? I don't think the stress is on the final syllable. Equinox ◑ 11:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I’m not sure. I assumed because the root words are silk and milk. I find stress to be an extremely subtle feature anyway. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin
Romanophile, your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 08:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Aren’t you located in Greenwich Mean Time? In Administrators you wrote "UTC-6 (GMT)". UTC -6 (Coordinated Universal Time minus 6 hours) means Central Standard Time (Central USA, that is). You probably meant UTC/UTC+1 (GMT/BST), —Stephen (Talk) 01:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I think he lives in Texas! Equinox ◑ 01:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I came by to say congratulations on your adminship! Philmonte101 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that. I don’t know where I got the idea that he lived in England. —Stephen (Talk) 10:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reykjavík School of Singing
It looks like we deleted the same page simultaneously. XD --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin
Hi. I came to let you know about this admin vote for Dan Polansky that's going on. Because of our similarities in opinion, I just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to chip in to the discussion. Thanks. :) Philmonte101 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * : thanks. I think that a victory would only further discourage me from contributing, but fortunately for me, I can recognise how good life is without this project. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As mentioned by Dan Polansky here, I don't think Philmonte101 should have called Romanophile based on that reason.
 * Wikipedia has a rule, explained at, that does not apply to Wiktionary but I believe that makes sense: "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions". Sometimes I get a little frustrated when I create a vote and someone that I have seen supporting my idea in discussions does not show up in the vote. But if I start calling supporters individually, it would compromise the normal consensus-making process. If a vote has low attendance or it is not clear if it will reach a consensus, I prefer creating a post in the BP calling everyone at once. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Votes can be overturned in future. I think it's tacky to go hunting for supporters but I don't see why it's illegitimate. If we banned it on here, people would just do it on Skype or Kik or whatever the kids use these days. Equinox ◑ 02:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (Or IRC!) For the record, in, Wikipedia explicitly bans going hunting for supporters in secret using tools like these. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Might be a good rule. Maybe we need yet another vote, to bring that over here. haha. Sorry Romanophile I will get off your page now ;( Equinox ◑ 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Portuguese verb inflection template
Romanophile, can you help me with this template Which wrongly produces instead of the correct Sharkb (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2016‎ (UTC)
 * preterite indicative third-person (nós) of ir
 * third-person singular (ele and ela, also used with você and others) preterite indicative of ir
 * There's an extra parameter in your example. Use . — Ungoliant (falai) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, but the template is used in the exact same way, look at foi - the template parameters are the same as you (and me) specified, but it still produces a "nós" description instead of the correct one. Sharkb (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * missed one. Thanks for bringing this to someone’s attention, by the way. Cheers. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That IP
Hey Romanophile, congrats on passing your RfA here. I just wanted to let you know that I mass-reverted the contributions of the vandal here, but pages he created still exist. Not sure if you've found this yet, but Special:Nuke can very quickly clean those up.

Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Though, some of his contributions seem to be fine. I typically just mass rollback since it denies them the recognition of seeing their work stay, but if some contributions are good and you feel they're worth keeping, let me know. I'd be glad to go back through them and undo the appropriate reverts. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Old Spanish
Romanophile, I don't know whether you are aware of it, but in w:Cantar de Mio Cid, there is an excerpt from the Song of My Cid in Old Spanish, with translations into Modern Spanish and English. The reading of the fragment can be heard in Old Spanish [//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hu/1/14/Oración-Cid.ogg here]. —Stephen (Talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

remember
that we are supposed to be documenting how language is used, and not how it would ideally be used in a perfect society. I assume all these phrases where you have robotically replaced "man" with "woman" are actually in use, right? And if they are rare or nonstandard, you are marking them as rare or nonstandard? Wikt is not your political soapbox. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * : hey, do me a favour and quit messaging me. :^) — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * what's wrong with replacing "man" with "woman"? Sounds quite sexist . . . . . . . Mirrorbird (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Equinox is not being sexist; what he says is the truth. If a phrase is not being used, whether or not it's sexist that it isn't, it shouldn't be here. Perhaps someone should go and check to make sure that all these entries are attested. If "woman about town" is not attested, for example, it shouldn't be here, even though "man about town" is attested and it's sexist how it's "man" and not "woman". PseudoSkull (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * : I do look up the terms before I enter them. That’s why I don’t enter things like crossbowwoman, for example. If he can’t find the results that I find, it’s probably because Google Books is poorly programmed. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 09:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

nosesore

 * 


 * Je ne suis pas sûr ce que tu veux, mais j’ai crée la entrée.
 * Not sure what you want, but I made the entry. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merci. "l'entrée", not "la entrée"!! --2A02:2788:A4:F44:C9B4:D255:81E1:6772 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

a small request: huwoman (~human)
Hello. ,,. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did it first. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Judeo-French entries
I noticed you added a few entries in Judeo-French. I think this is a bad idea without at least having some access to actual texts in the language, beyond just glosses and glossaries, and verifying that the word you're adding actually appears in the text. Do you know of anywhere online that we can access Judeo-French manuscripts? --WikiTiki89 15:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the Handbook isn't reliable enough of a source? Considering how hard it is to read some of the manuscripts, it might be more reliable to work with peer-reviewed transcriptions. Does the Handbook have transcriptions of texts? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I forgot that the Handbook transcribes a few excerpts. But still, what I'm saying is we should limit ourselves to adding words that we actually see appear in those excerpts, and again excluding the glosses (5.1) and glossaries (5.2). --WikiTiki89 21:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t know if there is an online depository of Judeo‐French texts, but the source that I gave does have some snapshots of the manuscripts. Many of the manuscripts seem to derive from Der altfranzösische Fiebertraktat Fevres, though I am unsure if there is a (legal) way to access that resource online. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All I meant was, I think we should only be adding words that we've seen appear in the texts (whether manuscripts or transcriptions, including the transcriptions in your source), rather than in the glosses or glossaries, or those mentioned in the body of the article in your source. --WikiTiki89 21:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean something like nonfictional examples? There are some featured in that book, but I have to admit that some of the entries that I already submitted may lack corresponding examples. I was working under the assumption that while mentions don’t count for popular and vivid languages, they’re acceptable for ones that went extinct. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean by nonfictional. Mentions are only acceptable after editors who work with the language have agreed on a set of acceptable sources for mentions, and scholarly works don't count for that anyway. But also, if we treat Judeo-French as part of Old French, then I would say it's better not to add the Judeo-French spellings of words only attested as mentions, after all their equivalents are already present in the Latin spelling. I do realize that you've already added words that don't follow that, and that is why I brought this up. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by both of you. Wikitiki, can you please give a specific example of a Judeo-French entry that you think should not exist? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't think they should exist, but I don't think they should have been created without verification. For example,, and probably most of the other ones that Romanophile created. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that entry not verified? It has a link to the Handbook wherein the spelling and meaning are confirmed, and a quotation transcribed from a manuscript by Pflaum (1933) including the word is given. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, it's a romanized transcription, not simply a transcription, making it not clear what the original spelling is. (I was also going to say that unless someone here has access to "Pflaum 1933", we don't even know which text it is from, but it turns out "Pflaum 1933" is available online.) --WikiTiki89 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The handbook gives the Hebrew transcription for the word in question, making it quite clear what the original spelling is. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm opposed to. We should see the word in its original context in the original script. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That standard is not usually applied, and although it is obviously preferable, it may not actually be possible in some instances. I don't agree that it is necessary, in any case, and I don't know of any consensus to that effect either. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that then we are just starting to add words in a language, we should go for the verifiable ones first. Once we've got those down, we'll have an editor or editors who have built up some familiarity with the language and can go add the words that are not as easily verifiable. There are a couple passages quoted in full in the Handbook in the original script. Let's start with the words that appear in those. What we don't need is editors with very little familiarity with the language simply copying words from other sources. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Spanish plural forms
Hey. You don't need to make the Spanish plural forms. does that every so often, and is 10,000 faster than anyone else. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, I've noticed you're not swearing or getting stroppy so much these days. That's fucking great for you. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (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)