User talk:Thecurran

For quicker response, please try w:user talk:thecurran. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 07:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't use redirects very much here. Every word gets its own definition. I'll change one of those for you. Here is our standard welcome. SemperBlotto 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

BTW, lately online people've been taking my approach as antagonistic, even though I don't want to hurt or offend anyone. I am not used to the online community any more. Please, give me the benefit of the doubt & try to look at what I mean as a suggestion or a seeking of advice, but not a flame. Thecurran 05:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've replied at length on my talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to be offensive. I realize you are unfamiliar with this process. RFV is a very well honed process. The word has been adequately cited, so there need be no further discussion under the normal process. I apologize that my shortness about this whole issue became directed toward you. Rod (A. Smith) 07:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem here! It wasn't curt at all. You were completely right. I've seen a few of your edits so far. You're pretty good & fast to boot. I left a msg saying so on yr page in SMS-talk so that you can feel comfortable deleting it as many people won't understand it. I thought it also might make a fun little game for you, with your obvious prowess. :) Thecurran 07:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Yes, I use text messaging, too, but my phone has a full keyboard so I don't type such shortcuts very often. I took the liberty of excerpting your earlier comment above mine because my tone makes little sense with your revised text. Speaking of removing comments, though, if you'd like that excerpt of yours removed from WT:RFV, just say so and I'll remove my comments as well, essentially everything from that section after “Mebbe I'm wrong, & my newbie-ness's showin'. (; Thecurran 06:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)”. And, like I said, I will be more patient. Would you prefer that?  :-) Rod (A. Smith) 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Your message was Л3з7-ish, not SMS-ese. They look similar at times, but yes, it's comprehensible. Rod (A. Smith) 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I like your use of Cyrillic there; it brings joy to the Askenazi, Ukranian, and Russian in me. ^_^ Thecurran 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, what part of the Ukraine? My grandmother was from Kolomyia, in Galicia. —Ruakh_TALK 05:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

w:Kherson City; back when w:Ukraine was part of the w:USSR, one of my brothers and one of my sisters were born there. That brother has a birthday I'm looking forward to tomorrow, 2007-09-04, and he and his son just celebrated w:Father's Day with me yesterday. Thecurran 05:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

O.K., well, so, nowhere near each other. Ah, well. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've cleaned up Archbishop of Canterbury to follow our formatting guidelines and remove non-dictionary information; please take a look. (In general, I think the term might not be suited to the dictionary — I think it really means simply "the Archbishop seated in Canterbury", and I'm fairly sure there were Archbishops of Canterbury before the Church of England even existed — but if no one else is requesting its deletion, I'll assume there's something here I don't know.)

—Ruakh_TALK 04:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problems. I've read a lot of your contributions in the backlog. You obviously know your stuff so I respect you and submit to your opinions on this. I only created it because the C of E > Church of England > Anglican Church article, as mentioned in the WT:TR, wikilinked to it and it had never been created. If I find a "red link", I feel like following it and:

if it's never been created, create it.

if it has

and has a weak reason for deletion, raise the issue with the deleter.

and has a strong reason, unwikify the red link.

To me, this seems like the right action plan. If you do delete it, please unlink the pages that link to it first or tell me beforehand so I can do it. Thank you for your help.

BTW, I'm sure the See of Canterbury and its archbishop both preceded Anglicanism. It quite possibly doesn't belong here, but it would be nice to have a clear deletion log for it. On second thought, maybe such a generic term should've linked to w:Archbishop of Canterbury instead of Archbishop of Canterbury in the first place. What do you think? Thecurran 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I've brought this to Wiktionary:Tea room, whence it might move to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion; please put in your 2¢ when you have a chance. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

In case I’ve been coming over as harsh and critical — I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help, and I believe that if you continue in this vein, you will soon become a valued contributor here. However, that requires that you properly assimilate here, and recognise that we do things differently from Wikipedia — please try not to assume too much commonality (particularly when it comes to “wikilove” and such). “Wiktionary ≠ Wikipedia”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're not too harsh. My online skin's thickened up a bit in the last month. I'm using Wiktionary to deal with my insomnia right now. You can tear my edits to shreds if it seems like the right thing to do. I think I might be the only regular contributor that lives East of UTC+1 and West of UTC-8, which means I seem to have the run of about 14 time zones of off-time. As such, when I edit it looks like a huge slew of just me but this really is over a wide stretch of time and would appear differently if I lived in the Atlantic Hemisphere. If you have a specific issue to address with me, go for it. I hope I get less annoying as time passes. :) Thecurran 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, here’s the specific issue: please don’t over-abbreviate your edit summaries — they can be very difficult to read. Though you have limited space in summaries and their purpose is to summarise succinctly what changes or comments you made, they also must be, above anything else, comprehensible. Specifically, please ensure that section names in edit summaries always match what they are on that page (unlike in this revision, where you changed it from “Usage notes” to “Us'g”) — otherwise, clicking on the arrow doesn’t take you to the right section (this is of particular importance on big pages, such as the High volume discussion pages). Thanks. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Point taken. It's a strong one I know, but I find it really hard to get enough information down to avoid contestation. Next time I won't change the header reference at all. I didn't know it had any linkable value. For High Volume Discussions, I'm happy to leave briefer descriptions because people can ask what I mean. Sorry.

1) Are there any guides as to what abbreviations are acceptable in smaller entries?

2) Would an ellipsis at the end be sufficient to show that I have a good idea what I'm talking about but not enough space to show it, so someone should contact me if they want an explanation? Thecurran 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note that summaries should be just that. If a summary of what you post requires more than the length of the summary line, consider that your post may have so many talking points that TLDR may result. Rod (A. Smith) 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

For discussion pages it's not essential to have any edit summary besides just the section link (the /* ... */ part); many editors don't add anything, or just add "reply". Personally, I typically choose one sentence or clause that encapsulates the key concept of the comment, and use that. —Ruakh_TALK 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I read your comment in WT:TR#branches_of_government about my comment "How about a trade-off? in hospital and branches of government?" This was nothing more than a sideways reference to the long and so far unresolved discussion in "deletion" WT:RFD#in_the_hospital. I am well aware of those special grammatical forms (although it never hurts to remind !!) The question revolves around whether in hospital and in the hospital have an idiomatic sense very ill or injured. (I maintain that they do BTW, based on:- My wife is a doctor. She can be at, out of, away from, etc the hospital. But if I say she is in hospital, people will ask what's wrong with her health, even though they know she is a medic.) You will see that I am very into idiomatic phrases, set expressions, phrasal verbs, prepositional phrases, and modal auxiliaries. Basically anything that is a chunk rather than a word. :-) -- Algrif 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

ALL entries MUST start with a ==language== line. This one also needs a "see also" for hidalgo. SemperBlotto 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I've fixed all of those Mexican entries now.--Thecurran 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your contributions, we do appreciate them. However, could you please take a moment to re-read WT:ELE. Your recents edits are all missing a ==Language== heading, which is required in Wiktionary. See my edit to Guanajuato to see how to correctly format. Thanks, --Keene 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. I mistakenly assumed that = = = { { es-proper noun } } = = = was supposed to work like = = = { { abbreviation } } = = = in adding both the appropriate headers and tags and a minor glitch was preventing the language from showing up. I've gotten on top of it now. :) --Thecurran 12:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, amazing stuff you've been doing - just to let you know that I don't think you need to add the lowercase Country Code entries as they are normally uppercase - or have you cottoned onto something as yet unknown to me? Conrad.Irwin 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right. I was just trying to pacify an old friend though. Happy New Year's by the way! :)--Thecurran 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok - Happy New Year to you as well! It feels like ages ago, but I suppose it was only a fortnight. Yours, with great respect for your patience, Conrad.Irwin 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest that you include the dates when these official names came into being, as I think that some of them are recent creations (would not want to mislead the reader into thinking that these have been official since each respective country came into existence). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll do my best to correct that now. Some of them are still bones of international contention but are the best versions to use, as shown on the UN website. --Thecurran 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is terribly important, but if you want to, great! Conrad.Irwin 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that would probably come across as too encyclopedic, so I'll just link each one over to its Wikipedia article in a = = = See Also = = = section. Does that sound fair, User:BD2412? --Thecurran 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add Category:Political subdivisions to the provinces you are adding? Or even better, go further and create Category:Provinces of Indonesia and put that into Category:Political subdivisions as a subcategory and those pages into that. Greets, Mutante 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm just trying to figure out how to incorporate those now. ;P --Thecurran 22:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You fixed my mistake before I even saw it. --Thecurran 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. :) --Dijan 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Looks fine to me. Did I delete it a long time ago, or something? --Dvortygirl 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Someone had written junk in it, you deleted it, and it had been left alone for a year.--Thecurran 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out the problem. We didn't have any particular format for such things that I know of. Arguably we should, but only the very most common things seem to have them. Perhaps we we should have models for various types of entries or senses or relationships or problems. Please take a look and see whether it is adequate, whether there is something wrong or something that could be further improved. Cititicize, propose a solution, or fix it according to your taste. Thanks again. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This was written in response to Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2008/March#lain. :)--Thecurran 05:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

google books:necropoles google books:necropolises google books:necropoleis:)--Thecurran 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your spam on my user page. I will not be voting in the inappropriate and non-standard vote on meta, especially so since it is currently violating its own polling standards which were chosen in opposition to expressed community input. Best regards - Amgine/^talk 02:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

None particularly taken. You might wish to realize two points, however: unsolicited messages only obscurely related to one's participation in a project are often perceived as spam, and both a book and tiles are translingual ideographs. - Amgine/^talk 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not stand against all book logos but that one clearly uses English on magnification and, even in miniature, it has a clear directionality of horizontal, left-to-right. As such, it contrasts starkly with official UN languages Arabic and Chinese. This is what makes that particular logo not translingual.

Is there a more appropriate way of bringing this information to the attention of en-WT admins that have yet to vote?

The vote link is m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

While I'm neither in favour nor opposed to either candidate, I'm aware that each might be further modified to suit the needs of a translingual logo - for example removing any indication of horizontal writing as many languages are not. (I do have an objection to both logos as they do not in any way suggest the digital nature of Wiktionary, and in fact both strongly suggest the limitations of physical representations of language.)

I do not know of a more appropriate method of contacting en.Wiktionary administrators beyond the Beer Parlour and the Site notice, both of which have been used. Have you considered they may be aware of the vote and are choosing not to participate? Several Wiktionaries have discussed not abiding by the results of this poll, but only by their community members' decisions as this poll was imposed on them and is dominated by en.Wikipedia voters. - Amgine/^talk 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

i just added the information to WT:BP#Wiktionary_logo_vote. For later reference, part of this conversation occurred on User talk:Amgine#Logo_vote.

Oh, I'd like to thank you, as Amgine did, for spamming my talk page with an unwanted message that is clearly canvassing. No matter your reasoning, the tile logo is frankly, a piece of crap, and while I will be voting, I am ONLY voting to make sure that the piece of crap that we rejected years ago does not get onto the Wiktionary. It is visually unattractive, distracting, and rather annoying to look at. Not to mention that the entire vote, imposed and dominated by people who only touched Wiktionaries in any language in order to participate in the vote, who have little to NO contributions on a local witkonary, is a farse. Please consider this in the future before canvassing administrators, as to whether or not it will be taken well to begin with. Good day. --Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm frankly uninterested in what you think of my manners or my lack of tact. Additionally, I tend to not pay very much attention when chatspeak is used instead of proper English spelling. This is, after all, a project with a primarily lexical and linguistic focus. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 03:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing out that the vote has gone to the second stage. You should probably have linked contumelious since I had to look it up (good thing I had wiktionary open at the time<G>). RJFJR 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was the Wiktionary word of the day at the time and it was my first chance that day to use it. i will be careful to link it next time. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/May#Glottal_stops. Equinox ◑ 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I was just wondering why in the translingual sections for the Devanagari script you add a translingual section. The Devanagari script does not have alternative forms in other scripts; they may corresponding forms perhaps, and for example on कौ, कउ is certainly not an alternative form, nor corresponding. And should they be corresponding forms, I do not think the Latin script would be included; only the other Indic scripts would correspond. Also, I have no idea how my tone really comes across online, but be assured that I have no intentions of being rude or condescending. DerekWinters (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're absolutely right; thanks for catching my mistake. At the moment, I honestly don't know how to fix the pi-alt template to correctly display these diphthong-ish examples, so I left a message on the page of its creator. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 13:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I would just remove the template. Do you have any reasons for keeping it? DerekWinters (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done; I've removed it on कौ as per User talk:Octahedron80#pi-alt but now I know how to construct a stronger module so, after I've done that, You might later see a similar template with kau --> कौ; not कउ. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 18:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'm glad to finally see the transligual entries for Devanagari, especially as I was always too lazy to put them up myself. :) DerekWinters (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why are you making all these syllable senses for Devanagari entries? It is, to put it straightforwardly, a waste of time. Syllables aren't even actual letters, and the entries you have made just duplicate existing entries. Sorry if this seems rude, but I don't want you to expend your time and energy. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Having looked at some of them again, I realize that they can be useful for learners, and they aren't too much work to create. Sorry for my remarks, they were rash and unneeded. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I second the first comment here. I left a message at Category talk:Translingual syllables#Significance several days ago, but perhaps the ping didn't work. I still think these entries should not be included. They are not single Unicode symbols, nor are they an exhaustive list of Devanagari syllables (per Sanskrit phonology). The Translingual "pronunciations" on these entries are actually Sanskrit pronunciations, and the "alternative forms" are a misuse of the {{pi-alt}} template. This kind of support should be added to the search functionality, as more intelligent search support (e.g. return "You appear to have entered a Devanagari-script word. The possible transliteration of this word is .... Please see Wiktionary:Devanagari script (which explains how the script and transliteration system work)."). These entries are part of a bottomless pit. Wyang (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply