User talk:Tygrrr

From Wiktionary

My user page · Talk to me · See my archives: one · two

[change] zem

Hi, Tygrrr. Since you're an admin, could you delete this test page? Thanks, Tempodivalse ^@en.wikinews 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It was just deleted by Brett (talk · contributions). Never mind. Tempodivalse ^@en.wikinews 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] Details

Thanks for your attention to detail in going to. I think those are simple but useful changes.--Brett 17:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. You gave me a good base to start with :-) · Tygrrr... 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. SUL 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Let me know if you have any questions. You seem to know about our formatting, are/were you a regular at another Wiktionary? · Tygrrr... 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited any other Wiktionary projects, but I regularly search for definitions on en.wiktionary so I know how the formatting works. Is there an Editor Review process here like w:en:Wikipedia:Editor review? SUL 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing formal like that. We're very small, only have a handful of editors. People are generally able to directly ask people's thoughts either on their talk pages or on Simple talk. · Tygrrr... 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. SUL 16:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] Wikitravel Iowa regions

Hi Lindsey, I noticed that you once took an interest in making sense of Iowa's travel regions for Wikitravel, and hoped I might be able to get your input on a draft regions map I made for the state. The discussion is here [1]. (Sorry to be so off-topic—I figured this would be the best place to reach you.) Your input would be much appreciated! --Peter 01:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] Cot-caught merger

I don't think this means much to non-linguists.--Brett 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to create a page on it and link to it. · Tygrrr... 01:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] Admin action needed

Hallo, Tygrrr. Please see WT:A, there's a new request for administrator assistance at the bottom of the page. Thank you, Tempodivalse 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] self portrait

If you see the description the picture illustrating sketch, you can see that it is a self portrait. So I mean this drawing is promoting its author? --Penarc 01:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's a self-portrait. But it's not really promoting the person who sketched it and I don't see anything wrong with using it. If Commons has a problem with it being spam or something like that, it will be deleted. I really don't see that happening though. · Tygrrr... 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[change] Expressions

Did I get the templates and categories right?--Brett 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks like it. Good work. Once the system catches up and Cat:Phrases clears out, we can delete it. One thing I question though is your changes to African American. I'm unconvinced that it's an expression. I would classify it the same as other nationalities, and would claim that dual nationalities (African American, Asian American, French Canadian) should be treated the same as single nationalities (American, Chinese, African, French). I'm interested in your reasoning for it as an expression. · Tygrrr... 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it different from recent American or young American?--Brett 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I've never heard those terms before, I would say "recent American" and "young American" are like "red ball" and "fluffy cloud", in other words, they're simply an adjective and a noun. I wouldn't classify any of those as phrases or expressions. I'm not sure how to explain what I mean any better than re-stating that I would classify "African American" as a dual nationality which should be treated the same as all other nationalities (single or dual). · Tygrrr... 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But African is simply an adjective modifying the noun American. No different.--Brett 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. And I think you know it, because you wouldn't be suggesting it be classified as an expression if that's all it was. It's a compound nationality and thus a noun and also arguably an adjective (at the very least a noun used attributively). · Tygrrr... 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it qualifies as an expression because of its idiomatic meaning referring to skin colour. If F. W. de Klerk happened to become an naturalized American, how many people would be comfortable calling him and African-American? And there's the other side of it where the US vice president referred to Mandela as an African American. The meaning obviously goes beyond dual-nationality in a way that British-German doesn't.--Brett 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from but I still disagree. The fact that the definition can be somewhat complicated does not negate my rationale. As has been mentioned before, I (and others) believe it's best to classify words the way they are commonly classified. We should reflect society's word usage, not redefine/recreate/reclassify it. As nationalities are commonly classified as nouns, and sometimes adjectives, I propose we do the same. · Tygrrr... 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two issues. First, when, if even, are hyphenated nationalities SOP and, second, when they are not SOP, what do we classify them as. My feeling is that Yemeni Brazilian is just what any English speaker who knows the words Brazilian and Yemeni thinks it is: SOP. There's no special meaning beyond what one would expect from Brazilian modified by Yemeni. I do not think we need such entries.

As I've show, African American is not simply SOP, and so deserves an entry. But, syntactically, it is clearly a phrase headed by American and modified by African. There is nothing at all unusual about it that would make one think it functions syntactically as a unit in the way that, for example, a little does. It's an idiomatic expression, and either a NP or an AdjP.--Brett 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[change] Synonyms

Could you please comment here?--Brett 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[change] Patrolling?

Hi there. This is just a little check in. A few days ago, you posted a message on my talk page about the way pages should be patrolled, and I just want to see if I am doing it right. I know that I probably miss a few things here in there, but I believe that I am doing a good job overall. Thanks in advance, Razorflame 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you're following those guidelines, I'm sure you're doing fine. I don't think I've come across anything you've patrolled lately yet. I just finally got to Brett's big creation streak from the first week of August, so I've obviously still got a terrible backlog. I see that your recent patrols are of things created in the past few days. I checked a couple randomly and didn't see any issues. Seems like you're doing fine, but I'll let you know if I see anything. · Tygrrr... 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input! I just wanted to make sure that what I was doing was the right thing (I was pretty sure it was) before I continue doing changes like them in the future. Now that I know that they are good, I can make the edits without any inhibitions :). I mainly go through the pages that have not been patrolled yet and look through them for any range of fixes including missing parts of speech, pronunciations, synonyms, antonyms, alternative spellings, missing templates, definitions in need of copyediting, and other such errors. There have been a few words that I have been unsure if they were real words, such as backgrounding, but I usually go through Google Books as well as a few other online dictionaries to see if it is attested or not. If I find that it is not attested or something like that, I delete the page with the no attestation rule. Anyways, just wanted to let you know how great of a job you've been doing for the Simple English Wiktionary! Keep up the hard work ;). I burned myself out yesterday after making those 170+ edits ;). Anyways, I should be editing again later tonight or early tomorrow. Until then, Razorflame 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[change] Glad

I'm glad to see you back and editing! It was lonely without you. Let me help get you back in the loop:

While you've been gone, Flcelloguy, gmcfoley, and H2g2bob were all desysopped due to inactivity, and H2g2bob is no longer a bureaucrat. Tempodivlase, Barras, and Pmlinediter all successfully ran for administrator, and I successfully ran for bureaucrat. We recently adopted a desysopping policy Wiktionary:Desysop policy or something of that sort, and we've added in the rollbacker group.

Cheers, Razorflame 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and congrats! · Tygrrr... 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems, and thank you. It means a lot coming from you :). Cheers, Razorflame 21:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)