Wiktionary:Simple talk/Archive 11

Add links
From Wiktionary

Feedback[change]

Does anyone support the idea of enabling this on this simple.wikt? In my opinion it is not only a way of getting feedback, but also a way of getting to see how many visitors are come to this wiki. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 06:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I think "anonymous" is a bit misleading since the user's IP address gets publicly logged in the page history... — Wenli (reply here) 04:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree here. This might enable us to gather more anonymous users and potentially, more new users for this site, which I think would be a good thing. Razorflame 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was revering to the JavaScript here. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone still supporting this idea? --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the link? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the link? --Mikemoral♪♫ 01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redlink. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I'll try the full URL. --Mikemoral♪♫ 05:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great idea to me. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, go for it. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) Yup, good idea. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User:Conrad.Irwin at en.wikt to see how it should be set up for simple.wikt. --Mikemoral♪♫ 00:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Enabled. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I set up WT:FEED. --Mikemoral♪♫ 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet memes[change]

Hi there all. Instead of writing individual entries for every Internet meme, I think that we should write one central list of Internet memes, and redirect all of the individual memes to the centralized list of memes. That is the way that the English Wiktionary does it. Any thoughts on this? Razorflame 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals entries on listed on a single appendix perhaps? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most wanted pages.[change]

I've made an experimental list of most wanted pages at User:Wenli/Most wanted. This list is intended to combine User:Creol/Most wanted with User:Tygrrr/Pages Simple English Wikipedia says we have, using updated data from database dumps. I think that using link data from the Simple Wikipedia more acurately reflects which pages are "most wanted", rather than using local link data. — Wenli (reply here) 07:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a good idea. -Barras talk 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the inclusion of this page. It will help our cause more :). Cheers, Razorflame 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea. Thanks for creating the list. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, better than a popular list based on local links. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plural[change]

how can the word favorite be pluralized

Favorites? Pmlineditor ∞ 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio bot[change]

I'm running my audio bot DerbethBot now. If you have time, please take a look at its edits and let me know if anything is not ok. --Derbeth talk 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is already flagged, then chances are that its' edits were approved already, but I'll take a further look at them to determine if they are good for this site or not. Cheers, Razorflame 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finished looking at about 10 of its' edits, and there is just one very small detail that would help: Could you have your bot add a space in between the asterisk and the start of the audio template?
Example: *_{{audio Thanks, Razorflame 00:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, in 'Pronunciation' section usually there is no space after asterisk, see always. --Derbeth talk 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! That needs to be fixed, then :) Hmm...I need to go figure out how to fix that. Cheers, Razorflame 09:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can set my bot to do some simple cosmetic work at the same time it adds audio files - so it can add correctly indented audio entries and fix indentation in 'Pronunciation' section. I only need to know for sure, it should be done according to current rules. :) --Derbeth talk 13:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least I do normally add an underscore between the asterisk and the coming thing. I think it would be fine this way. Please do some test edits with the new settings and give me (or any other crat) a hint to approve the bot for this task as well. Regards, -Barras talk 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the latest edits of my bot. --Derbeth talk 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think they are fine, but I'm not one of the godly crats. ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency sysops[change]

Hi there! Well, last night we had an incident with crosswiki socks and troll (all blocked last night). The problem is that we only have fairly inactive administrators here on this wiki. I talked last night to Fr33kman, a crat/cu on simpleWP, to give out the sysop tool for Wiktionary to some of the regulars on WP who are also often around on IRC especially in the cvn-simplewikis countervandalism channel. The people I'm thinking about are Juliancolton (admin@multiple projects including enwiki, meta and crat@simpleWP), Jamesofur (cu@simpleWP, sysop@meta), PeterSymonds (sysop@multiple projects including enwiki, simpleWP), Bsadowski1 (sysop@simpleWP) and Fr33kman (crat/cu@simpleWP). To some of them I've talked already about this on IRC and to some others will do this soon to ensure they agree with having the flag here. They all will only be allowed to use the tools if clearly no regular sysop is around to handle this and also only if it is urgent. This means they shouldn't do regular deletion when there is no rush to do it.

I think I'll give out the flags this evening even if no one agrees or opposes in this short time here. I think this is beneficial for our project to ensure that it keeps clean. If someone strongest disagrees with one of the mentioned user, so please say it here and give a reason why he shouldn't have the tools even if the comment is after I granted the tools. It is not a problem to remove the tools after they were granted (Just in this case, I would take care of it).

I hope you understand my reasoning.

Kindly -Barras talk 12:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal since in SimpleWikt, (like many other small wikis) vandals get full freedom to vandalize/troll at the times when no admin is available. If we hand out sysop to some trusted members of the SimpleWP community, it will surely help Wikt. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be honored to help. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I misunderstood what Barras meant to say... fwiw, I support emergency admins; however, I think that there should be a short discussion at RfA before the crat grants the right, even if it be for 24 hours. I don't want a crat granting admin to users citing "trust" as is done in the case of rollback. Some of these users may not have the community's trust. I don't want sysoppings and running in search of stewards to desysop X/Y/Z since they distrust the user. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) Striking per private discussion with the user who proposed this. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threat is overblown. The simple English Wiktionary has never had a big problem with vandalism and though stewards have stepped in upon occasion, the vandalism would have lasted only a few hour without their intervention. That doesn't seem to be a big deal. On the other hand, giving other people the ability to stop vandalism doesn't seem a big deal either.--Brett (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true that we don't get many vandals here, but if they come here, so do their best to do as many damage as possible and it is much easier to when we get them when they start instead of doing a "one-hour-cleaning-up" afterwards. When vandals discover a wiki is kinda empty and no one seems to be around to stop them, they vandalize even more. Barras talk 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if the Global sysop proposal passes, they will have the same ability as sysops on this wiki. So we "appoint" people we want instead of having unknown people using the sysop tool here. -Barras talk 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GS likely is going to fail. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, I don't think it's done yet but it will depend on a coupel things. However, as JC said I'd be happy to help in emergencies if you want it. Jamesofur (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm on when the vandalism usually happens and I would take action if it does. --Bsadowski1 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) Julian, James and Brian have been granted the mop for emergency uses only. I wait for reaply from the others. Barras talk 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived my RFA as I just want emergency sysop. fr33kman t - c 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mop granted. I wait for PeterSymonds ro ask him before granting the mop. Barras talk 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if necessary, for emergencies only. I have no intention of being an active editor here (as long as that is understood). PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with this move. How will we be able to tell what consists of an "emergency action"? That is completely subjective and chances are that they won't be able to use it only in emergency situations. Since bureaucrats can remove the sysop flag now, I think that we should only be granting emergency sysop powers temporarily, not permanently. While some may disagree that this would defeat the purpose of what you guys are trying to accomplish here (by having more administrators who would be able to handle the very sporadic cases of heavy vandalism that occurs here. In my honest opinion, the amount of vandalism that this Wikipedia receives does not condone the use of "emergency sysops" and I whole-heartedly oppose the use of this permanent emergency sysop because of the reasons above. I would be fine with people getting the flag granted temporarily to do something only admins can do or to clean up some vandalism, but I definitely do not approve of permanent emergency sysops. Razorflame 00:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • One: Any vandal from 2200 on has free reign over the wiki without involving stewards. Two: An emergency is defined as blocking vandals, deleting vandalism/edits, etc. Three: Vandals are permanent, why shouldn't the admins be? Once the wiki gets more non-emergency admins, some of the emergency admins can be removed. There is no point in having emergency admins that are temporary. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really an editor here, but I dont get why you don't just use the Global Sysop process for this since it appears to have succeeded. -Djsasso (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time this was done, I was told that GS will fail. People said that at least 80% of the voters must be in favour (which has been changed lately). Now the border seems to 75% which means it passes. Barras talk 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disable talk page in block settings[change]

I was wondering if the community would agree to enable the flag to disallow talk page changing by blocked users. If the community agrees, a BugZilla request will be filed... Pmlineditor ∞ 12:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. Until we makes this, I can protect the pages if needed. -Barras talk 12:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.--Brett (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why not? —§ stay (sic)! 22:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, go for it. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) Sure, I agree. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change--> edit[change]

Some of you might be aware that Simple Wikipedia recently altered "change" to the default of "edit". I think SimpleWikt should follow suit - our audience may not be native speakers, but surely, all of them know what is "editing". If needed, we can also link to edit. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also "edit" is shorter and I think it looks better. I'm in favour of such a change... -Barras talk 12:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change is in the top 1000 words of English. Edit isn't.--Brett (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit this page sounds more appropriate, imo. —§ stay (sic)! 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Brett on this. Although edit is shorter, change is on the basic Simple English list. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Brett and Griffin here. "Change this page" would, IMHO, make much better sense than simply "Edit" or "Edit this page" for those with a very poor grasp of English, even if it is a bit wordy. (Hey, that's our goal right, to express things as simply as possible? ) Tempodivalse [talk] 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change is more simple, edit is not. I support Brett's decision at this time. Razorflame 00:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent)Okay, let it remain as it is. I think some more MW pages need creating (other than those I already created). Pmlineditor ∞ 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More proposals...[change]

Okay, after giving some though to it, I think it would be best if crats could desysop admins here. Simple Wikipedia crats already can do this; I think it'll be best to do things locally... I think we trust our crats enough to grant them this right. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections form me (Even if I have a COI)... -Barras talk 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there so much attention to who's got what privileges? What about the hard work of making high-quality entries with clear, simple definitions with useful examples?--Brett (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why not? Also while we're doing this, can we also make "change this page" to "edit this page"? —§ stay (sic)! 22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See one header above. Barras talk 22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:22522 —§ stay (sic)! 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Post-factum support (probably have a COI being a 'crat though). Brett has a point though, we really ought to focus more on the content side of the project. Although, i'm not one to talk, not having edited for months :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 02:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters any longer, but I highly support this recommendation because if bureaucrats are able to desysop sysops, then we can basically be self-sufficient. We won't need to go crying to the stewards every time we want to desysop a sysop here, and that is a good thing. Razorflame 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit ranks[change]

Would the community be willing to set up a page similar to this here on Wiktionary? It is a list of users ranked by number of edits updated daily by a bot (which would need bot flag). I think Wiktionary:List of Wiktionarians by number of changes (based on the enWikt one) would be the place it would have to go. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with me. If you get a bot op to update this page regulary, it would be nice. Barras talk 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just link here and get on with improving the dictionary?--Brett (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daily updates from a bot is an advantage. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that there isn't one already. Anywho a list would be nice. —§ stay (sic)! 09:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-Also, would you like two lists (one with bots and without, as on simpleWP), or one list (with bots or without)? How many entries (names) would you like on the list (simpleWP has 500)? Griffinofwales (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one list without bots would be enough, but I wouldn't mind two lists. 500 may be a bit much. I don't think that we had so many people editing here. 100 should be enough. Barras talk 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you decide how many users, and if one or two lists, please, give flag to User:BOTijo and notice me in Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks. Emijrp (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, I hate to spoil the fun and be a grouch, but Brett really has a point here. Why are we worrying about minor things like edit count when we need to improve the dictionary itself? (Of course, I'm not exactly one to talk since i haven't edited recently, but I was very busy/distracted on other wikis. When I have free time I always try to expand the project though :-b ) Since you've proposed it though, and everyone seems to want it, may as well get on with it though. I think a list with 100 top users (no bots) would be best. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysops[change]

I remember having the huge discussion about whether the GS wiki set should include this wiki as well. At that time, it had not been enabled in Meta; however, now it is. Since we will not be opted in by default (since we have >10 sysops, including emergency sysops), I think it is best if the community discusses about this. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was last updated, I was told the the current percentage is around 75%. To get global sysops, the percentage should be over 80%. Conclusion: No need to discuss this at this point in time. Barras talk 13:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GS passed... it's time to discuss. Barras talk 14:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have 2 choices (IMO). We could de-sysop the emergency sysops and let GS handle the emergencies, since we would then be eligible for GS, Sor we could keep it local. I'm not sure which one I want yet. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't actually matter to me. Both options have pros and cons. I'd like to keep it local (or at least on simple instead of global base), but I wouldn't mind to desysop the emergency sysops and join the GS. Barras talk 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense for you to remove the emergency sysops and move to global sysops which is meant to be the standardized way of handling this situation that you guys tried to solve in your own way. There really isn't much sense in doing things differently from everyone else. -Djsasso (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) I say remove emergency sysops, thus automatically allowing GSes. Two of the emergency sysops and likely to become GSes, so it doesn't matter much. The only reason why emergency sysop was enabled (imho) was because we all thought GS was going to fail. Since it hasn't, it is a better idea to standardize. Pmlineditor ∞ 05:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for the record, I support enabling global sysops. We just don't have enough admins in enough timezones to cover all times of the day, UTC 02.00-07.00 is especially vulnerable (the last couple of IP attacks really highlight this weak spot). I mean, all those users have been massively *trusted* only to use their bits when absolutely necessary, on pain of demotion. :-) As far as the local emergency admins are concerned, don't really care either way - although may as well leave them, just for extra backup. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) OK. I take care that we opt.in into global sysop interface and remove the emergency sysops when the first global ones are elected. Barras talk 09:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are opted-in now. Elections are ongoing, but I keep watching it to remove the emergency sysops. Barras talk 09:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates:prefix and suffix[change]

I know I've been gone and have missed quite a bit, but why in the world were template:prefix and template:suffix deleted? It said "deleted per consensus", yet I find nothing in the Requests for Deletion or Simple Talk that has any discussion whatsoever regarding deletion. There was a discussion around that time on Simple Talk about having them in etymologies which was shot down since we have decided not to use Etymology sections. But in no way does that indicate that we should delete the template to be used as a part of speech template in the same way that we have {{noun}}, {{expression}} or {{letter}}. I'd like to restore it immediately, unless there is something here that I am missing. Thanks. · Tygrrr...

I agree, i don't know why it was deleted and I don't recall any request for deletion being filed for it (although, admittedly, i haven't been that much more active either recently), and can't find anything in the archives for it. In any case, it seems like a useful template and I'd support restoring it. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and restored with the function that it should be used as. · Tygrrr... 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania Scholarships[change]

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

Regulated[change]

There is something wrong with regulated.

I used control as a template for creating this entry about a past tense and past participle of regulate; but unwanted spelling errors are created -- regulateed? regulateeing?

  • What should I have done differently?
  • What do I need to know so that I could have fixed the error I created?
do this: {{verb|regulat|e}}--Brett (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, regulated is a verb, not an adjective. Yes, it's used as a modifier, but that doesn't make it an adjective.--Brett (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This is the sentence in Tribute:

"Tribute" is the term used to describe a kind of regulated trade in goods and Services (economics) between China and other trading partners.

This term is crucial in understanding East Asian diplomatic history before the 20th century.--Tenmei (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you bring this up here about tribute.--Brett (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I had two purposes: (a) to use the word in a real sentence and (b) to provide an opportunity for open-ended constructive feedback like you have now offered. If this seems an unhelpful strategy, it is easily remedied. I strike out some of my own words.
Please look at Talk:regulated and Talk:unregulated. I did check a few dictionaries which only show "regulated" as a verb -- not an adjective. Is it relevant that these related words function like an adjective in the sample sentences? If this is unhelpful in your view, please feel no hesitation in editing what I have posted. --Tenmei (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now about tribute. The sentence you provide would not be a suitable example as it is isn't very simple, and examples should not include links.
It is not that regulated functions as an adjective--adjective is not a function--but rather that it functions as a modifier. Indeed, it is a property of almost any past participle that it can function as an attributive modifier in a noun phrase. It would not be helpful to include an "adjective" entry for every verb. It is true, that adjectives often function as attributive modifiers in NPs, but they also perform other functions such as adjunct, head, and predicate compliment.--Brett (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename request[change]

Hello, given that simple.wikt lacks a WT:CHU, I will post my request here. I request a rename of "The New Mikemoral" to "Mikemoral." Here's a confirmation diff on en.wikinews. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Tempodivalse [talk] 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countable template[change]

Is it necessary to include the "countable" template for any countable noun, or just for words where some uses of the word would be countable and where others wouldn't be? Kansan (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes forget to use the template, but in my opinion it should be added to every countable noun. Same goes for uncountable ones with the uncountable tag. Barras talk 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no countable nouns, only countable senses. The countable/uncountable template should be added to each noun sense as this distinction is one which is problematic for many language learners.--Brett (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community portal link[change]

The Community portal link on the navigation button is broken. How do I fix it? Teacher Jeff (Talk) 22:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fix it, an admin has to. For the admins, "portal" to "Portal" on the link. Jeff, add new sections to the bottom of the page. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, newbie here :-D. Teacher Jeff (Talk) 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing help (opens in new window) on the editing page is also a dead link. Teacher Jeff (Talk) 23:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for the admins, it should link to Wiktionary:How to change a page. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to link to Wiktionary:Community Portal. — Wenli (reply here) 04:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is still broken! Teacher Jeff (Talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might have to clear your browser's cache. Try pressing Ctrl+R on Internet Explorer, or Ctrl+Shift+R on other browsers. — Wenli (reply here) 01:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did clear the cache before posting, it is working now!!! Teacher Jeff (Talk) 03:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic Phrases[change]

I would like to see many more Idiomatic Phrases with the current definitions. Especially, the BC100 words. I just added a few to look: look over, over look, look up, look up to, etc. A link to the definitions is great; however, I think a definition also belongs next to the idiomatic expression. I don't think the idiom template works for this purpose. Any recommendations? Teacher Jeff (Talk) 13:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EhJBot5[change]

I've written a bot (EhJBot5) that will search Simple.Wikipedia for links to Simple.Wiktionary. The bot will try to fix links or mark them as "broken" (edits are made only on Simple.Wikipedia). It also creates a list of all links scanned, and on which article(s). The bot has begun posting that information at User:EhJBot5/wordlist on Simple.Wiktionary. The "wordlist" should update roughly every 20 minutes. If you would like, please consider flagging EhJBot5 as a bot to prevent flooding of New Changes. The bot will only ever edit that one page. As for me (the bot's only operator), I am a crat on Simple.Wikipedia. That said, I'm not aware of any special Wiktionary bot-approval protocols. I hope that this explanation will be enough. Any suggestions regarding the bot are welcome. Thanks! EhJJ (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the bot actions and decide whether to flag or not later on. The bot is a good idea, I think we can help with woriking on the articles. As a side note, the links to Wikipedia doesn't work for me. Barras talk 09:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Bot flagged - edits are ok. Barras talk 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Notes about the bot can be left on its talk page or on my talk page. EhJJ (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moving pages?[change]

I can't see the move page tab. I'd just like to move my old userpage and talk page to my new one, but can't seem to. Is there a reason? Sonia (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't autoconfirmed yet. Barras talk 11:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Right. *facepalm* Sonia (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New bot MrLister[change]

I am writing a list processing bot. I need a bot flag for User:MrLister. You can see what I am working on here. Teacher Jeff (Talk) 05:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please do a number testedits with your bot at a low edit rate to show it works properly. Thanks Barras talk 10:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edits are not done to the definitions, only to the lists mentioned above. It does impact the website with hits though. Teacher Jeff (Talk) 05:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it edits definitions or other lists, you'll have to make at least 50 test edits before a bureaucrat can give your bot the bot flag. Razorflame 12:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot only created new pages until now. Does the bot also update the page or were that all edits that needed to be done? -Barras talk 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not planning to edit with the bot. Teacher Jeff (Talk) 03:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no need for a bot flag. -Barras talk 08:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mastering a simple talk.[change]

how to be a good speaker? —This unsigned comment was added by Guirvogo (talk • contribs) .

I don't get it. -Barras talk 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"How to be a good speaker [of English]?" practice. 118.93.255.224 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Simple_talk/Archive_11&oldid=440478"