User:Tygrrr/Archive

My user page ·

Talk to me ·

See my archives: one · two

Archived talk page from May 25, 2007 to April 30, 2008

Welcome[change]

Welcome to the Simple English Wiktionary!

We hope you are happy editing here. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wiktionary:Community Portal and Help:Contents.

For an explanation of the editing format here, see Wiktionary:How to edit.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit Wiktionary:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.--Brett 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor userpage change[change]

Hey Tygartl1, I changed one of the links on your userpage to avoid a redirect. It was [[Word lists]], which I changed to [[Wiktionary:Word lists]]. I hope you don't mind. I'm getting rid of the inter-namespace redirect and didn't want your link to go red on you. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki[change]

How do you go about finding all these IW links?--Brett 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep a 2nd window open to English Wiktionary and just copy and paste from there to here. I remove [[simple:article]] from the list if it's there and add [[en:article]]. Tygartl1 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems obvious, now that you say it!--Brett 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got other priorities right now. I think this kind of thing really is best handled by bots anyhow, and there are a number of bots that have been run here. One that runs regularly is VolkovBot.--Brett 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested and this fits in with what you're doing, when you copy over the IW, would it be possible to copy over pronunciation information? In particular any audio links an IPA would be very useful. I think rhyming information would be best left off. Just a thought.--Brett 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we don't have the templates {{audio}} and {{IPA}} here. Is there an established way to do the "Pronunciation" sections or would we need to create the templates here? - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, nobody's touched this at all. You'd be breaking new ground.--Brett 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on!--Brett 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples using other forms[change]

Why did you remove the example using bought in the buy article?--Brett 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I moved it to the article on bought. Tygartl1 04:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that few people who check buy will go on to check on bought. I can't see a drawback to having it in both places.--Brett 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the drawback I see is having an example for a word on another word's page when the other page exists. That's the whole point of having a page for each word. I know it's not like having an example like "The apple was juicy and tasty." on the page for banana. But I believe having an example using another word is a poor practice, and rightly belongs on the page of the word it is exemplifying. Tygartl1 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From a writer's point of view, that may be true, but that's not how most users are going to interact. Besides, in a paper dictionary where there is a space limit, I can see arguments for avoiding duplication, but here we have all the space we need. I think that the headword should encompass the complete paradigm, but not the other way around.--Brett 15:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I feel like you're going to do whatever the hell you want anyway, so go ahead and do it, I guess. You know, perhaps there might be more editors around here if people didn't get attacked for making edits. You don't seem to want to compromise, you've said as much that you feel I'm not making productive edits by adding interwiki (it's something you're too good to do, let a bot do it, etc), practically every time I make an edit that isn't adding interwiki you attack it (buy/bought, nonwhite, behalves, executive, etc), and when I brought up creating pages on plurals on Simple Talk you again thought it was basically a waste of time ("not a priority"). Do you not understand how to work in a community of users? Or are you just so used to this place being practically deserted that you're incredibly possessive of all the pages and any additions? Or do you just think I'm an idiot who can't possibly have an intelligent addition even when it's sourced by 10 other dictionaries?? I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall around here the way you respond with negativity to everything I do. I can certainly take my time and energy to another project if they're not appreciated here. Tygartl1 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Relax. The only place where I've reverted your edits is with behalves. With non-white, you convinced me. With executive, I think you're wrong, but I'm not certain enough to make the changes. With the discussion over inclusion of plural of behalves, I'm simply following established wiktionary guidelines. It is the idea that it has to be in a dictionary that is the new rule. I'm exploring possibilities, making arguments, and trying to learn and find the best way that will work for the users.

Yes, I am used to this place being deserted. But I'm certainly willing to collaborate. What you see as attacking, I see as editing. Remember the "be bold" edict? Collaboration doesn't mean you write your pages and I write mine and we leave each other's alone. The pages don't belong to individuals.

I've expressed priorities as personal feelings. I don't speak for the wiki and you certainly don't need me to validate your work. If you feel adding other forms and interwikis is important, great. It's not my cup of tea, but other people probably think it important. Personally, I'd rather add content. Without that, other forms and IWs wouldn't exist.--Brett 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have certainly shown a tendency to question my edits every time I am bold. Please try to be mindful that you have come across as abrasive on a number of occasions. I think you might want to try to be a little more open-minded about others' thoughts for improvement of this project. For example, I'm a stickler for being thorough. I understand that pages on other forms and adding interwiki would not be possible without the original articles. However, wouldn't you agree that a thorough page has a more professional appearance than a page with multiple redlinks, missing categories and missing interwiki?

Also, although you say "Collaboration doesn't mean you write your pages and I write mine and we leave each other's alone", it seems that you do indeed have an issue with my edits to "your" pages. You have questioned my edits at every turn and that certainly doesn't feel good. As far as validation goes, I don't need that from you. But I expect that if I am making mistakes that I be politely steered in the right direction. I have yet to be told I've really made a mistake, only that my opinion differs from your own. It feels like perhaps you are trying to passively-agressively "hint" that I should go. If you feel that way, say so. If you don't, I'd appreciate it if you would back off somewhat and not question my every edit. You are making my experience here unnecessarily unpleasant. Thank you. Tygartl1 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have questioned some of your edits because I wanted to learn about them. I question my own edits, too. See here, for example. But there's no need for hyperbole. I do not question your edits "at every turn". Still, this is a small wiki, and since I'm the only regularly active admin, I try to keep an eye on everything that's happening.

You say I'm abrasive? Go back and read Talk:behalf. The comments are entirely directed at the ideas. There's nothing at all about you. Where things are opinion, I have framed them that way. "I'm afraid I'd disagree with you" is a plain statement of my beliefs, which at the same time leaves open the possibility that I am wrong. What about Talk:nonwhite "This doesn't really look like a noun to me." Again, it's framed as opinion, and it's hedged with "really". How is that abrasive? Contrast that with "Go ahead and do what you want. If 10 sources, isn't enough for you, I can't imagine what I could possibly do to convince you to see another view."

You want to talk about getting rid of red links? Of the 2500 pages or so, I've put in detailed definitions with multiple examples for roughly 1000. You want to talk about thorough? Check out words like comprise, mature, shift, reverse, or a few. Where possible I've included images, related words, synonyms, etc. For each sense I've added tags such as transitive, countable, only before the noun, etc. Try to get a bot to do that. I'm just trying to use my limited time as effectively as possible. And I have no desire to see you leave.--Brett 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not being clear. It's not just that you question why I did something. The problem is that when I respond with a well thought-out, polite, logical, and sometimes sourced reply, you don't accept it. You reply by refusing my opinion even if it's sourced (making it much closer to a fact than an opinion, but I don't want to get into semantics). You act like it's a radical idea to omit a word from a dictionary that is not in any other dictionary. You act like it's bizarre to only want to show examples of how to use "buy" in a sentence on the buy page. You act like if I list a word as a part of speech that other reputable dictionaries have agreed upon, I'm wrong. That's incredibly frustrating. If you have a question about my edits, I want you to feel like you can approach me about them. But I'm asking you to, please, read my reply thoroughly, consider it, and not automatically dismiss it if it differs from your thoughts about the situation. I don't like butting heads with you. Let's both please try to keep our dialogues respectful. That means not only using respectful language, but also respecting difference in views. I will do my best to keep up my end of the deal and hope you will do the same. In general, I like it here and would like to stay, but will have to take a break if it's a stressful environment for me.

By the way, I think you've done excellent work around here. :-) I hope you will one day feel the same way about my work here. Tygartl1 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a rapprochement! Perhaps I can now clear up my viewpoint. I think a dictionary should be descriptive. It should tell people what's out there, and I think that's the view of most professional lexicographers like Ben Zimmer or Erin McKean. I think the en.wiktionary guidelines do a good job of addressing that. I can certainly understand the view that if it's not in a published dictionary, then it's not a word. In fact, I think that's likely the view of 99% of the literate population. But I don't agree with it, and in this case, the wiktionary criteria for inclusion back me up.

When it comes to nonwhite, I did accept your case, and I think your point is strong enough in executive to leave alone until/unless I find something that suggests otherwise. That leaves bought. You've given your reasons and I've given mine, but I've hardly rejected your argument out of hand. I think it's something the community needs to look at and agree upon. Again, if we look to our big sister over at en.wiktionary, they allow various forms to exist in examples under headwords, as do most print dictionaries, for what that's worth.

I think there's a lot that needs to change in how people look at grammar. The traditional "parts of speech" is/are terribly confused and inconsistent, but that's how most print dictionaries work. Some newer dictionaries are getter better. For example, the _Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English_ does a reasonable job of assigning to the class of determiner what many dictionaries might oddly call adjectives. But no dictionary in publication follows a really up-to-date grammatical analysis. Somebody's got to break with tradition, and I think this is as good a place to do so as any. Keep in mind, this isn't my crazy personal idea. Everything that I've done here is supported by the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_. In the long run, I may get outvoted, but I've done my best to set the groundwork.--Brett 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Parts of Speech[change]

If you're interested in getting a better handle on these, I would suggest A Students' Introduction to English Grammar.--Brett 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing things!--Brett 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I enjoy it. :-) This is just the start. I hope to have a much more complete categorization system for everything soon. By the way, I'm sure you noticed, but I nominated you for 'cratship. I hope you're planning on accepting. I certainly can't see how having another bureaucrat around, especially one who is knowledgeable and present, can hurt. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Need Help[change]

Hey, I need help resolving an issue with a user on Simple English Wikipedia. Can you pop over there and help me please? Thanks, Razorflame 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats![change]

I'm glad to see you as an admin.--Brett 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Me too. :-) - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Channel[change]

Heya Tygartl1, I added you to the admin list for Simple Wiktionary over at the IRC channel #cvn-simplewikis because you are an admin here. Razorflame 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound lame, but I don't really know anything about IRC. What does it mean if I'm on the admin list at the counter vandalism channel? - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of your edits appearing as Whitelist (trusted user), you appear as Admin (administrator) now. Razorflame 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits here or on IRC? - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any edit you make appears on the CVN IRC channel. It's the recent changes IRC channel. Razorflame 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I know you are an administrator here, so you need to be on the admin list for this project....I'm not sure if you are on the admin list on Simple, lemme check. Razorflame 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason[change]

The reason why I requested my userpages to be protected is to seperate myself from the issue. Razorflame 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you also remove Iamandrewrice from my friends list on my userpage? I forgot to do that before Oyster protected it :) Razorflame 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editcounter[change]

What's this?--Brett 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added the link to my user page. It allows me (and anyone else who's interested) to see stats and charts of my edits. You can see anyone else's edits too. Just kind of a fun little tool. :-) - Tygrrr ^-talk- 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

test template and testx[change]

Thanks. I was getting ready to define organize and found that there is an alternate spelling, organise. Looking at other U.S. vs British alternates I saw a helpful note in one (color) reminding editors to make needed changes in the alternative. Perusing the all pages list, I saw there are many US/Brit alternates. - favor, flavor, centre, onward, etc. as well as percent and per cent - I thought it might be handy to have a template to generate the reminder note. So I just wanted to get my feet wet with templates.--Grapeguy 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry about the testx. Please delete it. As for testing templates, how do you create templates in the sandbox or in my user space? I thought that was what the template:test was for and also that it was not permanent.Grapeguy 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

organize / organise[change]

from Grapeguy's talk page: Merging organise and organize into one page--organise / organize--is potentially a pretty controversial change. I think your idea of merging alternate spellings into one page should be discussed on Simple talk before you go any further with it. I, for one, am not sure I agree with it and others may have an opinion on the matter, too. Thanks! - Tygrrr ^-talk- 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely. I did just one in order try it out, and to float a trial balloon. I'm not sure it is a great solution to the problem. However, as I said in my earlier message about the test template, I think simple.wikitionary has a small maintenance issue to deal with. I counted 44 pairs already in the all pages list and several more in the list of most wanted. There are some inconsistencies in the pairs, or missing entries for potential pairs. I haven't researched how en.wiktionary handles it. There are countless other -or/our, -er/re -ise/ize words (and I'm don't recall off hand what other diffs there are between US and British spelling) not in either list yet. I'll be happy to bring it to simple talk at some time. —This unsigned comment was added by Grapeguy (talk • contribs) 13:14, January 11, 2008.

en:wikt has separate pages for every word. I think that we should do that too unless there is a particularly compelling reason not to. As far as adding a notice to those pages, I think it is a good idea. However, since they are hidden notes (using ), there really isn't a way to add it with a template. It will have to be added manually. If you think about it though, it really isn't more work because you'd have to go through and add the template to each page anyways. - Tygrrr ^-talk- 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the hidden note is what I was doing with template:test and testx. Using the substitute, it will insert the hidden note. There could be something like template:alternative which could insert the verbiage with the variant text.

OK. I just checked en.wiktionary for several pairs. Each of these pairs is treated differently. Theater is an interesting one.

Favor/favour - They had two full entries for these alternatives. There was no note to the editor and there were several differences between the entries.
Organize/organise - Their is an editor note for both organize/organise pairs, and they are substantially the same except for the Alternate Spelling usage note.
Center/centre - There is no editor note. They are about 90% the same, but there are several differences in the handling of some definitions.
Color/colour - Both color and colour have notes to the editor. However, there are significant differences between the two.
toward/towards - The American version, toward, is defined in full. The British, towards, has a brief statement "variant of toward.
theater/theatre - I'm not sure exactly how this was done. It uses a template:theater with a number of arguments and I suppose a substitute. It is in sync, but it mixes theater and theatre in the examples for the theater entry. Enough, already, for now. Grapeguy 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It really wouldn't save you any work though because you'd have to edit each page, whether you're adding a hidden note or adding a template. It's the same amount of work. Also, hidden notes don't show wiki markup. There isn't a way to have it include the page name unless, again, you do it manually. The only way using a template is plausible is if it's generic (something like "This word has an alternate spelling. If you make changes here, please make sure you make the same changes there too.")

Again, though, I'm not entirely convinced that the pages need to be exactly the same in all cases. For example, I've always understood theater and theatre to have different meanings (I'm American). You go to a movie theater, but you see an opera at the theatre and you major in Theatre in college. I also think center and centre may have different meanings but I'm not sure on that. You've definitely brought up an interesting topic though. - Tygrrr ^-talk- 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the words are all necessarily identical, but they are related and care should be taken to keep them in sync where they have commonalities. So, I suppose the wording of the message would, perhaps, have to vary from case to case. Oh, well. After some fruitless attempts, I have to concede that you seem to be correct about not being able to inserting the pagename, but you can insert the alternative spelling or related word. Well, I'll put it aside for now. Thanks for the feedback.Grapeguy 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Score[change]

Having sex is a valid sense of score. From the OED: "intr. and trans. Of a man: to achieve intercourse (with a woman); to have (casual) intercourse with (a woman); also occas. of a prostitute: to obtain (a client). slang (chiefly U.S.)."--Brett 00:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the usage. But the page was created with the intention of vandalism in my opinion. That's hardly the most common definition of the word. It's just more nonsense from our Kent State University vandal. The edits are borderline vandalism from multiple IPs to avoid being blocked. We shouldn't have to put up with nonsense page creations like the one in question. · Ty grrr... 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Even though the intention may be puerile, it is not our role to be prudes. Had the definition been an obscure one for something non-sexual, I expect it would have survived. The mere facts that the definition is sexual and added by a vandal do not merit deletion.--Brett 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The page did not have enough content to warrant keeping. No page should be kept without enough content to merit keeping. I have no doubt that the page will be created again at some point and I feel that that particular definition should be included when it is. Yes, if the page had only said "to put a ball in a goal" it may have stayed. That is a very common definition though, and could possibly be helpful to someone looking up the definition of score, whereas "to have sex" has a very small likelihood of being helpful to someone looking for what the word means in most instances. I also disagree with you that a page created by a vandal should be kept if the act of creation is vandalistic in intent, as I believe this creation was. We're not robots. We make decisions based on judgment after examining a situation. I acted in a way that I feel was appropriate to the circumstances. Also, you might want to not jump to conclusions in the future about a person's intentions. To insinuate that I deleted the definition because it was sexual in nature is an assumption that I find offensive. If you wanted to know why I deleted it, all you had to do was ask. Instead you made an assumption about me and then demonized me for it. · Ty grrr... 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tygrrr, I didn't think I was demonizing you (was that were I said "our role is not to be prudes"?). I thought we were just discussing when to delete and when not to. Yes, I assumed that the reason was the sexual nature. If that assumption was mistaken, I'm sorry. --Brett 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose criticize would have been a better word than demonize. But yes, you made a mistaken assumption and then criticized me for doing what you assumed I had done. I didn't appreciate that. Thank you for apologizing.

When you take into account not only the IP's other contributions (borderline vandalism, but not quite enough to block) but also the fact that we've had a lot of borderline vandalism from a range of IPs that this particular IP is a part of, as well as the fact that the article is only 3 words and very unlikely to be helpful to anyone, I feel I did the right thing by deleting it. Do you disagree? · Ty grrr...

Barnstar[change]

By the way, thank you for the barnstar. It's nice to be recognized by one's peers.--Brett 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You've certainly earned it. · Ty grrr... 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For making Simple English the tidiest Wiktionary around.

--Brett 23:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And about this, I must have just been too caught up in what I was doing and thought they looked like nail files. Oops! Good catch. · Ty grrr... 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You are a pronunciation adding machine!--Brett 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) · Ty grrr... 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bolding problem[change]

Your bolding problem is solved. Full reply on Simple talk. -- Creol(talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Context labels / topics[change]

Thanks for the catch on sports. I looked for it, but couldn't find it. Now I'm curious about what goes under context labels and what goes under the topics.--Brett 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I will try to answer anyways and you can set me straight if you're wanting to know something else. Cat:Context labels is for templates that involve some sort of context. Regular words would go in regular topic categories (like Cat:Music, Cat:Tools, Cat:Geography, etc.) If you're wondering about Cat:Topics, it's just the "catch-all" for all the "standard" categories (i.e. not the Wiktionary categories). If you're looking for categories in the future, there are a couple pages that might help: Special:Categories and the Category Tree. Categories can be a little tricky at first. I just happen to have a lot of experience with them over at SE WP. I hope this helps. · Ty grrr... 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

hi tygrrr.[change]

this edit: [1] do you not divide the pronunciations into the accents like on wiktionary EN? Benniguy 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the pronunciation of LOL, it was OMG. · Ty grrr... 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, sorry. fixing now. Benniguy 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] you removed the pronuncations? why? Benniguy 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They were incorrect. You had it written as if omg is an acronym instead of an initialism. Please see Category:Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms for a description of the difference between the two. · Ty grrr... 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. It would appear that "omg" is an acronym and an initialiam, because it is spoken aloud as a word in real life now. Do you agree? Benniguy 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've never heard of it as an acronym, only an initialism. I'm skeptical because it doesn't seem it would be easily spoken as a word, like lol/"lawl" is. · Ty grrr... 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem an uncommon choice for an acronym, but I know that its usage as a "word" pronunced as an initialism has increased in number. I think that the way in which it is pronunced is with an aspirated 'g'. however, i don't know how to write this in IPA, so i've just left it as a 'g' for the moment. cheers. Benniguy 09:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it has an acronym pronunciation, I have no problem having a section for it. However, I think we need to have accurate information in our pages. If you're not sure how to write a pronunciation, it's best if we leave it off until we know for sure how it is pronounced and how to write that pronunciation correctly in IPA, SAMPA, or AHD mark-up. · Ty grrr... 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasonably updated "Most wanted" list[change]

I tossed together a most wanted list using the same basic set-up as the one I put together on the wiki. As the list was much smaller here than there, the job was much quicker and allowed for going further down the list (5 hits rather than the wiki's 12-14 hits). The page is here. Use, redo, edit at will, or ignore, your choice. Enjoy. -- Creol(talk) 05:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Thanks a lot :-) · Ty grrr... 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

English[change]

LOL TY :P Benniguy 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

tygrrr, i've noticed something. Why on wiktionary EN is there a different page for LOL and lol? Benniguy 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that too and I'm not sure why they do it (and why I blindly followed it here). I think we should just redirect lol to LOL like we've done on the other initialisms. · Ty grrr... 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think we should keep it all in lower font case, rather than capital letters? As the rest of all the words are in lower case font? Benniguy 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Initialisms, acronyms, and abbreviations should be in all capital letters. · Ty grrr... 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ahh ok. Benniguy 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tygrrr![change]

Thanks for all of your help on simple wiktionary! We appreciate it very much so keep up the good work! 66.212.155.9 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC) (Spread the Love)

@[change]

the template doesn't work. can you help please? :) Benniguy 08:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Exemplary examples[change]

Hi, Tygrrr Just a reminder that examples should exemplify a word, not just employ it. You examples for worries fall very far to the just-employ end of the spectrum. Dentist is much more towards the exemplify end. Also, I know it takes a lot more work, but I try to find sentences that exemplify both the meaning and the environment of a word including its typical morphology, role in a sentence, complements, and collocations.--Brett 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly try in most cases to give a sense of a word's meaning. However, my main objective right now is not adding examples, it's adding pronunciations. When I think it's appropriate or when I feel like it, I add an example if I notice they're missing. I'm of the opinion that something is better than nothing and that every edit is one step closer to a fantastic page. If you feel that my examples aren't up to par, feel free to improve them. · Ty grrr... 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please update[change]

Hi Tygrrr, how are you? I wrote a message: Template talk:All Wiktionaries‎. Thank you in advance for helping me. Best regards. Sarvaturi (from SCN.wiktionary)

The page has been updated. Thank you for your notification. · Ty grrr... 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)