User talk:Brett

From Wiktionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

TESL students[change]

If you're a TESL student, could you please let me know here:

Present participle vs gerund participle[change]

Hi! I've noticed that you've changed "present participle" to "gerund-participle" on all the pages that I've created. I'm not trying to criticize you, but I'd like to give a friendly reminder that they mean the same thing. I'll start using "gerund-participle" anyway, since it seems to be standard here. — Wenli (reply here) 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For the Welcome[change]

Thanks for your message. Much appreciated. :) Green Giant 11:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator[change]

Can you please close or comment on my administrator request. thanks Z 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanted pages[change]

I've put up a version of recent changes on my website. It hasn't got a lot of the features the MediaWiki one has, but it might be useful. --H2g2bob 02:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Standardization[change]

OK. I guess I got most of the answer to Wiktionary:Simple talk#Standardization. I will use the template - an excellent idea - so it will chage as the template changes. I will not put examples for the variants, as I see the Wenli is not. I still think there should be entries for the grammar forms linked to the template and that the entries should be the phrases as stated in my post. But I'll leave that to the old-timers. Sorry for posting this outside the simple talk, but I was hoping for an earlier response. I'll just carry on.Grapeguy 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Block[change]

Please block 65.25.105.176. This IP vandal has been creating nonsense pages and removing quick deletion tags. — Wenli (reply here) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Defining style[change]

Thanks for your concern. Personally, I find that using long explanations doesn't really fit a dictionary; if someone wanted a detailed explanation for something, they would visit Wikipedia instead. Also, long explanations can create some wrong assumptions. Take this for example: "If you bother someone, you disturb or annoy them," implies that you can't bother a cat (which isn't a "someone"). That said, I would be happy to write explanations if that's the right thing to do. — Wenli (reply here) 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparative adverbs[change]

Wikipedia has a good explanation. Two examples of comparative adverbs that I can think of are alright and apart. — Wenli (reply here) 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki[change]

Might I suggest that you consider adding interwiki to the new articles you are creating on prepositions? My current project is going through the list of Pages without language links and adding interwiki. I was into the C's but now have to start over at A and add interwiki to the 18 preposition pages you created without the links. If you don't feel like it, you are certainly are not obligated to. It is only a suggestion. Thanks. Tygartl1 14:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples[change]

Thanks for your message. I agree with you but I would like to point out that copying sentences from other sites would probably be considered copyright infringement; we should try to make up our own sentences instead. I will certainly do that! — Wenli (reply here) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dermatologist[change]

I see the dermatologist vandal has moved over here. I would suggest dealing with him firmly and swiftly. We have had various IPs on simple:wiki creating Dermatologist with the content "Fake doctor" since Nov 13. As you can see from the page's history, there are 36 deleted edits. I think you've been more than lenient letting him to continue his vandalous edits here and would now say that it is time to block. - Tygartl1 -talk- 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: contractions vs. negatives[change]

I'm not a linguist, but I've noticed that most dictionaries simply list negative contractions as contractions (e.g. dictionary.reference.com and the English Wiktionary). — Wenli (reply here) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds alright, but do you think that the use of additional terms will confuse new English speakers, as (1) more terms increases complexity, and (2) other dictionaries will list these words as contractions while this dictionary will list them as negatives? — Wenli (reply here) 04:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[change]

Hello. Thanks for the welcome. Those links are helpful. Do you know of any articles that need editing? Dr.Cox 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch[change]

Nice catch here. I didn't notice that when I copied it over. I don't know much about IPA, enPR or SAMPA notation (yet!) so until then, you may want to help by checking them over when I add them. Also, if you've got a minute, please check out my new comment on Simple talk. I'd like to get that figured out before I get too far along adding them :-) Thanks. - Tygartl1 -talk- 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mass nouns[change]

Thanks for the welcome. I've been working on articles at en.wikipedia among other ill things. Takes more time to research, document and write than dictionary items which have models and templates.

See you corrected my article for activity. Thanks. I wasn't sure how to do that. I was looking for models and came across quite a few strictly mass nouns (at least as they are specified in the Simple defs) which used the noun template, thus giving them plurals. Am I missing something about the grammar, or do we need to clean up these items?

Examples:

I think some of these have fine plurals: they gave it their individual alls; don't put on airs; they carried their bulks back into the ocean; Digestions with restriction enzymes were performed overnight. The others, I agree, have no plurals. For nouns with no plural, use {{noun|abandons|none}}. Contrary is a very odd noun, isn't it.--Brett 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought about airs, but it needs an additional section with a different meaning from that given. Again with bulks, it is another meaning for a less commonly used countable noun. Digestions does seem to be a plural of digestion in the sense that its used as a mass noun. I don't go along with alls. My wife and I both agreed that it should be 'gave their all'. I found the phrase 'gave their alls' 4 times on the net, but 'gave their all' ocurred 95,000 times. It might be useful to say something about its homophone, all's, for which the apostrophe is sometimes omitted. However, I did learn, contrary to my previous understanding, that mass nouns 'usually' do not have plurals, but can and do on occassion. I think I am, or thought I was, pretty good at grammar, but I am learning more. I'll try to address some of these issues in the examples that I find.Grapeguy 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, they're a little dodgy. I don't have good evidence for them. Go ahead and list them as having no plural. I'm not sure I agree about mass nouns not usually having plurals. It depends on what you mean by a mass noun. Almost any noun can be used countably or non-countably. In other words, most nouns can have countable senses and uncountable senses.--Brett 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Plurals[change]

Yes, I agree with you. I was only correcting the format; the previous editor placed a {{mass noun}} tag on the page, so I used {{noun|care|none}}. — Wenli (reply here) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

dianthus[change]

I do not know if dianthus is a common noun in English, I mean it is not the case, probable ones could say the species of Dianthus, and so on --Penarc 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

easy not easier[change]

I think it is not easy define in a second language, false "ami" are common, plurals (also are complicate) and so on, i try with script versus alphabet, but cyrillic script is a noun? or phrase noun?. Regards --Penarc 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC) --Penarc 16:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:container[change]

Hey there Brett. I tried to fix up the example using the noun container, and I think I got it pretty good. What do you think? Razorflame 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stubs[change]

I believe the stub template is best placed at the end of articles (i.e. after the main content and before categories and interwiki). This is because it says the entire article needs to be added to, rather than a specific section. This is standard procedure on other sites which I believe should be followed here as well. If you think it would be beneficial, we could perhaps create a template that says something along the lines of "This section needs to be expanded" (although more simply stated). - Tygartl1 -talk- 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK.--Brett 16:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested, I have created {{sectstub}} which can be added to a specific section that needs help. I also notice that we have {{exstub}} which can be used if all that is missing in a section is examples. - Tygrrr -talk- 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!

Milestones[change]

I have moved the milestones to the Announcements. Also, it isn't a good idea to pull old conversations out of the archives because you then end up having multiple versions of conversations, and trust me, it's a nightmare to try to clean up. I've done it the one time and I don't want to do it again; it wastes my time. Please just add new milestones to the Announcements page. Thank you. - Tygrrr -talk- 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on finishing the prepositions! - Tygrrr -talk- 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exotic Words[change]

Would it be possible to add exotic words (like sequoia, apteryx, and other such words) to this Simple English Wikipedia if I make the language simple enough? I am a scrabble player, so I know lots of interesting words that I would like to add to this site. Razorflame 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would want to do that, but go ahead; knock yourself out!--Brett 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Question[change]

How is removing the stuff at the bottom the pages considered vandalism? It's a bunch of the same word. It seems rather redundant. 131.123.181.99 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

comparative[change]

Thanks for all the help on comparative. I wanted to get it out there because there are and will be a lot of links to it. I really did try hard to get the whole thing right. I like what you did.Grapeguy 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[change]

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For your valuable edits in creating and improving pages. Keep up the good work! - Tygrrr 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Three articles[change]

Did I get the formatting right on these three pages that I just created: banzai, barrack, and bateau?

And for bateau, can you make it so that the plural noun says bateaux as well as bateaus? Thanks, Razorflame 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warnings[change]

What are the warning templates here on the Simple English Wiktionary? Razorflame 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

template:testX, where X is 1-5, I think.--Brett 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. Razorflame 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat[change]

Congrats on the status change! · Tygrrr... 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming a 'crat! Cheers, Razorflame 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting mass nouns[change]

As I'm gong through and making sure that we don't have double parentheses on anything, I'm coming across a lot of pages that where the noun def doesn't use the {{noun}} template. I'm adding it, sometimes leaving it with a plural, sometimes listing it as no plural. I'm not really sure I'm marking them correctly though and would appreciate it if you'd double-check my work. I'm marking all the ones I'm adding it to as "+noun" in the edit summary to make it easier for you to find them. Let me know if you have any questions or feedback for me. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. It is a sense of a word, not the word itself, which is countable or not. Also, most nouns, even "non-count" ones, do have plurals.--Brett 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BNC1HW template[change]

Hi Brett. Thanks for the comment, but au contraire, my friend, by changing the name of the template, I only made it look better. Because the previous name automatically converts to a redirect, all of the pages will be moved to the new category without any effort on my part. It's just that the page has to update (or be modified) in order for it to show up, and it is taking some time, which bugs me. So I'm changing the pages using the template on a whim, not because it is actually necessary. Additionally, several of the words that should have the template do not. I just added it to most of the days of the week, for instance. That's why there were only 714 words in the category when I moved the template. There are even some that shouldn't have the template that do! These include variants that are not actually headwords, like OK (okay is the real headword). I'm glad to see you're pointing out ways you see for me to work better and save myself effort, though. >) Happy editing! And congrats on bureaucrat status! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't found where you left off. At the moment I'm only changing the ones that are in the BNC1000 headwords category, which means I'm not even getting all of those, given that as soon as someone else modifies a word there, it is switched to the other category automatically. But I'd guess that I'll find it at some point towards the end, unless it was all random misses. I tend to use okay much more than OK, but the only reason I made that switch is because okay is listed as the headword on the list. Since the cat is only for the list's headwords, okay should be there, not OK. Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome[change]

can you help with something. In the same way that the word "lol" can be both acronymic and initialistic, can "omg" be both too? I have heard it being said as "oh em gee" (acronymic), but I have also heard it as "omg" (initialistic), so would it be both? Benniguy 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "oh em gee" would be an initialism, "omg" would be an acronym. · Tygrrr... 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

yup sorry, i got it the wrong way round. but anyway, i think it's both, is it not? Benniguy 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure.--Brett 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Job Brett![change]

Thanks for all of your help on simple wikipedia! We appreciate it very much so keep up the good work! 66.212.155.9 03:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Template change[change]

Hey Brett, I'm not really in favor of the changes you made to the BNC1HW template. When you say it is one of the most common 1000 headwords, that omits the fact that it is from the British National Corpus and that the word "headword" only makes sense in the context of the list. Plus, what are you going to do with the BNC2 headwords template? There may be a better way to say it than the way it was, but this isn't it, IMO. Maybe we could spell out that it is one of the headwords from the British National Corpus frequency list (mentioning that it is from the 1000 most common, maybe). But calling it "one of the most common 1000 headwords" is too vague and non-specific for me. Your thoughts? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The BNC, while being British, is probably the most balanced representative samples of English that we have. Certainly, there are words such as quid, which are quite circumscribed in their use, but the vast majority of the items on the list would almost certainly turn up in the top 1000 list from a similar corpus of American English. So I don't think the claim is far from the truth. I also think that, given the fact that we're trying to keep things simple, a lot of further explanation would be counter productive. If people want to know more, they can click through and find out.
The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English says basically what the current template says (though their list is based on a slightly different corpus) and doesn't seem to see any need to quibble. Nor do I see headword being particularly contextually sensitive. All said, if you'd like to edit it, by all means, have a go, but I'm pretty comfortable with it as it is. (You are certainly right, however, that templates for the various lists should be equivalent.)--Brett 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your rename request on the English Wikipedia[change]

You have recently requested that your account on the English Wikipedia be renamed to that reserved for your global login. I (or another bureaucrat) was unable to complete this request due to bug 13507. It is now possible for a steward to undo the unification of your login, which will allow this rename to be performed. You can then once again unify your global login once any local renames you need are completed. If you still want me to rename you on the English Wikipedia, please request that your global account is deleted at m:SR/SUL, and (once this has been done) let me know either by commenting on your request or leaving me a note on my enwiki talkpage. If you no longer want that account renamed, could you also get in touch so I know that you don't need me to take any further action. WJBscribe 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A steward deleted your global account and I have finished renaming you on the English Wikipedia. WJBscribe 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress[change]

Hi, I saw your name in RC and you seem to be a sysop, could you please block 137.56.155.165 urgently. [[en:User:Conrad.Irwin|Conrad]].[[en:User_talk:Conrad.Irwin|Irwin]] 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Millosh took care if it. Sorry to disturb you. Conrad.Irwin 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent articles[change]

Hello Brett,

Sorry for being a bit excited, your remark is of course essential, I will try as much as I can to write articles in a simpler way. As I have written on my userpage, I am no native English-speaker and I base my writing skills essentially on the English I was taught at school or in college, English that is not always that simple. Your advice will be usefull. Thanks. Nebogipfel 05:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello Brett,

Thank you for your advice, it made me learn quite a lot. Happy editing. Nebogipfel 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Re:Welcomes[change]

Hello Brett,

Thanks for information.

Nebogipfel 13:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot username rename[change]

Hi, I'd like my bot User:Computer to be renamed to User:タチコマ robot. This rename request is per my wikimedia wide bot username rename. I have decided to have a single username to more efficiently use SUL. Thanks.

  • If this is not the right place to make this request, please move it to the right place.

-- Cat chi? 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The user name タチコマ robot is reserved. Before I rename your bot, you'll need to make an edit using that name somewhere to prove that you own it. But, since you're not using the bot at all, why bother renaming it?--Brett 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Its my sul account for my bot. I am the one "reserving" it. I am renaming it everywhere - weather I have a bot flag or not. -- Cat chi? 13:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, but I need you to show me that its yours. If you can tell me that you're going to do something with it (on another site where you already have the name) and then do it, I'll know you actually control it. Otherwise anyone could simply claim it was theirs.--Brett 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. Would m:Steward requests/Username changes#Ownbot @ many wikis be adequate? -- Cat chi? 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Done.--Brett 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia corpus[change]

Hello! I have answered to your remark here User talk:AKA MBG/English Simple Wikipedia 20080214 freq wordlist, it is passed less than 6 month :) -- AKA MBG 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple wikt is monolingual[change]

page here So this means SE Wiktionary is only available in English, not French, German, or other languages?

...and I think you meant Simple wiki is monolingual

I think I copied the definition from the English Wiktionary that you removed all the transalation templates from.

Deathgleaner 02:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Block and delete requests[change]

Hi there, I'm an administrator over at Simple Wikiquote. I'm requesting a block of 79.91.227.27 for creating nonsense pages after I issued an only warning. I'm not entirely sure if we have an AIV page here. While your at it, please delete the QD requests. Thanks. By the way, I was just curious of who can become administrators here at Simple Wiktionary. Simple Wikipedia has this "criteria", and I was wondering if we have one of some sort here. Probably just because I would like to be one since I noticed through recent changes this wiki gets a lot of vandalism here and there, and I usually patrol all the simplewikis, especially this one since we only have 3 active ones here. So any further information would be delighted. This wiki looks like it needs more active administrators during different times of the day, and I might be able to fill in. If you have any questions at all regarding adminship for me, I will gladly answer them. Thanks again, RyanCross (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thanks. -- RyanCross (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wow![change]

I used a computer program called Auto Wiki Browser. You type in the name of a category and it will scan all the articles in that category for spelling errors. I scanned Category:Nouns. The program is widely used on en.wikipedia. You can download it here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

defining simply[change]

Thank you for noticing. I reckon that they are perhaps too technical for here now, innit? - some are not even on en.wiktionary yet, so I'll add them there. --Something fishy 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

welcome[change]

see my talkpage, hersfold StaticFalcon 13:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation[change]

You're right concerning include, I made a mistake while typing, but I don't see what's wrong with virtually and celebrity, I don't know IPA by heart but I have some skills at using it, /i:/ is not only longer than /ɪ/, but it is also more closed and tense. Concerning /əʊ/, though written with a single vowel, is not properly a "long o", but a diphtong, not a long pure vowel such as /ɔ:/ (as in thought). Not being a native English-speaker myself, I chose to use /əʊ/ instead of /oʊ/, as well as /ə:/ instead of /ɜ:/ (certainly corresponding to my own pronunciation). I perfectly know pronunciations are multiple, and so are transcription systems (I mainly know IPA), and the importance of distinguishing between phonetics and phonology (using // is strictly phonology). I essentially refer to a bilingual dictionary when I'm not sure, I think it's worth making things quite simple since it is a dictionary and not an encyclopedia, for example just giving UK and US general pronunciations when they differ. I'm ready to debate if any problem occurs. Nebogipfel 09:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I just found the page concerning this problem on simple WP. You should look here [[1]], perhaps not a definitive solution but it makes things clearer. What do you think of it? Nebogipfel 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me.--Brett 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange new entries[change]

Hoi, could you please check, what this IP has written? It seems to me that this guy is first not really writing from a neutral perspective, and that second his entries are not really dictionary entries but rather encyclopedia stubs (or whatever else). (I'm writing to you since you were the last sysop of this wiki who edited. :p ) Best regards, --Thogo 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

XML dump[change]

FYI: simple.wikt was (finally ...) dumped a few minutes ago. (en:User:Robert Ullmann) Robert Ullmann 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Suffix and prefix[change]

Hi Brett, although you agree with me about how to link the pages, I was puzzled by what you said about english not relying on the suffix and prefix. I have only basic language education, but I had a count of suffix and prefix in your reply, on simple talk, of simply recognisable suffix/prefix changes. I counted words over 4 letters in size and re-cogni-s-able suffix and prefix, I got 61 words over four letters and 65 easily recognised suffix and prefix (although sometimes 3 in one word such as "in-defin-ite-ly"). I can see here you are a professor of english, and beleive you that english may be less reliant on these when compared to other language but it seems based entirely on little add ons. (I'm not poking you for a free lesson, just showing the surprise) I was always happier with sums anyway (lol). Yeah but where only tense or context changes they sort of belong together. RTG 16:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it does actually make sense to me, that English may be lesser inclined to suffix and prefix with the word you gave me "aggulginative" as trying to translate German shows a lot of odd 20 letter words. Thanks RTG 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New contributor[change]

Hi Brett. I saw your comment over on Wikt. I've often thought about contributing here on "simple", but I am used to making entries "over there" which are generally speaking more complex. So I would like some pointers to 1. good typical entries, and 2. anything you think I should know (given my Wikt and Pedia background), and 3. where should I look to make the most helpful entries. -- Algrif 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

smoking drug[change]

I vote to delete "smoking drug"-image I mean it is missleading probably ones evoque cannabis for medicine --Penarc 02:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aspirin (R)[change]

When children have a fever, avoid giving them any over-the-counter drugs that contain aspirin. Syndrom Reye?, otherwise you give paracetamol, surely an hepatotoxic agent I think such a paragraph is purely advertisement --Penarc 02:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

colourless[change]

Hi Brett. I was going to add the alternative spelling. But looking at colour I see you use a special template. Can I leave this with you to organise, please? Thanks. -- Algrif 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. Thanks. -- Algrif 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi[change]

Hi Brett. I was wondering if you have a template for superlatives and comparatives. Let me know if you get the chance. Thanks, DavidWS (contribs) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat work[change]

I didn't know being a bureaucrat on a small project would be so much work! [2] Coppertwig(talk) 17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow!--Brett 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

dare[change]

I'm planning on making this entry, but I need to know what templates to use. I need to put normal verb form dares, daring, dared and also modal verb form dare, dared, daren't Trouble is, I'm not sure what would be correct form here. Definition and pronunciation seem to be less of a problem than format. ;-) -- Algrif 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should've thought of that! -- Algrif 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome[change]

Hello Brett, Thank you for the welcome to wikt! I find this a bit more interesting than Wikiquote or Wikibooks, so yes I may become more active here in the future. Once I get used to how it works... Regards, Kennedy 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Import needed[change]

I believe I need you, or another admin here to import the article in that RfD. Is this possible? Synergy 03:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

user:86.69.154.71 [change]

Hello,

Maybe I am wrong but don't you think its kind of hard to block a ip for a month if he creates one test subject? I would have choose a block for a day or three. And make it more and more if he won't stop. But a month is to much in my eyes.

See ya, Abigor 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think you're right too : I've already seen a lot of similar contributions a few months before such as the "Gsthae with tempo!" trolling, even on Simple Wikipedia : it seems to me that "stab an elephant with a nostril" or "siphoning has no heralds" have been employed many times, I saw the entry "The impertinences of Leon the Podon" has also been deleted three times on Simple WP before being protected, it could be the same vandal than gsthae with tempo! You may also ask for a checkuser to be sure. Nebogipfel 14:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Some blocks[change]

Hi! I got requested on IRC to run some checks of a few new users.... they're all socks of each other, with rather shaky names. The IP underneath is a close match to a range used by a known en:wp sockmaster. So I blocked them all. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns... thanks! Wasn't quite sure where to bring this. Lar 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

thesauri[change]

Why there is not link to wikipedia , at thesaurus-page? --Penarc 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: and deletion tags[change]

I've replied on my talk page about the lower-case business. Just a question, what template do you use for requesting the deletion of a page? I saw a nonsense one earlier and couldn't find the appropriate tag. --Gwib 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One last question, what do {{countable}} and {{uncountable}} mean? --Gwib 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[change]

Thanks for correcting the template on undo and on its other forms. I'll remember to use {{verb2}} for irregular verbs in the future. Maximillion Pegasus 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to use verb2. I think the verb template works just as well for irregular verbs. You just need to list all the forms. See the last example at the bottom of Template:verb. Coppertwig(talk) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
But the verb2 template marks it as irregular.--Brett 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the {{verb}} template adds the page to Category:Regular verbs while the {{verb2}} template adds it to Category:Irregular verbs. Maximillion Pegasus 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I wonder if I can fix that. Maybe I could change the verb template so that when five verb forms are given, then it puts it in the irregular category. But are there some regular verbs where we have to give five forms?
If that's not possible, then we need to change the instructions for using the verb template. Coppertwig(talk) 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Email[change]

Hi there. I have sent you an email. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you get the email that I sent you? Razorflame 19:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Twin[change]

Why did you put a use as an adjective in the noun section at twin?

By the way, I suppose you know that if you want you can put up a Mediawiki:Sitenotice to tell people about the closure discussion on meta.

I keep thinking I'm asking you things I might have already asked you a year ago or something. Coppertwig(talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago I read it too fast and for a few seconds I thought it said "There is an obscure discussion on meta"!!
Your message is more positive than the one we had for a long time at Simple English Wikiquote. "This project has been nominated to be closed down. Please comment here." I should have changed that one but didn't think of it or didn't know how or didn't know whether I should. Coppertwig(talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag?[change]

Could I get a bot flag here please? I will only be working on interwikis. Cheers, Darkicebot 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwicket[change]

Thanks again. Not that at the insistence of SpaceBirdy, the bot adds all the iwikis it knows, not just the English reciprocal; so it will be adding a few others as well.

Glad to hear it.--Brett 12:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a note atop this page about a "closure discussion"? Are they nuts? We refer children and ESL students to simple all the time. Iwikis to simple from (for example) the Swahili wikt are very, very useful. Robert Ullmann 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell, they are nuts.--Brett 12:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Exemplifying[change]

Have I been doing a better job at exemplifying the word in the examples? I have been trying very hard to make sure that I do this.

Also, could you try to come up with an example that exemplifies the use of the word backslash? I tried for about an hour last night to come up with an example that exemplified it, but I was unsuccessful. Maybe you would have better luck? Cheers, Razorflame 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, your examples seem to be better at hinting at the meaning of the word. Despite that I think they still fail at times to accurately exemplify it. I found the examples for failing and domicile to be very unnatural. Failing is used almost exclusively to refer to someone's character. Something like a pipe would have a failure rather than a failing. Domicile is a formal word and the sentence should reflect that.
I also wonder about the rationale for adding obsolete words when so many very common words are still missing.--Brett 12:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I do plan on getting around to them. I am creating words that interest me currently. Don't worry, I will be helping you guys make the most common words :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

flowings[change]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect about the deletion of this article. This article was in fact, a real English word. It is on the English Wiktionary and is also in Google books. Why did you delete it when I found sources that indicate it is a real word? Thanks, Razorflame 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is an noun entry for flowing, then there should be a noun entry for every verb in the -ing form. It's better simply to think of this as a general property of verbs.--Brett 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The English Wiktionary has an entry for this word; why can't we have an entry for this word? I don't see what is wrong with it, IMHO, but if you want to keep it deleted, then I'm cool with that. Just wondering why you deleted it. Cheers, Razorflame 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the en.wikt entry as an error. There was a discussion in the beer hall there about this very topic, and the consensus was (as I read it) that there is a need to distinguish between genuine deverbal nouns such as building, writing, etc. from gerundial verbs, which are simply present participles being pushed into service as nouns.

I think it would be noisy and confusing to people who want a simple dictionary for every verb entry to have an entry like this. I'd also like to concentrate on useful, core items rather than esoteric trivia. Having said that, of course I'm not the sole arbiter of what appears here, and if you recreate the page, I will not delete it.--Brett 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as another question, but why are you deleting valid definitions from words like you just did with husbanded? The entry on the English Wikipedia clearly states that it can also be an adjective, but again, if you view it as an error, then I am fine with the removal. Cheers, Razorflame 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is another error. Still, I didn't delete the definition. I moved it to the correct category. You can't say that something is very husbanded or more husbanded than x or that something became husbanded. This shows us that husbanded is the past participle of the verb husband, not an adjective.--Brett 00:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand why you made that change, then :). Good catch :). I will refrain from adding these to pages that are already verbs, then, in the future because of the likelihood that it is indeed an error. Cheers, Razorflame 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's more on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of adjectives that look identical to past participles. Words like excited, interested, focused, etc.. Try them with very and with became. If they work with either, then they probably exist as adjectives and verbs. If they work with neither, they're probably only verbs.--Brett 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've put a # back in the first line of husbanded. I'm not really sure what to do here. The reason I took it out is that it indicates that 1 and 2 are separate senses of the word, which they are not. In the past we simply haven't had definitions at all on the inflected pages unless the inflection leads to a different part of speech or has an idiosyncratic meaning that is not used in the other forms of the word. I'd say take out the # or the definition.--Brett 00:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take out the definition then. Cheers, Razorflame 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RfAs[change]

Hi there, Brett. Is there a set amount of time that an RfA lasts here on the Simple English Wiktionary? If there is, could you please let me know how long the usual RfA lasts as stated in policy? Also, while it isn't that big of a deal, you are the only active bureaucrat on this site, which means, while I know you do like to vote in RfAs, that as the only active bureaucrat here, you should probably not vote in RfAs because if you were to vote and then promote the user, it could look like a COI (conflict of interest), or it could also affect your neutrality on the request. Just a thought.....Razorflame 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No set time that I know of. I'll refrain from voting if you'd like.--Brett 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to if you don't want to. I would actually appreciate it if you were to vote as it would give me a better understanding of what I need to fix for possible future RfAs. Cheers, Razorflame 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

automobile[change]

Hi there, again. The English Wiktionary for the page automobile says that there is a verb tense for this word, but it says that it is dated. Does that mean that we should just leave it out of this Wiktionary until later, or add it now? Just want to make sure before I go changing anything. Cheers, Razorflame 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it strike you as something that a beginning user of English would find useful?--Brett 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really, which is why I decided to ask you about it first. Cheers, Razorflame 00:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Then I'd say don't bother.--Brett 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I won't bother adding in dated or archaic definitions from now on, or definitions that I do not believe are common enough for this Wikipedia. Thanks, Razorflame 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes[change]

Thanks for showing me the workings of this Wiktionary. I feel that I have a fairly good grasp of all of the things that are the inner workings of this Wiktionary.

Also:

  • I will put references on talk pages from now on.
  • Are lava, pimpmobile, and magma simple enough now?
  • What defines a transitive verb?

Thanks, Razorflame 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your positive approach to learning all this stuff.
I think the three words could still be simpler.
A transitive verb is one that takes an object. An object is usually a noun phrase that directly follows the verb. If the sentence is made passive, the object becomes the subject of the passive sentence.
Transitivity is a property of a verb sense rather than of the verb itself. In other words, some senses may be transitive, while others are intransitive. Some verbs take predicate complements rather than or as well as objects. If you're not familiar with the difference, they can appear very similar. The main difference is that a predicate complement can be an adjective, but an object can't. These verbs are called linking verbs and are not transitive.
  • He met the president. [object]
  • *He met happy.
  • He became president. [predicate complement]
  • He became happy.
I hope that helps.--Brett 12:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it does. Thanks for the help, and I am glad that my positive approach is a good thing. Thank you for the compliment! Cheers, Razorflame 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerns[change]

Hi there Brett. I have a few concerns about this project that I would like to voice to you:

  • I do not believe that this project should have only one active bureaucrat. I think that there should be multiple bureaucrats (at least 2) so that they can check each others' decisions and so that there are bureaucrats that are more readily available.
  • The ratio of active administrators to inactive administrators should be reversed. There should be more active than inactive administrators on this site. This could probably turn away potential new editors, and as a Wikimedia Wiki with very few active editors, we need all the new editors we can get at this point in time.
  • I am unsure about whether or not we have enough active editors to keep this project afloat at this point in time. I have contacted a few people about this and asked them if they could become more active on this project, including one of the administrators currently listed on the list of administrators (Coppertwig). I hope to be able to jumpstart this project with new editors soon. I am trying all that I can to get more people to edit on this site, but it hasn't been going very well. Any ideas?

These are just some of the concerns that I have about this project at this point in time. Do you agree with me on this, and do you have some concerns of your own, maybe? Razorflame 03:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

More people at all levels in the project would certainly be nice. I don't see any concern about keeping the project afloat though. It will muddle on as it has even without much input.--Brett 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that statement. I noticed Tygrrr being active over on the Simple English Wikipedia earlier today, so I invited him over here :). I know that this project will be able to stay afloat now, but I really would like to see more active editors on this site :). Cheers, Razorflame 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Question[change]

Hi there Brett. My RfA has now been open for 5 days now and has 5 supports with no opposes. Other RfAs have been closed earlier than mine, so I was just wondering when you are planning on closing it. Also, when you create new pages in the future, could you be so kind as to include at least the interwiki to the English Wiktionary please? Thanks, Razorflame 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know including an interwiki link seems like a small thing, but frankly, I'm busy enough as it is. A bot can do that much more efficiently than I can, and I'd rather use my time for more demanding work.--Brett 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I would not mind doing this for you :). Cheers, and thanks for closing the RfA. Cheers, Razorflame 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you need to put in interwikis. I think bots do that. Coppertwig(talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Open proxies[change]

Should I go through the Simple English Wikipedia's block log and block some of the open proxies that have been blocked over on the Simple English Wikipedia using the basis that open proxies are not allowed to edit and are automatically blocked on other Wikipedias, or should I not do that and wait for them to edit? Just a question, because I do not know what to do about it at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know enough about open proxies to give you a useful answer. How many are we talking about? The block would still allow user name creation?--Brett 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Only the few that were blocked on the Simple English Wikipedia within the past week. Open proxies should not be allowed to create new accounts because nearly 100% of edits from open proxies are vandalism, so if we were to allow account creation, then it would allow for the vandals to start creating new accounts to continue vandalizing. Hope this helps you understand. Razorflame 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
But are those IP addresses not also available to legitimate users? I'm not sure about other project, but here almost 100% of the vandalism is anonymous. I don't think I've ever seen one of these vandals actually create an account after having their IP address blocked.--Brett 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they could potentially be used by legitimate users, but the chances of that happening are very slim. Most other Wikipedias and Wiktionaries prevent account creation from open proxies, but if you want, I can keep account creation open for those users. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it'd be more useful to block them as they come. I have no idea how to determine whether an IP is an open proxy, so if you have a way to be sure, I'd be fine with you blocking and allowing account creation. If allowing account creation causes problems, we can always adjust accordingly. As Brett said, the (overwhelming) majority of our vandalism is from IPs. But like I said, I don't think it's a high priority right now to duplicate all of SE WP's open proxy blocks here. · Tygrrr... 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In general, open proxies are generally blocked for a period of one year. Most of the time, they are closed over the period of that year. I just got done unblocking a whole bunch of IPs that were open proxies from 3 years ago. They are no longer open proxies, and therefore, don't need to be indefinitely blocked anymore. We can always reblock them as they return (if they do). Cheers, Razorflame 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

fatherland[change]

A question: The English Wiktionary entry for this article says that it is an uncountable noun and doesn't have an article for fatherlands. Is this yet another mistake, or are they correct? I looked up fatherlands on dictionary.reference.com and the Merriam Websters dictionary sites and both came back with fatherlands not being a word, so should this entry be countable or uncountable? Wanted to ask you this before I made the change again. Cheers, Razorflame 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Few dictionaries will list plurals, so that doesn't help. MW is a dictionary for native speakers, and, as such, doesn't include countability. Their Learner's dictionary does, as do the others I mentioned. If you check them, they'll tell you that fatherland is usually singular. This means that it is indeed countable. If you can use the word with a/an, each, every, then it's countable.--Brett 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
More on countability here.--Brett 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the words that you provided (a/an, each, every) help quite a lot. I will use those words with an entry that is a noun to help me tell if it is a countable or uncountable noun from now on. Cheers, Razorflame 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan editor[change]

What ever happened to this editor and his edits? Was he blocked? Have the formatting and POV issues created by this editor been taken care of? I'd hate to have them all still sitting there in the form that they were in when I was last here, so I could start cleaning them if they're still bad. Secretly, I'm hoping to hear that it's all taken care of. ;-) · Tygrrr... 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, blocked and cleaned up, at least what I can find, though some stray pages do seem to be still turn up from time to time.--Brett 19:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Range 79.85.113.x[change]

Hi there Brett. I noticed a while back, you blocked this range (79.85.113.0/24) for excessive vandalism, and after reading that, I checked how many different IP addresses have been blocked for vandalism using that range. I came up with around 35-40 IP addresses. I think that we should possibly consider a longer term range block that extends over the entire range (/16). Of course we would allow account creation, but because of the amount of long-term vandalism we have gotten from that range, I think that it would be best to block them for a period of about a year or so. What are your thoughts on this? Razorflame 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it. I'd probably leave it as is, but if you have good reasons for changing it, I'm not adverse to that.--Brett 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It would effectively block around 65,556 IP addresses from editing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will block 65,556 users. We could also do several smaller ranges. For now, though, I would have to agree with you...I think it could be left alone for now until we get some more vandalism from this range, and when we do, we could decide then if we should block the range or not. Razorflame 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletions[change]

Sorry if I concerned you with the mass deletions that I did last night. I went through the logs and found a lot of unnecessary redirects that weren't really needed on the Simple English Wiktionary, so I went through and deleted them all. Razorflame 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting started[change]

Hi Brett. I'm Yotcmdr, former admin at SEWP (where I'm active) and thought I might come and give you guys a hand here at Simple English Wiktionnary. I just wanted to know were I should start, if there was anything that needs doing in particular... I thought I'd come to you as you're the person I've seen editing the most here. Thanks, Yotcmdr 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of words called the BNC1 list of words (link can be found in the recent changes box) Wiktionary:BNC spoken freq 02 that is a list of words that need to be created on here. Hope this helps :). If you need anymore help, feel free to ask me or any other user on here :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the BE1500 list. You're welcome to help me with that if you feel like it. Coppertwig(talk) 01:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[change]

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For all of your hard work here, I hereby award you this barnstar! Cheers, Razorflame 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly well deserved. Why didn't I think of giving him one? Coppertwig(talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question[change]

What's the correct way of saying the difference between the different headings such as noun and verb? Sense, form? Thanks, Razorflame 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're distinguishing between noun, verb, etc, this is traditionally called part of speech, but most linguists would call it (lexical) category. Within a given headword, then, you would have entries for various categories. Within the categories, each number denotes a different sense of the word. The boxes at the top show the different inflectional forms of the word. And related words lists the various words that are derived from a common stem. Does that cover everything?--Brett 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, thanks, Razorflame 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[change]

Thanks for your welcome note. Mmxx 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming users[change]

Here on the Simple English Wiktionary, I think that we should only think about welcoming new users if they make any edits to the mainspace. That is currently what the Simple English Wikipedia does with its new users, and I think that it would be a great idea to have us do it as well. Cheers, Razorflame 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

...because...?--Brett 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a suggestion; you don't have to follow it if you don't want. Cheers, Razorflame 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that. Right now, I don't see any reason for it, but I may be overlooking something and was hoping you might explain.--Brett 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope, there is nothing that you are overlooking. Never mind. Cheers, Razorflame 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If a user has a global account, and just looks here (no edits), automatically a user account is created. If we then post a welcome message, they might get an email saying that their talk page on this project has been edited. They might wonder whether it just happened that way or whether people can see that they've looked at the project. That happened to me when I looked at Wikibooks: see wikibooks:simple:User talk:Microchip08#Thanks for the welcome!. I got an email saying that my talk page had changed. (Maybe I have set my preferences to do that. I forget.) Anyway, after that happened, I decided that I think it's better not to post welcome messages to users who do no edits. Certainly they're welcome to visit the project. I won't complain if others post welcome messages. Coppertwig(talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Would that get them to maybe come back or scare them away?--Brett 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your block of SB39Bot[change]

Hi there, Brett. Could you plesae unblock SB39Bot? I have reviewed the interwiki links that it has added, and they were all appropriate (in my opinion). He has requested to me over IRC that it be unblocked. Thanks, Razorflame 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Brett is correct. All of the links should be in English. Unlike Wikipedia where the interwiki lead to what the page is called in other languages (i.e. the translation of the word in other languages), on Wiktionary the interwiki should all be of the same word, no translation, no spelling changes. For example es:dog would say, in Spanish, 'dog is the English word for perro '. If you notice, dog has everything as language:dog, not es:perro, etc. Make sense? Therefore SB39 is adding the wrong links. Also, it should be flagged before it can be run here and that hasn't been done yet. Once SwirlBoy has made the appropriate changes he can run some tests here and then get a flag from Brett if the tests work and the bugs seem to be fixed. · Tygrrr... 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for butting my head into where it shouldn't have been in the first place. I will try very hard not to do this in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 19:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA ready for closure[change]

Hi there Brett. It has been seven days since the opening of Maximillion Pegasus's RfA and I just wanted to let you know that it is ready for closure. Unless someone has any particular objection about you doing that, of course :). Cheers, Razorflame 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know the request has been open for 10 days. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

feed[change]

Sorry about that. After I added that, I thought that I should probably have removed it, but I wasn't sure, so I just left it to let you decide. Unfed is most likely an antonym of fed, right? Thanks for the clarification, Razorflame 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Brett 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Razorflame 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

refuse[change]

Should I make more entries for words like I did with refuse? Would that be more helpful to this project? Thanks for the help in advance, Razorflame 15:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, personally I think that would be most helpful.--Brett 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Requirements for administrator[change]

Hi there Brett. As I stated on Wiktionary:Administrators, I really see no reason why we need to put it off until later. I think that we should discuss what our Criteria for Adminship should be here on the Simple English Wiktionary. Please see the proposal that I will write shortly. Cheers, Razorflame 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing adjectives[change]

Hi there Brett. Could you please bring up the removal of adjectives on the talk pages of the entries to which you are deleting the adjectives from first before going ahead and removing them, because I believe that some people would disagree with the removal of them, especially from blazing and fined, but especially blazing. Blazing can be used to define something as being very fast, e.g. blazing fast internet, or blazing fast service...therefore, an adjective part of speech for that entry makes sense. Thanks, Razorflame 15:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

folk[change]

Hi there Brett. Category:Nouns is not needed on this page because Category:Countable nouns is a subcategory of Category:Nouns, so it is redundant to include folk in Category:Nouns, because if it is already in a subcategory of Category:Nouns, then technically, it is already in Category:Nouns. Cheers, Razorflame 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is technically true. But all other nouns get put in the noun category directly. Why treat folk differently just because I needed to edit the header template?--Brett 11:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not treating it special. If you think that it belongs in the Noun category directly, then we can change the template on the page from Countable nouns to nouns. Cheers, Razorflame 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The best solution would be to change {{noun2}} so that there can be 2 possible plurals so that we don't have to substitute {{noun}} and change the singular. I don't have time to look at the template right now to do it, but if someone else has time, they can go right ahead. · Tygrrr... 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Yam[change]

Most of the fixes are Yes check.svgY Done. There's an article on the genus Dioscorea on the English Wikipedia. Should that be mentioned? --Dylan620 Speaketh · @ en.wikipedia 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki[change]

Hi Brett,

Where could I go to ask for transwiki rights over here? I'm an admin over at Simple WP and it would help me to have transwiki over here so that I could clear our back log of DicDefs.

Or alternatively, a willing admin over here to put aside a space of time to help out :).

Regards,

Bluegoblin7 11:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid the only way I can give you that is to make you an admin here. I don't have the power to make you an importer. Before you put a lot of work into transwikis, you may want to have a look at this discussion.--Brett 12:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... well i'm not after "free" rights so i'm happy to go through an RfA. Or I could request transwiki at Meta if there was some discussion to link too. I don't mind either way. Thanks for the link, I would of course follow Wikitionary guidelines etc and not just "transwiki and leave". It's likely they will be done in batches as and when I get time. Regards, Bluegoblin7 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot[change]

I changed the bot to avoid adding audio when word has different pronunciation when used as different parts of speech. --Derbeth talk 09:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my bot finished the work. It has added about 540 audio files. --Derbeth talk 09:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributive nouns[change]

A couple of questions for you:

  1. Did I use the right classification on ceramic, in particular #3? en:wikt has that def as an adj, but it seemed more of an attributive noun to me.
  2. Shouldn't {{attrib}} place the word in Category:Attributive nouns instead of Category:Attributive adjectives? It would seem that the template would most often be used to make the distinction between attributive nouns and adjectives. Also, the phrase "attributive adjectives" seems somewhat redundant as most adjectives are attributive, no?

Your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Materials are difficult. Most of the syntactic tests I can think of provide ambiguous results or don't apply. Given the -ic ending, I'd be tempted to put it as an adjective, but I think argument could be made for either.
For {{attrib}}, I think we may need two templates. There is a sizable group of adjectives that refuse to appear predicatively, at least in some senses. One that I did recently is mere, and presidential is one that is sense specific. On the other hand, I can't think of any nouns, off the top of my head, that funtion only as attributive modifiers, though certainly there are specific senses of nouns that come up only in that function. Perhaps the answer is to change the template to describe the function rather than the category: "attributive modifier" rather than "attributive adjective" or "attributive noun".--Brett 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think 2 templates and 2 categories might be more useful to users than 1 template that places both nouns and adjectives in a general "modifier" category. To be clear, things that I would think belong in an "Attributive noun" category would be things like materials (ceramic, copper, etc), strange colors (dandelion, strawberry, almond, etc), perhaps nationalities (Dutch, American,etc) and some others we've come across in the past (begineer, capillary, etc)--basically words that are often used attributively but do not fit all the rules to qualify as a true adjective. Or am I misunderstanding the intended usage of this template? · Tygrrr... 16:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently almost everything with the template is an adjective, but, yes, I think there are some nouns that might benefit from being labeled attributive. You list sounds like a good start. One template or two? I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but the current situation doesn't work, as you've pointed out.--Brett 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing username: MathCool10 to MC10[change]

Could you make the username change as shown above to unify SUL? Thanks. MathCool10 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I doing ok?[change]

Hi. I'm sure that you've noticed me making a bunch of articles recently. I'm just wondering if there's anything I can improve on, or any mistakes I'm making often? Thanks. Mm40 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick deletion[change]

Please give a reason for nominating User:I-210 & User talk:I-210 for quick deletion.--Brett 10:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't hope that you think that I nominated those two pages. I don't support the deletion of user pages, but if they are blank they can be deleted. Aspecially if the user themself ask for it. Carsrac 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops[change]

[3] :) Rocket000 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

ally[change]

I took the plunge and created my first Simple entry. Could you take a look and make sure I did it O.K.?

Thanks in advance!

Ruakh 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Census[change]

Started a census here. Please sign. Regards, Pmlineditor 17:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Talkback[change]

I've replied on my user talk. Yotcmdr 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request[change]

Hey Brett, would you mind checking my additions to fucking. I'm not sure the parts of speech are accurate, the definitions would ideally be a little simpler, and I'm just not sure I did it right. I used en:wikt as a basis for what I've added. I'd appreciate it if you'd check it out. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much spot on, Tygrrr. It's an expletive, as such, it generally indicates the speaker's attitude much more than any specific properties of the head it modifies.--Brett 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA[change]

Hello! Just wanted to say that the RFA is no open for 7 days. Probably yo want to close it. Thanks. Barras || talk 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a couple of more days.--Brett 19:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, even if I think there will be no more votes. Barras || talk 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Barras, here on the Simple English Wiktionary, people usually have their RfAs open for longer than the seven days that is established over on the Simple English Wikipedia. That is because Brett wants to give all the people the possibility to vote, even though that possibility is slim, he still wants to leave it open for a long enough period of time for them to possibly vote because not everyone here votes or even edits that regularly. Hope this helps, Razorflame 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Funs[change]

Hey there Brett. Last night, I was thinking about deleting funs because it did not sound like an English word to me, however, I was unsure about it, so I decided to leave it and let someone else who knows more about the situation or possibility of it being a word to resolve that issue. I see that you have deleted that page, which is what I was leaning towards last night. Anyways, just wanted to let you know, Razorflame 13:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Brett 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Barras' RfA[change]

Please close the RfA. It should have been closed at 10th (7 days from 3rd). Thanks, Pmlineditor  Talk 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such policy here.--Brett 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So we wait till we reach consensus? Pmlineditor  Talk 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally, the time seems to be about two weeks. Feel free to propose a more formal system if you wish.--Brett 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, the two weeks are over. Best --Barras || talk 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Y'all[change]

Hi Brett! I need some help with correct formatting of an article. Can you please have a look at this? Thanks Barras || talk 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi![change]

Hi Brett,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Forgive me - Wiktionary is a new project to me! I come from a Wikinews background - en:n:User:Skenmy is my main userpage. I'm enjoying contributing to the Simple English Wiktionary so far, though! Are there any areas you think I should focus on, or tasks that need doing? I've been using the Accelerated JS to create pages so far - and creating the odd word here and there. --Skenmy 09:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RE[change]

No problem. I was talking to a friend on MSN, he told me about the vandalism on here and asked for my help. Just thought to lend a helping hand.--WillC 12:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:[change]

no problem :)--   CR90  22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback request[change]

I may become more active on this project, so I would appreciate it if I (contributions here) was granted rollback. I have rollback at the Simple English and regular English wikipedias. Cheers, Mm40 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. Cheers, Razorflame 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of noun from bullying[change]

Just to tell you, I added the noun section from the enwp version. Was this info on enwp wrong? Regards, Pmlineditor  15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everything on the English Wiktionarys' entries are worth adding to our entries. In this instance, it shouldn't be added because it is just a definition of the action of the verb, which does not make it a noun, so there is no reason to have a separate definition for the noun. Razorflame 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Pmlineditor  16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Brett is still free to clarify it more or to explain it differently, as this is his talk page, so keep an eye out for anything else that he adds to what I said. Cheers, Razorflame 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what Razorflame said.--Brett (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

-adverb?[change]

Hi there!

I need it only for my understand: Why have you this adverb removed. At least enwikt says that this is also an adverb. Shouldn't our entries not be complete? Regards Barras (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary is not always correct in their entries. Many of their entries need fixing to make them correct. Yesterday does not have an adverb according to several online dictionaries. Razorflame 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Although many dictionaries list it as an adverb, this is based on flawed grammatical analysis. It assumes that anything that answers the question question 'when' is an adverb. In fact, nouns often answer this question (e.g., I'll see you next week.). More examples at Talk:tomorrow.--Brett (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explaination. Barras (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Less common synonyms[change]

Hi there Brett. You recently told me that we should only use simple, non-complex words as synonyms. I don't agree with you entirely on this. While yes, we should be focusing on the simpler side of things, we can also better help our English language learners learn new, more complex words by including a few uncommon synonyms as well. This includes synonyms such as adder, serpent, and viper for snake because if we include such more complex words in the synonyms, then we help our English language learners know that those words mean the same thing as the less complex word, and in essence, will learn a more complex word in the process. This might not always work, but I think that it would be word a try. That is the reasoning behind using such complex synonyms. Furthermore, I understand that treacherous is a complex word, but then again, if it is wikilinked, then chances are that if a user doesn't know what the word meant, he could click on the word treacherous and find out what it meant. That is my reason for including complex words in definitions, because they could learn more complex words by clicking on the wikilink. Cheers, Razorflame 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Razorflame, this appears to make sense, but as someone who works with language learners daily, I can tell you it's not the way it works. Native speakers typically use synonyms for variety and to find the mot just, but language learners use synonyms to understand the meaning of the word they're looking up. When students in my classes use thesauri like Roget's, which are written for native speakers of English, the results are disastrous. There are few thesauri for language learners, but those that are popular (e.g., The Oxford Learner's Thesaurus) are popular because they understand this and don't present words that the learners can't use. If they truly want more complex words, they can go to en.wiktionary.--Brett (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean delete reasons[change]

Would you mind adding the Clean Delete Reasons script from Gadgets? That'll make navigation of the deletion logs easier. Ta, Pmlineditor  12:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback.js[change]

Conrad says just to add importScript('User:Conrad.Irwin/feedback.js') to MediaWiki:Common.js. --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you also import en:User:Conrad.Irwin/feedback.js. --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
en:User_talk:Conrad.Irwin#User:Conrad.Irwin.2Ffeedback.js --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

revert[change]

Why did you revert Kansan here? I'm sure you have a good explanation, but I thought his edit was ok. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple English Wiktionary uses second person throughout (even though it's deprecated on other projects). I think it's easier for language learners to understand. My experience with the use of one instead is that you get low-level language learners saying things like "yesterday I bushed one's teeth."--Brett (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuzzy logic?[change]

I am uncomfortable contributing to this project; but sometimes I can imagine no better language choice in the context of a Simple English Wikipedia article. In other words, I am only interested in adding to entries in this venue when it appears needed because of what I've written. Arguably, my edits serve the purposes I had in mind; but I do not want to create unintended consequences. In this context, I would appreciate feedback about the following:

Native
In the stub I created about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I wrote:
RCMP is the police for 184 native communities -- the First Nations,<:ref>First Nations</ref> Inuit<:ref>Inuit</ref> and Métis.<:ref>Métis</ref>
The illustrative example identifies Australian natives as aboriginals. I was trying to be sensitive to a cultural preference in Canada which is reflected in the first sentence at Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Happily, my edit was reviewed by a self-identified Canadian here
My question to you is this: Why was my rationale wrong or inappropriate? Alternately, if a timely re-visit to this edit of wikt:native is plausibly necessary, what is the next step? --Tenmei (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure you (Brett) have a good reason for the revert, it would help if we don't have to go to you every single time we have a question about one of your edits. This is what the edit summary and/or talk pages are for. Please use them as it saves us time. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will rely on your judgment. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumference[change]

Actually, the area of a circle is . PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. And thanks for the catch on circumference.--Brett (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, my username is PiRSquared17 () PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: scold[change]

Thanks for the reminder. I don't know what I was thinking at the time. — Wenli (reply here) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

carelessly[change]

I think that inattentively can easily be a synonym of carelessly. What makes you say that it isn't? Thanks, Razorflame 01:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it isn't a synonym. It's that it isn't a particularly common one. As you wrote last August, "synonyms should only be restricted to the two or three most common synonyms." In the Corpus of Current American English, inattentively gets 5 hits.
1 CASUALLY [S] 2991
2 HASTILY [S] 1733
3 CARELESSLY [S] 581
4 HAPHAZARDLY [S] 373
5 INACCURATELY [S] 194
--Brett (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with you on that one :) OK, thanks for the information. Cheers, Razorflame 17:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple Wiktionary[change]

Hi there Brett. I know that this is the Simple Wiktionary, however, there are some things that I cannot simplify due to the lack of knowledge to do so. I try to simplify it down as much as I possibly can, however, there will always be some instances where I cannot simplify it any further than I already have. That is why your work that you do on this site is of so much help to this site. Cheers, Razorflame 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Morning Brett[change]

I don't believe we've ever spoken, so I thought I'd say hello. I notice that you are a TESOL professor at Humber. I hold CELTA myself although I don't teach anymore now that I've moved into medicine. I only did it for a couple of years, mostly in Japan. I'm also from Toronto originally, so "how's it going eh?" :). On a serious note, and since I am an admin here (albeit a dead-beat one), I have decided to get serious about adding definitions. I've just made caesium and am going to do all of the missing elements as well as work through the most wanted backlog. Would you be so kind as to review it quickly and let me know if I've done it correctly and what I could do better. I notice that en.wikt does it a bit differently and wonder if I should be following their layout or the layout of the elements that have been completed here on simple.wikt? Thanks! fr33kman t - c 11:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I hope you don't mind but I have linked your explanation to Griffinofwales of the use of second person at a discussion about second/third person at the Simple English Wikipedia. I know you are not active there, but if you feel up to it, you may wish to offer a thought or two to us. fr33kman t - c 11:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

vassal[change]

How is there "no evidence this verb exists"? Its verb inflections get a lot of hits on Google books, and it does have an en.wikt entry. Is there an RFV process this needs to go through? --Yair rand (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what I did this morning, but I now do find examples on Google books. 42 hits for vassaling is hard lots, especially when hardly any are from this century or the last. But yes, it exists. My bad. Feel free to recreate if you feel it worth you while.--Brett (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

cardboards[change]

So, I'm confused, and I am sorry for bothering you, but as I've said my knowledge of English is limited on some points... Is cardboards a word, or not? Avicennasis (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cardboards is very, very rarely used, and it is a real word, but it is so rarely used that I would not make an entry for it. I would much rather leave it out, as that is the way it would be best off for the Wiktionary. Razorflame 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Razorflame's right. Most uncountable nouns like cardboard do have plural forms. These forms are typically used when talking about types. For example, the box is made from two different cardboards.--Brett (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Would re-creating cardboards as a redirect to cardboard be acceptable? As a novice Hebrew speaker, I often look up unfamiliar words on the Hebrew Wiktionary, and sometimes things like plurals not having a page at all can cause me some confusion while I look for the right page. Sometimes it's tough to find. Not saying that is the case here, but if it is a word, even rarely used, and we have a page for the headword (I think that's the term), is there any harm in a redirect? Just in case we get someone who types cardboards in the searchbox, they can get a hit to the right page? I am asking because I suspect I'll find more pages like this, and would like to know what direction to go in the future. :) Thanks again for your time. Avicennasis (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I honestly do not know whether making cardboards a redirect to cardboard is the right way to go about doing this. If I were in this position, I would probably recreate cardboards as an entry with a usage note saying that it is very rarely used and when it is used, that it is only used to denote different types of the same thing. I believe that that is the way that we should handle all situations like this that arise in the future as well. Razorflame 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Off guard[change]

My mistake, thanks for fixing! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick deletion of File:Wikt.svg[change]

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, File:Wikt.svg, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was an image/media that is not allowed on Wiktionary. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Question.[change]

Hey Brett. I'm kinda new around here, and saw you placed the {{countable}} template on postcard. The only other template I've seen like that is {{transitive}} and I was wondering what uses these templates serve, and how many others there are that I should be aware of. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Here are the important ones: cu noun (countable & uncountable), ti verb (transitive & intransitive, attrib (for adjectives that only appear before nouns), countable (for nouns), intransitive (for verbs), uncountable (for nouns), pluralonly (for nouns), sentence adverb, singular (for nouns with no plural form), transitive (for verbs).--Brett (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah I think I get it. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick deletion of uraniums[change]

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, uraniums, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was not written in English. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Hydriz (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiding 'onyms.[change]

Hi Brett,

Using en.wikt's quotation-hiding code as a starting-point, I've created code at [[User:Ruakh/common.js]] that will collapse all level-three sections by default. To try it out, copy that into [[User:Brett/common.js]] and visit (say) [[up]]. If it's what you had in mind, you can then put it in [[MediaWiki:Common.js]] so that everyone on simple.wikt has it. If not, let me know what you dislike, and I'll see about changing it.

RuakhTALK 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

joke[change]

Thanks for fixing that up. I knew something sounded wrong, just couldn't figure out what it was. Your expertise is appreciated!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 12:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A thanks from me too. I hadn't noticed until today that I didn't even finish a sentence. I need to stop editing so late ... Tempodivalse [talk] 15:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Think nothing of it!--Brett (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent IP spam[change]

Thanks for the nuke! I was getting ready to use it (never tried the nuke feature before) but you beat me to the punch. smile.png The Pakistan territory spamming is getting a little annoying. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, the IP, User:2.99.252.253 is blocked on the Simple English Wikipedia for creating similar Pakistan related pages.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We've dealt with, presumably, the same editor a couple of times in the past.--Brett (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

{{noun}} template[change]

You changed a couple of my edits from {{noun|word|none}} to {{noun}}. If the template {{noun}} is used then it is assumed that the plural form is made by adding as 's'. If there is no plural form then the template should be {{noun|word|none}}. At least that is my understanding.-Gyroidben (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We would use {{Noun|Word|none}} if there were no plurals, however the words that Brett changed do have plurals. I see you reverted him, which is not correct. As far as I can see those words all have plurals, so the {{Noun}} template should be used.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry. I'll fix them. -Gyroidben (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your changes to third party[change]

Hello. Would you be kind enough to explain to me what the reason behind your change to this entry was, please? I'd made the original as simple as possible, using words from the WT:BE850 and the WT:BE1900, so that it was as clear as I could get it. Your changes use at least one word which appears on neither list, and as such, required linking by another editor noting in his edit summary that the words he was linking were "complex". I'd appreciate to hear from you why you altered this entry. Thank you. Thor Malmjursson IPA: θɔr mɑmjərsən talk to me 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you did a good job of making the original simple, but it was factually inaccurate. A third party need not exchange or goods or money. Feel free to simplify what I've got there.--Brett (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[change]

Hello, Brett. You have new messages at DJDunsie's talk page. I'd be really grateful if you could reply - I need help. --DJDunsie (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DJDunsie (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Removal of Interwicket's status[change]

Hello. Can you please remove Interwicket's bot flag ? It is inactive for a long time and will never run again (please see this note on owner talk page).

Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, take a look at the recent changes and guess what I already did earlier today? ;-) -Barras (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

clear[change]

Wow! When you talk about "doing up" entries, you really mean it. I'm more used to the "empty calorie" variety of dictionary entry, I suppose. You've done a great job with the BNC1 entries so far. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words!--Brett (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you're making my efforts look puny. :b One question: do you think the transitive/intransitive templates should have links to definitions? I can see a beginner being confused what they mean. Same goes for plural templates, adjective templates, etc. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.--Brett (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

2.99.254.51[change]

Hi there! I think you have already deal with this some time ago. I'm not sure, but do we want/need those edits/pages here? The user behind this is actually community banned on simpleWP, I just haven't nuked his stuff yet, because I'm not sure. -Barras (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've blocked the address in the past. So far, nothing egregious, so I'd let it ride for now. No big deal if we have to mass undo later. Not much point in trying to communicate if past experience is anything to go by.--Brett (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, maybe I spoke too soon.--Brett (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Forever[change]

Heya Brett. Did I mess this one up? I noticed that the English Wiktionary listed forever's noun form. Cheers mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The last two example are clearly nouns, but they're poetic and hardly standard usage, not worth fussing about in a simple English dictionary. The first one does seem like an object, which would make it a noun, but it's a very peculiar noun. Let me think about it. And if you have any arguments for any particular classification, please, let me know.--Brett (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well your reasoning makes fine sense to me. I was merely curious about your thought process. Go ahead and change it back if you see fit, but don't mind me. Thanks a bunch Brett, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary meanings[change]

I've replied to your query on my talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request[change]

Hi Brett. Could you remove my rollback flag, under my request? Thanks.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. -Barras (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Username rename request: White Cat -> とある白い猫[change]

I'd like to request a username rename per SUL. -- Cat chi? 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done -Barras talk 15:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fall through the cracks[change]

Thank you for showing me how to use the template {{expression}}.

Please look again at hierarchy. Is the re-wording better? --Horeki (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's an improvement. I'm glad I was able to be helpful.--Brett (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Appendices[change]

Hello! If you're around and willing to, please leave a comment at the discussion here which involves a page created by you. Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL[change]

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL[change]

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

rename[change]

Hi,

Could you please rename Ad libitum and À la carte with a lowercase? I don't think an uppercase is needed here. Thank you. 193.54.167.180 (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback[change]

Hi!

I am planning on staying super active here on simple wikit. I understand the difference between vandalism and good faith edits as well as when to use rollback.

Rollback should be used only to:

Revert edits in your userspace, Revert obvious vandalism, Revert changes you made, Revert edits by banned users, and to Revert widespread edits

It should never be used: In an edit war, To revert good faith edits (the undo button should be used), Revert for fun

--Umafiy (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for changing my user rights! Umafiy (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow we are the only ones active in the Special:RecentChanges section... Is this wiki not active? --Umafiy (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Not particularly, no.--Brett (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users[change]

Dear Brett,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Accelerated[change]

Hi. I tried using the accelerated tool but it doesn't seem to work. What could be wrong? Umafiy (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you give more details? You clicked on a green link and...--Brett (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The page is just blank when I click the green link. It says creating "whatever page I am creating". Umafiy (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't explain that at all. A screen shot might help. Have you tried a different browser?--Brett (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For some reason it works now. On my global.js page on meta everything was jacked up. I blanked the page and everything is fine now. Thanks anyways. Cheers. Umafiy (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird?[change]

This article may need to be addressed by an admin. Cheers. --Umafiy (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) I looked at the page in question and if you look at the final paragraph it says something like "you can email us on our webpage" so I tagged to for deletion as spam.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. There is also a few other articles in Recent Changes that need attention such as gerund_of_bite. FuzzyDice (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

New Mail[change]

Hey I've left you an email. Check it when you get a chance. FuzzyDiceTalk 01:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

done.--Brett (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That is absolutely no way to give someone admin rights, even here. Giving such a right to someone whose autopatrolrights have been removed on another wiki for a good reason is an absolute no go. Also there was no on-wiki request or notice or any other way to make it possible for people to comment. If an user wants to become a sysop, they can request it - but not this way. I'm rather disappointed that this right has been granted after that request. However, I've reversed that right change (as local crat, not as steward). -Barras talk 16:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the state of the wiki, I didn't think anyone would really care, but I apologize for not following protocol.--Brett (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I'm not actually active, I still keep an eye on the wiki and especially at the background things. Anyway, mistakes happen. Please don't grant rights like that again and everything is fine. As you can see, his formal request doesn't look like he's trusted enough to hold that permission. :) -Barras talk 15:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Barras Yeah. This request doesn't seem to be successful. I think I will need to request again in the future when I have done more work. I have cleared my issues on enwp and have learned from my mistakes. I am currently making good and honest edits around Wikimedia projects. Any other advice or comments? Eurodyne (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Flag granted[change]

Hi, I have seen that you have granted the sysop flag to a user, but I could not find any request on the relevant page. Was there any change in policy on this wiki about new administrators? --M7 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

See my reply the section above. -Barras talk 16:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey[change]

Hi there. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I was about to correct it and I saw you beating me to it. ;) Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Sorry if I got in the way. I didn't realize you were still working on it.--Brett (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Does the accelerator tool work for you? It is not working for me. I pressed the green links and nothing came out in the source text. I am using Google Chrome. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It works fine for me, but other people have mentioned some issues. Try playing with you global.js page.--Brett (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Jianui67: I was the one with the issue. I am guessing you have twinkle globally installed on meta. See my global.js page and blank your current global.js. Then, copy the source on my global.js page. If you didn't notice, you can't add labels on Wikidata with the old source for twinkle. But it looks like you play the Wikidata game a whole lot ;). For more info see PiRSquared17. Eurodyne (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion[change]

Hi. You forgot to delete knowledge lines. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks!--Brett (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons Cat[change]

Do we add the commons cat template as I did in the China entry? Eurodyne (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing it done, but it strikes me as a fine thing to do.--Brett (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent entries and "simplicity" of them[change]

I noticed on a previous note on my talk page that I seem to have a knack for using complex words. I've made a bunch of entries recently, and I'm hoping that my English was simple enough for those terms. I have to keep a thesaurus handy because Simple English is actually a fairly complex thing to write in, especially if you're used to using more complex terms more often. That being said, could you take a quick look over them and let me know if there is anything that needs work on? Thanks, Razorflame 06:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are words that are not simple. The simplest suggestion is to use only the top 2000 word families in the BNC lists in your explanations and your examples. One way to check this is on the Compleat Lexical Tutor website. Also, good examples go a long way to help clarify the meaning of a word. I usually check the word's top collocations in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. Then I look through the actual examples for ones that are sort and simple enough to use.--Brett (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the material. I'll try to use them in the future. Also, for blusterous, I undid your edit, but changed a few things to make it a better entry. Just saying it is a very rare version of blustery doesn't actually make a definition of the word in my opinion. If you don't believe that is right, please let me know :) Razorflame 03:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This is true. I did it that way, though, because I consider it an archaic form or an error. I see no evidence for its general use. And bluster and gust are not simple, though bluster should be listed in related terms. Overall, I encourage editors to work on the most useful words, not the exquisitely rare, though to each his own.--Brett (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, please avoid verb explanations with the infinitive, which removes important information about typical subjects.--Brett (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Razorflame 22:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Change Protection level[change]

Can you please change the protection level of User talk:Razorflame/Archive 1 from sysop only to autoconfirmed? I'm currently unable to archive my talk page ;) Thanks, Razorflame 04:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done--Brett (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will simplify what I have written.[change]

Yes, I see the point you are making. I will try to simplify my work that I've already written and in the future write in simple words. I apologize. PaulBustion88 (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[4] I simplified this sentence and some others and shortened them. Is that an improvement? PaulBustion88 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Blanking talk page[change]

Hello. I have decided that I'm not going to edit Simple English wiktionary any more. Since my talk page is preserved in the archive am I allowed to blank it since I'm not editing this wiktionary ever again, or not? PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this editing better?[change]

Brett, is the way I handled guild, [5],[6], better since I attributed it, and since its not a weird proper noun but one of the words on the list Barras linked me to, [7]? Paul Bustion III --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Paul
Rather than crediting it in the talk page, I suggest that you give credit in your edit summary. The page will potentially change, making the talk comment irrelevant. I've changed it from a noun phrase to a sentence using the word, and bolded the word guild. The next step is to make it simpler.--Brett (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan deletion[change]

It was decided in RFD to keep a bad entry I created call Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. I don't want to spend time writing different words to repeat the same argument, so I just copied and pasted what I wrote there to you for my argument for why it should be deleted. Do you agree with my argument? "Barras told me that my adding "weird proper nouns" such as different Soviet Socialist Republics was a mistake, and readers of this wiki are looking for useful words. If the different Soviet Socialist Republics do not belong here, then no case can be made that this entry I created, the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan belongs here. The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was just the Sudan when it was a colony of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland and Egypt, it was not an independent country in fact or in name, and it was not important. The different republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were nominally independent, and two of them, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, were founding members of the United Nations, so they were more important in their own right than the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was in its own right. So if the entry about the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic needed to be deleted, as Barras did, then this entry I created about the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan should also be deleted."PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it. The discussion has just been closed as kept, why do you keep insisting on deleting it? A decision has been made so move on and contribute to the wiki in other areas. Also, the page isn't "yours", there is no such thing as ownership over entries. You can't just insist on a deletion just because you created it and feel that it is a bad entry. --Hydriz (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I brought it up again was because Barras stated this to me, "As you've surely noticed, I just cleaned up a good part of the mess you left behind. Well, actually I'm still not done with that. Those entries I've not yet deleted still need to be fixed, which I will probably do later. However, a few things: Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. We don't need an entry on ever[y] possible former country. We also don't need words like Bundespolizei, which is a German word. It might be used in English but is totally irrelevant for this project. Furthermore, we respect the copyright. I've deleted all entries that were straightly copied from the English Wiktionary, partly even copied with missing spaces and stuff. We don't need large numbers of new entries about whatever part of the [Union of] Soviet Socialist Republic[s]. We need, want and prefer quality over quantity. There is a good reason why stuff like this exists. Also it is more important to create useful words for our readers as they can be found here instead of weird proper noun entries about things people rather search in an encyclopedia." I at first was intending to go along with just keeping the entry, but after Barras sent me that message I changed my mind. He seems to be against entries like that, he said we should not have entries about the states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, and he deleted them, even one which was a founding member of the United Nations, the world government body, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Ukrainian SSR, since it was a founding member of the UN in its own right separately from the USSR, I think is a more relevant term to know than the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which was just a colony of the kingdom of Egypt and of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland. I was basically stating that because of Barras' position that other, similar entries I created should be deleted, maybe this one should be revisited. If you want to keep the entry, I'm fine with that, and I will not discuss the issue anymore, the only reason I brought it up again was because of Barass's comment. And, Barras, I'm sorry if my quoting you offends you, I'm not intending to offend you, but your comment is the reason I decided to raise the issue of deleting that entry again, and I would be stating something incorrect if I said that it was for a reason other than your comment, even though your comment was not directly about the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan entry, it was about similar entries that you wanted abolished or did abolish, so it was legitimate that it would lead me to raise this issue again. PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Barras is one person. I happen to agree that we don't need these entries, but I also feel that we community consensus is important. If the result of the RFD was keep, then we keep, as Hydriz says. No big deal.--Brett (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Adult[change]

I think sense 3 of adult should be deleted. I gave my argument in requests for deletion, [8]. Do you agree?PaulBustion87 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My editing[change]

Some editors on wikipedia have said I'm a bad editor. Do you agree with that. I'm asking because I want to see if editing here is a waste of my time. An editor on English wikipedia said, "His repeated claims that he can edit Wikipedia productively should not be taken seriously by anyone."[9] Do you see any problems with my editing here on Simple English wiktionary? Do you agree with her? Should I not edit Simple English wiktionary? PaulBustion87 (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody starts our being a great editor, a great runner, a great artist, a great business person, or a great whatever but people get better if they pay attention and work on improving through practice. I think you're improving as an editor. I think you would improve faster if you paid more attention to the feedback you receive. For instance, I've told you a number of times that definitions should be in sentence format, but you continue to write your definitions as phrases and you don't format properly. Nevertheless, this is a community project, and if one person likes to put in unformatted definitions, then it's up to the community to work with the material they've been given. You're working constructively in good faith, and that's the most important thing. Carry on, think about the needs of our audience, do your best, and stop fretting.--Brett (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've started to change my definitions to sentences instead of to phrases. Could you show me a link to the format guideline so I can fix my formatting also? I apologize for those two mistakes. I also have started looking up words so I don't label everything a noun. I never understood the parts of speech well, noun is the only part of speech I understand the meaning, that's why I made that mistake, although it might have been exacerbated by my insomnia.PaulBustion87 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you'd started to make them sentences. It's appreciated. The parts of speech can be tricky. That's why it's best to check another dictionary, not just for the particular word, but the particular meaning. For formatting guidelines, you should look at How to change a page and Entry layout explained.--Brett (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the formatting in this edit better, [10]?PaulBustion87 (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The link's not working. Which entry are you asking about?--Brett (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I just woke up. But that link is to an entry I created that was deleted by Hydriz another editor, if you click that link it'll show you a deletion log where he explains why he deleted it. I don't remember his reason even though I just read it because I just woke up. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So, instead of hard coding the various inflections (participles, plurals, etc), use templates, like this: # {{present participle of|enrage}}--Brett (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not paying attention again. Do not hard code plurals, like radars. I told you this above. If you want to create derived forms, the best way to do it is to go to the base form, and click on the green links.--Brett (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this better,[[11]]?PaulBustion87 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, to create plurals from the accelerated feature by clicking on the plural form of the noun in the singular noun article,that's what I've started, as in this example,[12]. Is that better?PaulBustion87 (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pedophilia[change]

There's controversy on English wiktionary about pedophilia. I preferred the medical definition;sexual attraction to prepubescent children,but others wanted to use the colloquial one;sexual attraction to/sexual acts against a child.On Simple wiktionary, [13],I decided they're right,dictionaries should be colloquial."The term pedophilia...in its broadest sense refers to a sexual act...performed against a person below the age of consent, this being 16 for heterosexual behavior and 21 for homosexual behavior."Eysenck,Hans The Causes and Cures of Criminality, New York, NY A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation,page 229 is real life use. Nobody uses the medical one in real life.But wikipedia's consensus is the medical one.Was I right?PaulBustion87 (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you simply leave it alone. It's a potentially toxic area and, unless you have a solid reputation, not one you really want to get messed up in.--Brett (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Windbaggery[change]

Hello,

Is there any problem here with my being a windbag? One of my foes' chief complaints against me on English Wiktionary was that I posted long posts of text when I was debating issues with them, and that it read like novels. I've tried to have more brevity here. Do you feel like I've had enough brevity in my talk pages generally or not?PaulBustion87 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I'm not really interested in commenting on you or your debating style. I'm very happy to do my best to help you write better entries.--Brett (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Law/Authorities[change]

Hello, My mother has expressed concern that my edits on wikis will result in my getting investigated by the police. These are the controversial articles I edited,[14],[15],[16], [17],and [18]. Is there anything in my editing there that looks like it promotes any kind of anti-social or illegal activity or like it would result in police reading my wiktionary edits becoming suspicious of me?If so, I will delete it immediately. PaulBustion87 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there isn't.--Brett (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism[change]

In the Buddhism entry,[19], I took out "non-theistic",because not all forms of Buddhism are atheistic.Theravada Buddhism, which forms the majority of Buddhists, is atheistic,but Tibetan Buddhists worship gods. I took out the reference to India because not all Buddhists are Indians, the Tibetans are an exception to that rule also.Was that change ok?PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Be bold.--Brett (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

English Wiktionary[change]

Hello, I want to get unblocked on English Wiktionary. Do you think the improvements in my editing here, combined with my adopting their consensus and imposing it here, might result in them letting me back on English Wiktionary?PaulBustion87 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I really couldn't say. But you've certainly improved here.--Brett (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The word list Barras linked me to.[change]

I've managed to define all of the remaining words that were in the words list Barras linked me to,[20].This is where he linked me to it,[21]. This shows I can actually follow instructions, I did what Barras told me to do, and stopped creating entries on former countries like the member states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the colonies of the British Empire, and stopped creating articles about sexual orientations like gerontophilia, zoophilia, hebephilia, etc., and stopped creating articles about weird organizations like Grand Orient Freemasonry, and I started creating useful, practical entries, like I was told to do.PaulBustion87 (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for another list?--Brett (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I already found another list I'm using. I was pointing out that I've improved in my editing. This is changing the subject but Barras deleted the word ageism last year, saying it was an encyclopedic entry,[22]. Is he saying the entry was to long, or that it's an encyclopedic topic like the different Soviet Socialist Republics and the different kinds of Freemasonry and different sexual orientations are, therefore it does not belong in a dictionary? I ask because I was not sure whether I should recreate the entry, or remove it from the words list I am currently working on,[23].PaulBustion87 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree you've improved your editing. Thank you! Feel free to create an entry for ageism.--Brett (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This page should be deleted.[change]

This page should be deleted, it is the result of a typo.[24] I've already created the correct version.PaulBustion87 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Rebuilded[change]

I'm not sure rebuilded is a real word. [25] I added an entry for rebuilt, since that is certainly more common a word than rebuilded. If rebuilded is not a real word, it should be deleted.PaulBustion87 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dictionary.com states that rebuilt is the current word and rebuilded is archaic, "verb (used without object), rebuilt or (Archaic) rebuilded; rebuilding."[26]PaulBustion87 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Article I created by typo[change]

This article should be deleted,[27].PaulBustion87 (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


My sample sentences[change]

Hello Brett. Have my sample sentences improved now? By the way, this is off topic, it is not intended as a criticism in any way, but on English wikipedia Flyer22 noted that I had two dashes in front of my signature, I figured out how to avoid that, when you click the signature button, it puts 4 ~ and 2 - symbols in front of you, you can backspace on the front two - symbols so the two dashes are gone. I'm not saying you must, and its not a criticism, but if you want to avoid the two dashes, that is how to. PaulBustion87 (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I'll keep it in mind.
Your example for Bolshevik is very good, though the target word should be bold, not just Roman.--Brett (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Are my sample sentences in general improved now, or only the one for the word Bolshevik?PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep working at simplifying them.--Brett (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Are my sample sentences any better now?PaulBustion87 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You haven't added many recently. They're generally too long and complex.--Brett (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I shortened/simplified the sample sentences I added for Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after I read what you wrote that "They're generally too long and complex." Are they better now?PaulBustion87 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think those are better.--Brett (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"The most common meaning should be listed first"[change]

Re: this. In other dictionaries, the meaning that was coined first comes first. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the dictionary. The OED, for instance, is a historical dictionary and lists the meanings in chronological order. The Simple English Wiktionary is for language learners. For their purposes, historical listings are not helpful. Knowing the usual meaning of a word is, and that's why we do it that way. Other learner dictionaries such as the Longman dictionary of contemporary English, Oxford advanced learner's dictionary, and the Cobuild advanced learner's dictionary, also follow the most-common-first ordering.--Brett (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

lite[change]

Hi Brett. Since I'm not familiar with Wikitionary's functions too well (I'm a sysop at Simple & English Wikis), could you take a look at lite. That's no where close to the meaning of the word. Not sure how best to address it...if it's a deletion thing or not. Only (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Brett (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! His demo entry might need to be fixed as well. Only (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

heavy water[change]

I question whether the "being in trouble" definition of this term is legitimate. Even the urban dictionary has only the definition that I added. You yourself asked the page creator if he/she could substantiate that meaning, so I assume you also had some doubt. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reminding me! --Brett (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing rollback here[change]

I have gr, so it's useless to have rollback here. thx --~~Goldenburg111 19:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, are you asking me to take some action?--Brett (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
To remove my rollback rights, can't you do that? --~~Goldenburg111 21:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Whose? Goldenburg111 or Atcovi?--Brett (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh... forgot about the sig. Change "Atcovi" --~~Goldenburg111 18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Brett (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion[change]

Hey. I want to bring your attention to Category:Quick deletion requests because no admin has attended to it for a couple of days. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was on vacation.--Brett (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Ping, once again. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 07:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of my blunders[change]

Hi. Just wanted to say sorry about some of the mess-ups of mine I've seen you clean up. The flavored one I figured was fine because that distinction is made in en.wikt here. The "tire out" one I'm not sure I fully understand since it can be used just like a verb. I'm trying not to fiddle with anything I don't understand, but I guess I've messed up a couple of times. ~Sylvanmoon 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Blunders" makes them sound so big and wrong, things to be avoided. Be bold, and carry on. You've been adding a lot of very useful content. Thank you!
Adjectives have a number of properties, none of which is perfectly diagnostic, but which, taken together, can help you decide whether a word belongs in the category. The one that most people focus on is the ability to function as modifier of a noun. But there are others. Two fairly simply ones are: can the word be modified by very (very falvourful but not very flavoured)? Can it function as complement of seem or become (it seems falvourful but not it seems flavoured). Using these tests, we can see that some participles have become full-fledged adjectives (e.g., tired, interested), but most don't.
As far as tire out goes, it's not a word, so it's not a verb, though it has a verb as its head. One reason to say it's not a word is that it can have other words inside it (e.g., she tired him out). It's useful to include the expression because it has a meaning that isn't entirely predictable (compare we were tired out, we were sent out).--Brett (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My manuals of style[change]

I am stuck with how to write new articles with their correct manuals of style when it comes to things like plurals, participles, past tenses, etc.. Can you please tell me the correct formatting of things like plurals, past participles, past tenses, another-word-fors, certain-language-spellings-for, etc.? I am getting the hang of normal words but not quite understanding things that I had just stated. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Usually, you just add the part of speech to the base form (e.g., {{noun}} and everything will be filled in automatically. Then you just click on the various parts of speech to automatically create their other forms. If this isn't what you mean, could you show me an example of where you're having trouble? --Brett (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
e.g., my downloads page and whether this is the correct MOS for plurals. This is just one example, but you may also check all of the pages made by me and check their MOSes. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
And fibre for the British spelling of fiber with that MOS as well. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Do autopatrol my new pages if you approve them. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Another example of my not-sure-of-MOSes is with my conductor article with that antonyms section of "insulator (sense 2 of "conductor")" and whether this is the correct formatting. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:75.166.0.144[change]

75.166.0.144 had created some nonsense pages, as seen in New Changes.

By the way, the Twinkle in this Simple English Wiktionary is failing on me and using the subst function is not working either. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a bike crash and have been recouperating. I had asked Hydriz to be aroud more.--Brett (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Help! My editor toolbar disappeared :([change]

I made the mistake of editing my User:HausaDictionary/commons.js and since then my editor toolbar has gone missing which has been annoying. Please help me delete it or revert it back to default. Thank you! -HausaDictionary (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of nibling[change]

Why did you delete nibling? You didn't give any reason for your deletion. Robin van der Vliet (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I recreated the article. Is there any rule on this Wiktionary that forbids this word? Robin van der Vliet (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the criteria for attestation. --Brett (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If you keep removing it I don't have any time to add sources... The word exist, look for example at the Wikipedia page, it is mentioned in bold the third sentence. Robin van der Vliet (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I added 7 different sources ranging over 3 decades. It is clearly attested. Robin van der Vliet (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It is used, but it's not common. It occurs in fewer than 20 times in the Google books corpus over a period of 20 years, and most of those times, the writer felt the need to explain the meaning.--Brett (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"It is used"... So why do you keep deleting it then? It meets the criteria for attestation. You also keep on adding the reason "No such word exists". That is a blatant lie. You can't just remove words because you don't like them. Robin van der Vliet (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Robin The "no such word exists" tags is simply a default. I could change it to something else, but the fact would remain that it's nibling is not commonly used. The goal of the simple English Wiktionary is not to include every word that has ever been used, but to provide learners of English with a useful reference that will not mislead them into using something incorrectly or something that their audience is unlikely to recognize or understand. Why are you so keen on putting this here?--Brett (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Where can I read about that goal? I read this page and it gave me another impression. Also, if now somebody tries to search the meaning of this word, they just won't find it... It would be better then to include it and mark it as "uncommon", so people can at least understand it. See en:nibling for example. Robin van der Vliet (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"All the words in the English language" is not an easily defined set. It's a matter of balance, and lexicography requires judgement. No major dictionary includes the word. With new words, that's probably because there hasn't been an opportunity to add it. But that doesn't apply in this case. It's not included because it's not noteworthy, it's not widely used, and they feel it doesn't belong. That's what I'm saying. If somebody looks it up and doesn't find it, that will be a signal to them that it's not something other people will be using. It's part of the ideolect of a few people, but not really part of English. And that's not a problem. If this doesn't make sense to you, and you would like to bring this to a vote, however, go ahead. If the community feels it should be included, I will reinstate it.--Brett (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry![change]

Thanks for deleting all my pages! Sorry about that as I was using simple.wikt incorrectly. I am still figuring out how to best use it, contribute good content while taking away some great content for my own Hausa-English dictionary. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Would love to be an Admin if you guys need any more volunteers.

--HausaDictionary (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck with your Hausa Dictionary.--Brett (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "santorum"[change]

Hi,

Recently I created an entry for the word "santorum," and it was swiftly deleted without discussion. I found your reasons for doing so inadequate. This was your explanation:

A4: No such word exists: Despite Savage's campaign, there is little evidence that the word is used (as opposed to mentioned).)

I looked up the cited rule A4, and it has nothing to do with the entry in question:

People, groups, companies or websites that are not notable. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not say why it is important. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article should be discussed at RfD instead. Note: Avoid the use of the word "vanity" as some people think it is an insult.

"Santorum" is not a word for a person, group, company, or website; it is a word for a byproduct of a sex act. You might say that the "Spreading Santorum" campaign is not notable, but that would be a matter for Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Let's continue.

No such word exists

I find this claim to be subjective, and you do not cite any objective standard for measuring whether this word exists. The non-simple English Wiktionary has attestation criteria, and the word santorum meets them; that's why there is still an entry for it there.

Despite Savage's campaign, there is little evidence that the word is used (as opposed to mentioned).)

This directly contradicts the citations given in the non-simple English Wiktionary's entry, which you would have found out if you had, instead of swiftly deleting the entry, requested citations. Instead you unilaterally decided there was little evidence and deleted it without ever asking for verification as would normally be appropriate on any Wikimedia project.

It is an enormous problem when you speedy-delete things that do not meet any objectively measurable or verifiable standards for speedy deletion; it means you are acting capriciously. I assume you are doing so in good faith, so I am contacting you to raise this issue with you. If you felt that the word santorum didn't belong on the Simple English Wiktionary, you should have requested deletion and allowed the community to discuss the word and given me time to meet the attestation criteria. This is the way every Wikimedia project normally works and so it shouldn't be too much to ask. Jan sewi (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jan sewi
Please, understand that, on this project, I am the only regular editor. There is one other admin who drops by from time to time, and there are editors who come and edit for a few weeks and leave, the occasional annonymous user who does something helpful, and, of course, the vandals. And then there are the drive-by editors who don't bother to find out what the needs, purpose, or culture of the project is. Given the lack of manpower, it's difficult to deal with everything the way we'd like to, or the way things would be done on a project with more editors.
When you first put the word up, I went and looked at the page over on the English Wiktionary. I read through each of the references and found that they were merely mentioning the word, rather than using it. Aparently, I overlooked the Quotations section, and I did not look at the talk page. I then did a few quick searches and found no relevant uses, so I deleted the word. There was nothing capricous about it.
So, if you think your word is truly worth including, go ahead and recreate it. I won't delete it. Consider, however, sticking around and spending your time adding words that our users might actually use. There are lots and lots to deal with.--Brett (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the response and understand. It is likely I will contribute considerably more to this project in the future. I only just learned of its existence very recently, but I think it could be (and probably already is) a great resource for English language learners. Jan sewi (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

2.133.142.53[change]

2.133.142.53 has blanked their talk page yet again, after receiving a final warning. J991 15:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

82.32.50.222[change]

Can you please look at this IP's creations? Most of them are not dictionary entries. J991 15:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

cricket[change]

I don't understand how come the information I added in cricket is encyclopedic information. I was only adding other information to clarify the article because it is very unclear. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. If you look at other definitions, however, I think you'll get a better sense of where "definition" ends and where "encyclopedic information" starts. Clearly, there are gray areas.--Brett (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Intellectual disability[change]

Intellectual disability is not a sum of parts term, it has a very specific definition, having an Intelligence Quotient below 70 and inability to function on a day to day basis, also it has to have evidence it existed during childhood to be diagnosed. It doesn't just mean poor intellect, and if a person 12 or older had brain injury and got poor intellect because of it they usually would not be diagnosed with intellectual disability, and they never would be if it happened after the age of 18, it usually only refers to disability of genetic origin that existed from birtth. Leucostictes (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of the criteria for diagnosis is it has to be genetically caused, and has to exist from birth, and evidence has to exist before the age of 18 years, how would those things be guessed from the parts of the term. Leucostictes (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this! You need to keep in mind that this is the SIMPLE English dictionary. Not the psychological dictionary or something else. The definition that you propose is not at all simple, which in itself is a problem. Nor is the narrow way that you define it the typical way that people understand the term. For instance, Merriam-Webster's dictionary does not limit it by IQ or require that it be diagnosed in childhood. In short, the general meaning is simply a disability of the intellect. As such, it is just the sum of its parts. Other dictionaries designed for language learners, such as the LDOCE, COBUILD, Cambridge, and Oxford do not have entries for this, and neither should we.--Brett (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
We have an entry on the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which is just a sum of its parts term, and we have an entry on ephebophilia, which is a virtually never used term. Those terms are less relevant/common than intellectual disability. Intellectual disability usually means low intelligence originating at birth, so its not a sum of its parts term. Leucostictes (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What is your evidence that Intellectual disability means what you say it means as opposed to simply "a disability of the intellect"?--Brett (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Definition of Intellectual Disability

Intellectual disability is a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, which covers many everyday social and practical skills. This disability originates before the age of 18.

Intellectual Functioning Intellectual functioning—also called intelligence—refers to general mental capacity, such as learning, reasoning, problem solving, and so on.

One way to measure intellectual functioning is an IQ test. Generally, an IQ test score of around 70 or as high as 75 indicates a limitation in intellectual functioning.

Adaptive Behavior Adaptive behavior is the collection of conceptual, social, and practical skills that are learned and performed by people in their everyday lives.

Conceptual skills—language and literacy; money, time, and number concepts; and self-direction. Social skills—interpersonal skills, social responsibility, self-esteem, gullibility, naïveté (i.e., wariness), social problem solving, and the ability to follow rules/obey laws and to avoid being victimized. Practical skills—activities of daily living (personal care), occupational skills, healthcare, travel/transportation, schedules/routines, safety, use of money, use of the telephone. Standardized tests can also determine limitations in adaptive behavior.

Age of Onset This condition is one of several developmental disabilities—that is, there is evidence of the disability during the developmental period, which in the US is operationalized as before the age of 18.http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition#.WaW7BHeGPOQ

The key part of that is this: "in the US is operationalized as before the age of 18." Even though they may choose to operationalize it in that specific way, this is not the general way that it is used. As I've already pointed out, MW's doesn't put that limitation on it, and most dictionaries (including the OED) don't have entries for it.--Brett (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read it correctly. It did not say that intellectual disability originating during childhood is only operationalized in the US, it said that childhood meaning under 18s was the definition of childhood operationalized here. Because sometimes adulthood is regarded as beginning at an earlier age like 12 or 16 is what they were referring to. But regardless of what is viewed as the cut off, it has to begin during childhood. I will repost what it said to make it clear. "This condition is one of several developmental disabilities—that is, there is evidence of the disability during the developmental period, which in the US is operationalized as before the age of 18." That clearly is saying the definition of children as under 18s is what is being operationalized, the fact intellectual disability has to originate in childhood is universal, not a US operationalism, its the the under 18 definition of childhood that's unique to the US.Leucostictes (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The fact it originates in childhood is not something you could infer from either of the words, so its not sum of parts. Leucostictes (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The CACL doesn't agree, saying only that it's usually there from birth. http://www.cacl.ca/about-us/definitions-terminology And the other sources I've cited don't agree either. Why are you pushing this point?--Brett (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not inclined to argue the point any further, delete it. Leucostictes (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with my editing other than the intellectual disability entry I created? Leucostictes (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
dyspraxia is too complex, as is the example you added to prosecutor. The other changes look good. Thank you!--Brett (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I changed the sample sentence for prosecutor. Is it better now?Leucostictes (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Is the dyspraxia entry better now?Leucostictes (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at the simplifications I've made.--Brett (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Congo Free State[change]

How were my changes to the Congo Free State entry overly complex? Its definitional that it was a dominion of the Belgian king, it was not ruled by an African chief, even though it was a completely separate country from Belgium. It was independent of Belgium, but it still was ruled by the Belgian King, so I think something about the Belgian King's sovereignty should be added because otherwise it looks like we are talking about an independent native African country. Leucostictes (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

They were not complex but this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Could you start looking around here more, figuring out how things work, and treading a bit more lightly?--Brett (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Your edit of polytheism is complex in that it assumes the reader knows what a Mormon is. Most non-Americans don't. Furthermore, the prefered examples are not made up. Rather, you are encouraged to find examples that use the word in a typical way. Corpora such as COCA are useful tools in this regard. Unfortunately, because polytheism is a rare word, it's difficult to characterize its typical use, especially in a simple way, but the sentences found can be simplified by some editing. In this example, the editing is more than I'd typically like to do because it removes the collocation indulging in polytheism, but it seem warranted as indulge is unlikely to be know.
  • While Muslim polemicists frequently accused those of other faiths of indulging in polytheism and idolatry,
  • ->People who believe in one god frequently accused others of polytheism.
Simlarly, your example for dialetheist looks like an attempt to be clever rather than to clarify the meaning of the word. Dialetheist is so rare, that it doesn't even appear in the corpora, and I wonder what would make you think including it in a Simple wiktionary is useful. Nevertheless, a more edifying example would be:
  • A dialetheist reading of the sentence would say that it is both true and not true.--Brett (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are right about dialetheist. Dialetheist, dialetheism, trivialist and trivialism are so rare they should be deleted. Like I said, there are no dialetheists/trivialists, so the terms are inappropriate for the simple Wiktioanry. Leucostictes (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no match for dialetheism either on this site https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/, so its just as rare as dialetheist.Leucostictes (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My new entries[change]

I started focusing more on creating useful entries like talker. Do you like my work on those? Leucostictes (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I also used the word lists recommended on this site so I avoid creating irrelevant entries like Congo Free State like I did in the past. And I've written the definitions as full sentences, avoiding the mistake of making short non-sentence phrases the definitions like I did in the past.Leucostictes (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
These look like very useful approaches. Thank you!
It would be useful for you to look at our explanation of how to make an entry. In particular, note how our defining conventions prefer sentences over phrases.--Brett (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Entries I created that I think should be deleted[change]

Barras when I edited from my previous account wrote to me: "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. We don't need an entry on ever possible former country. We also don't need words like Bundespolizei, which is a German word. It might be used in English but is totally irrelevant for this project. Furthermore, we respect the copyright. I've deleted all entries that were straightly copied from the English Wiktionary, partly even copied with missing spaces and stuff. We don't need large numbers of new entries about whatever part of the Soviet Socialist Republic. We need, want and prefer quality over quantity. There is a good reason why stuff like this exists. Also it is more important to create useful words for our readers as they can be found here instead of weird proper noun entries about things people rather search in an encyclopedia." The following entries are ones I created, that I think should be deleted: hebephilia, hebephile, ephebophilia, ephebophile, teliophilia, zoophilia, Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and Congo Free State. Those go into every possible former country and every possible sexual attraction. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan is particularly bad because its just the sum of its parts, what else would Anglo+Egyptian+Sudan mean. They were bad entries I created and are totally irrelevant to this project. I think they should be deleted. Leucostictes (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought you agreed with what Barras said to me. Don't you think those entries I'm referencing should be deleted? They are totally irrelevant to this project. Leucostictes (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I've only got so much time in a day. Perhaps tomorrow.--Brett (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Overall, do you think I'm doing a better job this time than the last time I edited, worse, or the same?Leucostictes (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to discourage you. I think you're trying hard, and that's how you get the practice you need to get better.--Brett (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you give me an idea how soon you will be able to delete the said entries? Leucostictes (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Statutory rape[change]

In the statutory rape entry I added that statutory rape also refers to sexual assault against people over the legal age for sex but intellectually disabled (therefore having a child's mind), however intellectual disability is a fairly unusual term, so perhaps I need to put a simpler synonym in. Should I just keep the words intellectual disability in there, do you have any suggestion for a simpler term?Leucostictes (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I replaced intellectual disabled with "not intelligent enough to be able to consent legally". I think that's probably better since this is the Simple Wiktionary, I couldn't find any synonyms that worked from a google search.Leucostictes (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Dyscalculia[change]

Is an entry on dyscalculia helpful? Its a disability in 6% of people, and it might be the most common disability people have, it appears to be more common than autism. So I think its helpful. But perhaps its another useless entry like the previous ones I created. Leucostictes (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are there 30 definitions for carry?[change]

I am a little bit stuck on which definitions to delete from carry. There are currently 30 definitions but none of them seem to be duplicates and I don't know where to start. Can you please help me out. Thanks -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would you delete any of them?--Brett (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There are too many definitions and are none of them are any simple to understand. In English Wiktionary, carry has only 23 definitions. If this is Simple English Wiktionary, it is supposed to be simpler than regular English Wiktionary. I would delete at least seven of the twenty three definitions. Some of the definitions are exactly the same but they have been re-worded differently. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
If you can make any of the definitions simpler, then, please, do so, and if you find redundant material, then, by all means, remove it. The fact that some words have many meanings is, however, something we cannot avoid. The meanings should not be removed simply because there are a lot of them. One difference between here and en.wiktionary is that this dictionary tries to show English-language learners how the words are used. Different types of subjects, for instance, will lead to different meanings. This can often be inferred for competent speakers of English, but it can be helpful for learners to set it out explicitly.--Brett (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Trolling from apparently new user[change]

I saw this post, [28]. It appears to be trolling to me. I think it should be deleted. I don't understand why this would be in a dictionary, unless I'm missing something. Leucostictes (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a new user, [29]. "(User creation log); 13:28 . . User account HershelClaypool (talk | changes) was created" Leucostictes (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
What you have here is simple spamming. In the post there are links to outside websites. The idea is to promote those website by making it look like many useful sites link to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. These kinds of posts happen regularly and they did so well before you became active again.--Brett (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not say they were trolling me. I meant they were trolling the website. I'm not claiming its done to target me. What made you think I was saying that? When I said " It appears to be trolling to me", I meant it appears to me to be trolling, not that I thought they were trolling me.Leucostictes (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, misread in haste!
At any rate, when you see these kinds of things, just ignore them. I'll deal with them.--Brett (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

My bad entries[change]

I thought you agreed with me that my bad entries should be deleted. Are you ever going to get around to deleting them? Especially Congo Free State, because Barras said "every possible former country" was the worst category of entry I created. Leucostictes (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Colloquial vs. informal[change]

I noticed something in the pedophilia entry, this probably is my fault in the first place, it was labeled as "colloquial" originally so I changed it. I don't think the word "colloquial" is appropriate for a Simple Dictionary because its not a common word. So I replaced it with informal. Was that the correct decision? Leucostictes (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to popular. Informal implies sometimes something one uses in casual conversation. Pedophile/pedophilia are not the most common words, so calling them "informal" is probably inappropriate. I do think colloquial was inappropriate language for a Simple Dictionary so I think this is an improvement. Leucostictes (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
With entries that label the word "colloquial" in general should we use a simpler word as a substitute since this is the simple dictionary? Leucostictes (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a good point: users are unlikely to know the meaning of colloquial. Other dictionaries for language learners seem to use informal. I think that's better than popular, which would be a quite unfortunate way to characterize something like pedophile.--Brett (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Informal means words used in casual conversation. Pedophile/pedophilia are fairly unusual words. For example I used the word pedophilia in a conversation with someone one time and she replied "I don't know that word", and I more frequently hear people calling adults who sexually attack small children "child sexual molestors" than "pedophiles". So I don't think labeling it informal is appropriate. Leucostictes (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think "in general use" would be the best solution.Leucostictes (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I thought you agreed with me that the other philias should just be deleted. Because for example, ephebophilia is a very rare word, and its not even a psychiatric disorder or sexual perversion because the people who are the objects of an ephebophile's attraction are almost adults, so there seems to be no justification for including that entry. Gerentophilia, zoophilia and hebephilia are psychiatric disorders but they aren't well known enough to justify inclusion, in my view. And also the obscure former countries like Congo Free State and the British Empire also should be deleted. The Congo Free State was basically just a Belgian colony governed personally by the King of Belgium without interference from the Belgian parliament, it was not really an independent country. So that entry in particular seems stupid to me. Don't you agree with me about that?Leucostictes (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
To support my stance against using "informal" for the pedophile/pedophilia entries, [30] "Informal would be the kind of thing one would use in informal conversation- not this" Chuck Entz wrote to me, after I classified age of consent as an informal term because I'd been told by two editors on wikipedia that it was not a term governments use so it was inappropriate to use it as an official term. I think pedophile/pedophilia are more rare terms than age of consent, so I think informal would be inappropriate because of the risk it would be seen as referring to casual conversation. I know what you are trying to say, its not the correct/precise meaning, but I think "general use" conveys that better than informal does and has less risk of being misunderstood.Leucostictes (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that popular doesn't make sense, because the words pedophile/pedophilia are fairly unusual/fancy words, most people simply say "child molestor"/"child molestation" when talking about adults who sexually assault children under 14 years old and either don't give the attraction aspect of the issue much thought or would call someone who had the attraction simply a "pervert", that's part of the reason I chose "general use" instead of "popular", because its not really a popular word.Leucostictes (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
"In general use" seems like a good choice. Would you like to go through and change that throughout?--Brett (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I only used that for pedophilia/pedophile because "popular" and "informal" seemed like inappropriate labels for those words, because they are fairly unusual words.Leucostictes (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
How do I pipelink simple words to link to their complex versions. Because on the pedophile entry, I want to change the wording to "an adult sexually attracted to or committing sexual acts against a child under the legal age for sexual activity or legal age of adulthood", while pipelinking to age of consent and age of majority, because age of consent/majority are unusual terms most readers won't know. Leucostictes (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it out on my own. I changed the pipelinks so that simple words link to the entry for the complex terms.Leucostictes (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

List of entries that I want deleted.[change]

These are the entries I definitely want deleted: 1. British Empire 2. Congo Free State 3. asexuality 4. ephebophilia 5. hebephilia. For the reasons I stated previously could they be deleted?Leucostictes (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my bad entries. There is one more I forgot about, teleiophilia. Unusual word and normal therefore not used in medical community, both like ephebophilia, so no reason to have the entry either.Leucostictes (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
[[31]] Sum of parts, doesn't exist anymore. I say delete. Leucostictes (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
dialetheia I think this is an entry I created. Its just a fancy word for contradiction, and as was said previously nobody believes in contradictions, so it should be deleted.Leucostictes (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I also think United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be abolished. I wrote that also. Its redundant to United Kingdom. Leucostictes (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just get on with things and allow me to do the same. I understand that you're trying to be helpful, but multiple messages a day about what you want gets to be a bit much after a while.--Brett (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. But I think it should eventually be deleted. I'm not demanding you immediately delete it. I apologize. The next time I'll list all the remaining bad entries I created at once that I wanted deleted instead of sending multiple messages.Leucostictes (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll look at all the bad entries I created and make a list of them and send them to you next week, that way it will only be one more time and you won't be getting constant messages from me about it anymore, I apologize.Leucostictes (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!--Brett (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to request anymore deletions until a few days have passed and I've gathered all my bad entries up into a single list I can send one time. But could you please delete United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland since I already brought it up before you requested I wait. That's redundant to United Kingdom so it should be deleted. Leucostictes (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've gathered up the remaining entries I want deleted. Not all of them are articles I created but all I think are inappropriate to an encyclopedia. At least delete the ones I wrote, if you can't delete the others. Also, don't feel any rush, since you felt irritated at how many I was sending you/requesting you to delete before, take your time in deleting them. I just want them deleted sometime within the next two weeks. korephilia asexuality pedohebephilia pedohebephile ephebophile ephebophiles hebephile Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic Especially ephebophile and hebephile are just nouns for people with the attractions the words we deleted described, so especially delete those entries. I think theism, which I did not write, should also be deleted, because its just a fancy word for religion. Some fancy words we need if there is no synonym, for example monarchy. But I don't think theism is one.Leucostictes (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sample sentences[change]

Do sample sentences have to be taken from that corpus you linked me to, or do made up ones work if they are ones that could not possibly be viewed as problematic? For example, in monarchy, my sample sentence was "The government of the Vatican is a monarchy" and in age of consent my sample sentence was "The age of consent in Germany is 14 years old". Are sentences like that ok since they make sense or is it still necessary to go to the linked site to find quotes that already exist?Leucostictes (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no hard rule, but when you use the corpus and find out what the most common collocations of a word are, you can find sentences that naturally exemplify the typical way a word is used instead of simply showing a way it might be used. The example of the Vatican strikes me as a poor one because it assumes the reader knows what the Vatican is.--Brett (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I changed it from Vatican to Belgium. Is that better?Leucostictes (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes.

Monarchy[change]

On English wiktionary one of the admins got angry at me for my definition of monarchy. He said monarchy is an inherited position held by an aristocratic family, not simply a government with one ruler as the embodiment of the state. I think my definition is more correct. Do you agree with my definition or should it be changed to being solely a hereditary office held by an aristocratic not just any government ruled by one person as the embodiment of the stateLeucostictes (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)?

Sorry, I'm not interested in adjudicating.--Brett (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll err on the side of believing I was mistaken and adopt what he said. Leucostictes (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)