User talk:Tygrrr

---

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

---

Hi and welcome to my talk page!
Feel free to ask me questions. I'll do my best to answer them.
Always be sure to sign your comments like this: ~~~~. Thanks!

zem

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

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

Details

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

Wikitravel Iowa regions

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

Cot-caught merger

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

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

Admin action needed

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

self portrait

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

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

Expressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synonyms

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

Patrolling?

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

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

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

Glad

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

Hi Tygrrr! I've noticed the changes you've made to some of the entries I've started (amuse, for example), and I just wanted to let you know that I'll try to incorporate these fixes into my future entries. Thanks and best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! And thank you for your additions! Nice work so far, let me know if you have any questions on the formatting or anything else. · Tygrrr... 20:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple Wiktionary Translations

First, thanks for your edits. I have been waiting to see what I did wrong before I start adding more. I do not like the translations templates either, but I think some sort of translation is needed for Simple English.
Has there been much discussion concerning the translation templates for SE? I would like to see a short translation show next to the definition using the users default language. This would require added templates, and probably an addition to the users Special:Preferences page. Thanks in advance! Teacher Jeff (Talk) 04:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, thank you also for your edits :-) Regarding translations, it is not a matter of not liking the templates themselves, it is that we have consistently decided that there is not a strong need for translations here. Something to consider as well is the following:

1. Translations would likely just be copied from the regular English Wiktionary
2. The translations there are going to be updated more often, perhaps even by bots
3. Therefore, what we would have here would be not as thorough

It is my belief then that, because we essentially have a "sister site" in the English Wiktionary, adding translations here will just be a less complete listing than what we have access to simply by clicking the English interwiki link in the left-hand margin.

For some other opinions and additional reading on this, you can see the following conversations from the Simple Talk page: May 2006 - January 2007, November 2008 (brief mention), September 2009, and most recently, October 2009.

If you feel you have a compelling reason why it makes sense to begin listing translations, I would encourage you bring it up at Simple Talk. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation and headers

Please don't change the way that pronunciations are listed on entries, as this was discussed and was decided that this way was the easiest way to show the pronunciations. Though it takes up more space, it is much easier to read, and therefore, makes it easier to understand for those users who don't understand it when they are all bunched up.

Secondly, please don't change the header levels for synonyms, antonyms, related words, or see also from Level 3 and Level 2 headers as this was also discussed recently and was decided that this was the best way to have it set up in entries. It is listed in Help:Creating a new entry and Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. Thanks, Razorflame 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get off telling me of all people how to format. I'm the only one who has cared about formatting for a very long time here. I'm doing it the way I had set it up to be and have always done. You have been doing it wrong for a long time and I have asked you not to do it that way. The way you are doing it looks sloppy, imho. Please post a link to where this was discussed.

If those things refer back to ALL parts of speech of a word, they should be level 2. That is just common sense. If it is level 3 under a specific section, it is saying that that is only reflective back on that particular part of speech, which is wrong. · Tygrrr... 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you, but it has been the standard to make synonym, antonyms, related words, and see alsos Level 3 headers for quite some time. As I pointed out in the linked above, that is the way that I've been doing it, as well as many other editors on this site. Yes, I understand that it refers back to the part of speech that it is referring to, however, this is a good thing because sometimes, some related words, synonyms, and antonyms are only for a particular part of speech and not the whole entry, which is why the Level 3 headers was a good idea at the time. I agree with you that if they refer all every part of speech that we could use Level 2 headers, but it would be better if they were Level 3 because that is the way that the majority of the entries on this site have it set up. Razorflame 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are the only ones I change to level 2: the ones that refer to all parts of speech. That's because I think about the edits I make and what makes sense. I don't blindly follow arbitrary rules. If you have a specific change you think I have made in error, please tell me. But if you're telling me to follow a rule simply because it's a rule, I'm not going to do it; I'm going to critically think about what makes sense in each situation and do what I feel is best. · Tygrrr... 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The only edit of yours that you've made that I have a problem with is that change you made to incurable. Sure, it may only belong to one part of speech, but I think that Level 3 headers are sufficient in this case. You are correct in that it really shouldn't matter, but I'd like to have all of our entries following a certain scheme that a) Makes sense and b) Lays out the information in an appropriate, clear, and helpful manner. I believe that this could warrant a discussion on the Simple Talk to see which method people prefer. Does that sounds like a fair compromise to you? Also, I was not trying to belittle you in any way with my original message. I was just letting you know about the changes to the entry layout format that have been made while you have been gone. That was all I meant by my message. I'm not telling you to follow a specific plan, I was merely pointing out the changes that have been made. Sorry if my original message offended you; that was not my intention at all. Razorflame 23:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, changes haven't been made. There were changes proposed in my absence, but I am still following the formatting that is laid out at Entry layout explained. Unless/until changes are solidified, we should all follow the formatting there, just like I am and you apparently are not if you are following the proposed changes. · Tygrrr... 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually proposed that we change the ELE to follow what Help:Creating a new entry stated, but the discussion never got started because nobody provided input. It is still in the Simple Talk. I believe that this is definitely something that we should discuss now because it affects too much on this Wiktionary to not talk about it right now. I would appreciate any input you may have in the matter. Razorflame 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm embarrassed. I meant to link this but accidentally bolded it. Thanks for covering for me, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And on a side note, do you think Wagah is within our project scope? I ask this because I noticed the English Wiktionary didn't have an entry for it. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey, I was just thinking this morning how nice it would be if you came back!--Brett (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's so nice of you to say! :-) I certainly miss being here; I have just been so swamped with real life. I've been getting the bug again and popping in lately, so maybe I'll be a little more active around here. · Tygrrr... 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, nice to see you active around here again! :-) -Barras (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Wish I could be more active. Good to see you still around :-) · Tygrrr... 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see you around more too ... you and Brett were the only ones holding this project up. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks sorry for hyphen

ty tygrrr --Koopawarwa2 (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removal of rights

Hi Tygrrr! I have proposed to remove your rights on this wiki on grounds of inactivity. Do voice your opinion there if you do get active again. Thanks! --Hydriz (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

About you signature...

Much appreciated if you would consider updating your signature, I was looking at Special:LintErrors and was noticing that more than a few of the remaining LintErrors in respect of the tidy font issue (https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/tidy-font-bug) are to do with signatures left on talk pages.

Rather than doing :

'''<font color="green">[[user:Tygrrr|Tygrrr]]</font>'''

Doing :

'''[[user:Tygrrr|<span style="color:green">Tygrrr</span>]]'''

would be better, and also removes the HTML font tag, which is obselete.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)