User talk:RJFJR

I'll welcome myself (I've done it often enough on wikipedia <G>).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• Community Portal
• Entry layout explained
• Criteria for inclusion
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 02:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about stomping on your edit earlier - I was finishing a longer edit. I probably should have marked it {{inuse}}.

Could you please add your citation from Talk:escape to escape. It is a lovely quote that should be in the entry.

Thanks!

--Connel MacKenzie T C 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Please don't forget the headword:

==English==
===Part of speech===
'''headword'''
# Def.

Thanks. —Vildricianus 14:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've tagged a bunch as being HTML, Wiktionary users, inflected forms, etc. –Scs 14:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

But then Celestianpower deleted them all, so you'll have to go back to the revision as of 14:50, 27 May 2006 in History to see them. –Scs 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You asked for Patternmaker - but I gave you patternmaker as only proper nouns are capitalized. SemperBlotto 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The capital was just because it was at the beginning of the line I was typing on. I didn't even notice I'd done it so consider it a typo. RJFJR 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Hope that tidbit actually helped. --Connel MacKenzie 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

They look complete as far as I can see, but there will undoubtedly be other points to arise. I do think it would be nice to mention something about entries being selected for their intersting (or even useful) etymologies. I have (informally) been trying to have a word on (or around) the 23rd of each month whose etymology is from a less common contributor to the English vocabulary. That is, a word derived from Norwegian, Gaelic, or Hindi -- not a word from Greek, Latin, or French, which most words in English come from. --EncycloPetey 03:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you know that the {past of} template has "past participle" built into it? In other words, when the past and past participle are the same, only the single template is needed. --EncycloPetey 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're right. That would expalin why I couldn't find a past participle of template with the other templates. Sorry about that. RJFJR 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Without even commenting on WT:RFV? What? The RFV tag is for navigation, to the right part of the discussion page.

Dictionary.com, m-w.com and especially the OED are all known to have errors. That's one reason we have {{nosecondary}}. --Connel MacKenzie 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, the yellow background made it hard for me to see that it was a link and I missed. RJFJR 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just wanted to point out that {{plural of}} can accept parameters which are wikified {{plural of|[[plurals]]}}. The reason for this is that if there is nothing on a page which is wikified (something added via template doesnt count) then the page counts as a "dead end" page, so it doesn't get added to the article count, and it goes on a giant "todo" list of things which need cleaning. So, when you are adding plurals (or anything really), if you could just throw in the [[]] then it saves a step later on. Thanks! - TheDaveRoss 16:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That explains it! I saw someone change one of my edits a while back to link the argument, but then I realized it was already linking it and thought that was double linking it. I didn't realize it was optional.

Sure. No problem. Thanks. RJFJR 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not a fart. RTFA on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I re-read the WP article. WP:Flatus redirects to WP:Flatulence. According to the article Flatulence is gas under pressure and used (inaccurately) as a euphemism for a fart. Flatus is a release of pressure. So a fart would be flatus but so would a belch.

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section3/chapter32/32b.jsp has a sentence "Gas is eliminated by belching, diffusion from the lumen into the blood with ultimate excretion by the lungs, bacterial catabolism, and passage through the anus (flatus, farting)." (Their bold). This could be read as saying flatus is a fart and belching is soemthing else. (Note: that is merck.com, publishers of The Merck Manuals, which I respect).

Would it be accurate to label the current definition as being (medical) ?

Would a second sense, possibly labelled (euphemism) or (slang), saying a fart be warranted? Should it include belch in that definition? RJFJR 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would be more accurate to say that a fart and belch are two forms of flatus. These are the forms normally encountered in a living animal. Howvever, gas build-up can also occur through gangrene and decomposition, in which case the release does not occur through one of these means. --EncycloPetey 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You said: "I like the way your changes to Wiktionary:Featured word candidates sound. Nice job!" Ah, not so fast... I'm in the middle of a major revision right now. Let's see how you like it when I'm finished! <w> - dcljr 03:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, done for now. - dcljr 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey,please tell me where I can find as big numbers conencting with googol, for example, googoldalplex,googolgijplex etc., as in web of wiktionary and just more numbers. Please, write me this informations in email to me, milka8008@gazeta.pl Thank you very much!! :)

above unsigned by user:83.7.204.56

Sorry, I do not ask where I can find this big numbers because I found it on wiktionary list of numbers/protologisms but I want to find just bigger numbers than f.e. googolmejplex or bentrizillion and I do not know where I should look for it. ;)

Is the empty set countable or uncountable? (just a thought) SemperBlotto 13:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The empty set is finite. Countable and uncountable apply to infinite sets. RJFJR 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you finding a lot of useful things to do other than change the heading? Connel is suggesting that AF just fix the heading. And there are other ways of chasing down all the entries that aren't templated or in the POS cats; not just the ones that have/had phrase in the header. I'm going to experiment a bit with just fixing some of them. Robert Ullmann 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For noun phrases I'm also converting to the en-noun template. There are occasionally other changes too. RJFJR 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful to get spelling right in definitions: you had misspelled "accommodations" in your definition of semiprivate. Thanks. — Paul G 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, this is a common noun. The capitalization is a result of etymology, not of its usage. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was that a mistake? We already have syntactic sugar (lowercase). SemperBlotto 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I checked for syntactical sugar, tried to link to wikipedia, found the entry there for Syntactic sugar and cut and pasted it to make sure I had the spelling. Please delete the incorrect capitalization. Sorry about that. Should we add syntactical sugar? RJFJR 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh really? The plural of [mis]diagnosis is [mis]diagnoses. Yes, spelled the same way as the verb form, pronounced differently. Robert Ullmann 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

hello! do you maybe know where I can check how big number is a googolkejplex, googolmejplex etc? :) — This unsigned comment was added by 83.7.206.174 (talk).

• There is little consensus on the names of such very large numbers. Mathematicians rarely need number this large and the many of the are beyond the needs of physicists. What we do have on them is at Appendix:List of protologisms/large numbers. RJFJR 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok thanks :) do you think that there will be appear more new large numbers on this wiktionary list?:) greetings

A few will be periodically added but I don't anticipate large numbers being added. Most names for these are not in any common usage. Very few people need any of these and few people know them. The addition of further names for numbers this large have few needs to drive them. RJFJR 15:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

mhm, I understand. but who does create names of this numbers which are connected weith googol? f.e. googolpetaplex, googolmejplex ect. so number equal to googolplex and some more plexes? or with which books or documents do creators of wiktionrary list of large numbers bring these names? I ask because there are a lot of names of numbers connecting with googol, googolplex etc, etc

you may want to copy this question to Wiktionary:Information desk. To be honest, Wiktionary has been bad at demandint citations (traditionally dictioanries build a collection of citations and then use them to write the dictionary, we jumped in and did it in reverse so now we have the challenge of aquiring citations.). RJFJR 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you look at w:hsien it says: hsien: the basic unit of local government in China. The word hsien may be roughly translated as “county,” or “district.” I'd add it here but what langauge is it? Transliterated Chniese? RJFJR 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Here is the quote I get from the Britannica article: 'the basic unit of local government in China. The word hsien may be roughly translated as “county,” or “district.” ' It looks as though the definition was lifted verbatim from Britannica.

I find enough citations on Google to lead me to believe this has been adopted into English as an English word, including some articles on JSTOR, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the Cambridge History of China. Call it English. --EncycloPetey 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created the clostrum (and clostra) entries, and have adjusted claustration accordingly. This is one case where the plural is the lemma. --EncycloPetey 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This needs both an adjective and a noun definition - currently one with a definition of the other. SemperBlotto 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may also like to see gynaecomasty. Widsith 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You've been around here for a while now, made a lot of good contributions, and contributed in an upbeat and helpful fashion to a lot of discussions. As you've probably noticed, we're perpetually seeking new admins here; are you interested in being nominated?

—Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to sysophood. SemperBlotto 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And could you update your entry in Wiktionary:Administrators/List_of_administrators#List_of_administrators please. SemperBlotto 11:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi RJFJR, I wanted to make sure I thank you on your talk page for answering my request at WT:ID#taciturn. Most importantly, I am sorry if I sounded unappreciative of your efforts. Your anecdote/example is both helpful and interesting. I hope you don't feel bad about my unintentional lack of manners. Keeping up with school and work is a difficult juggling act, but I did my best to reply as soon as possible to avoid looking rude. Please accept my apologies. Gbeebani 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I replied on my talk page. Sorry for it being so late but I sign on during class and then not again until I get home. --Neskaya ^talk 04:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Be careful when running spellcheck on foreign words -- according to ali- and paine (and google) this is underpressure (low pressure), not under pressure (experiencing pressure). Cynewulf 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I doubt your idiomaticity on this one. 88.80.200.138 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

With all the new pages you make, a few mistakes are inevitable, but I thought I'd at least let you know about dynamicists, flaunts, barmaids, and clunkier. Atelaes 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

overreaches surely? SemperBlotto 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is just a heads up that you don't have to explicitly list all the inflections for regular English verbs - the template is set up to cope with this. For example {{en-verb|fates|fating|fated|fated}} can also be expressed as {{en-verb|fat|es}}, {{en-verb|fat|ing}} or {{en-verb|fat|ed}} (they all work identically). Thryduulf 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I doubt there is a problem (or significant benefit) with using the verbose version but someone who actually does things with XML and bots would be a better person to say definitively. Regarding what you need to type for the short version, the first parameter is the infitive not including the final e, the second parameter is any one of the inflections "es", "ed" or "ing" (it doesn't matter which you use). Thryduulf 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've just formatted Wikisaurus:amulet following the formatting of {{ws shell}}. Most entries in Wikisaurus are now following this formatting. --Dan Polansky 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Help:Creating a Wikisaurus entry is quite outdated. More up to date are {{ws shell}} and Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/format. I have placed a warning of the state of being out of date on Help:Creating a Wikisaurus entry, but it is still easy to overlook. I have now made it yet more conspicuous. Unfortunately, the formatting in Wikisaurus is not yet completely consistent. --Dan Polansky 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, RJFJR for your welcome comment on my discussion page.

I was originally sent to the tea room by someone from wikipedia third party, they told me you lot are the etymologist experts to look at the edit conflict over the geordie[2] term netty.

I was wondering if you could be the third party to have a look at the edit conflict?[3] Maybe you could advise on the etymology and origin of Geordie netty with the material I have given[4]? In a third party role, were you could either decide which edit is best etc. Or help with wording of the three thinking points etc.

--Toasted874 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Hello RJFJR,

My question is not that big the stuff above was research material that I assumed if they read it they would agree with my position. My edit which as far as I can tell was a netural tone using roots, and acknowleging evidence and logic in two of the three thinking points I edited in. Where if they did not agree with my edit (which I doubted), then they would see this also invalidates Sigurds edit around the word Gabbia, saying I expanded on this new material about Gabbia Sigurd put in.

I come to third opinion on wiki, because I felt he was being unfairly awkward with my simple edit. I went there as I was just trying to avoid a time wasting edit war, where I believe he will point to authority and make a complex maze so he can have his cake and eat it with his edit around gabbia.

Anyway as I'm not going to be on wiki for quite a few hours (taking a break) I will wait a few more hours and if I have no reply I will do what you advised and restructure with a tiny bit more detail. And if that does not get a response I will go back to third opinion on wikipedia.

Again, thanks for your input and welcome.--Toasted874 09:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just wondering...Why put all the inflections in for a regular verb? surely {{en-verb}} is sufficient. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice that you often create English nouns and add their plural terms. Could I interest you in trying out User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js, which would let you create them semi-automatically? (It turns red-links in {{en-noun}} green, and fills out the wikitext on the edit page for you when you click the link). I'd like to expand its functionality to cover more than just {{en-noun}}, but want to check it works well first. If you are interesting in giving it a go, then you can turn it on by visiting WT:PREFS and ticking the newly added "Make red-links to some form-ofs fill out entries automatically." (refresh the page if it's not there yet); or by adding the following to your Special:MyPage/monobook.js. If you don't want the hassle, I won't be offended if you ignore me. Yours Conrad.Irwin 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

 importScript('User:Lupin/autoedit.js', 'en.wikipedia.org','46637295');
 importScript('User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js');

If you have a trigger-happy finger, User:Conrad.Irwin/good plurals is a "to-do" list. I decided to leave it as "minor" because, if the forms are being created alongside the entry, then only the entry needs checking in detail - but I do see your point. Thank you for giving it a go. Conrad.Irwin 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have just added support for {{en-verb}}, so if you hard-refresh on a verb entry that is missing forms then it will make the links green. It can't work out (yet) words that need the third-person singular and the plural form created at the same time. Conrad.Irwin 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you hard-refresh, i have just added support for the adjective forms. (I saw you doing manual labour at muddier). Conrad.Irwin 15:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hesitate to challenge such an experienced editor, so could I politely enquire as to what part of the Commonwealth uses the spelling "metre" as an alternative spelling for the verb "to meter"? The only usage I can find is "metred" used as an adjective, and meaning "having a metre" (in poetry or music). There are, of course, lots of mis-spellings, and there is a verb "metre" meaning "to put into metrical form", but I always thought that only the spelling meter could be used for the verb meaning to measure. Am I wrong? Dbfirs 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't trust dictionary.com. Would it be OK if I add a (rare) tag to your alternative spelling? (btw I'm happy with mitre as a verb.) Best wishes, Dbfirs 17:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, OK, but it wouldn't have appeared like that when it was printed in England! Are you happy if I stick with the rare tag? Dbfirs 17:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've been looking at the same sources, and, like you, couldn't decide whether they were genuine usages. I added the valid verb definition a while ago, but I'll just put a rare tag. I think this may have been a valid spelling until 150 years ago, in which case it might qualify as obsolete, but there are enough recent dubious usages to collect three verifications, so I'll settle for rare, with a note on the discussion page to see what others think. I will probably now find a current usage in some book or other by a reputable author! Dbfirs 17:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for welcoming me :-) I've got some experience from the Norwegian Wikipedias, but I hardly think my knowledge of English is good enough to be a regular contributor at Wiktionary, all though I might make some minor edits here and there.. Kurtber 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would say that its use is restricted to the expression "going pubbing" (perhaps as an abbreviation of "pub crawling", or by analogy with "going clubbing"), but I'm not an expert. There is certainly some evidence of current use in blogs etc. Perhaps we need an entry for "go pubbing", rather than pub as a verb. I tend to avoid the current fashion for "verbing" nouns! Dbfirs 07:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

(later ...)I see that Wiktionary treats both clubbing and pubbing as nouns to deal with these expressions, so my view is that these are sufficient. Dbfirs 08:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Second definition doesn't look much like a noun. SemperBlotto 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm getting completely weird and inconsistent results. If I google "the wolfs" I get one number of hits but if I then click for the next 10 entries I get a different number of hits. Google books seems to not display apostrophes in the summary.

Should wolfs be changed to common misspelling? (Is it even that?) RJFJR 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can't really trust Google's result counts. The numbers vary widely and often include duplicates that are weeded out only when you start browsing through the result pages. Plus it doesn't usually respect things like apostrophes; it can even do stemming (e.g. find "playing" when you typed "play")... I don't think we should have this "plural" at all. For me, many "wolfs" results are things like "the wolf's tail". Equinox ◑ 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that the up beat was the beat before the start of a phrase, normally at the end of a bar. I've updated the definition accordingly. Conrad.Irwin 15:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

These should not be defined a s "names" any more than dog should be defined as "a noun". "Name" is the part of speech, and should not be expressed in the definition but rather in the part of speech header. --EncycloPetey 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

"One of a few, quite possibly the only one." Could you add a couple of examples of this? If you mean e.g. "one of the only cathedrals left in Britain", doesn't that always mean one of at least two; and isn't it just a phrase about "the only cathedrals left" (why not two of the only?)? Equinox ◑ 18:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't see much reason to keep it. If you decide you don't want it either, you can put {{delete}} on it. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "synonyms" you've listed are English names, and so should appear in the Synonyms section of an English language section. We don't list English, Spanish, Fremch names under a "Synonyms" section of a Translingual word. Also, African elephant is not etymologically related to Loxodonta africana. The "Related terms" header is specifically for words that are related etymologically, not topically. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't get it. How can it be both a common misspelling and a rare alternative spelling of the same word? —Ruakh_TALK 23:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply