Welcome

edit

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
  • Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
  • Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
  • You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dialects module

edit

Hey, I saw that you haven't yet edited the label at Module:en:Dialects. Are you having difficulty understanding how Lua code works, or just haven't gotten to doing it yet? — Eru·tuon 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: To be honest, I am not 100% enthusiastic about using "alter" as it does not provide brackets. I prefer brackets, and most other similar examples that I have found have them. Mihia (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Mihia: The module that services {{alter}} should probably be modified to add brackets, at least for languages that do not have transliteration, then. It is the template that is supposed to be used; if it isn't satisfactory, it needs to be improved. — Eru·tuon 02:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
In fact, @ObsequiousNewt has already posted on Template talk:alter and made the same comment as you just did. — Eru·tuon 02:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Erutuon: OK, well I added "British English" to the label in Module:en:Dialects anyway. I will raise the brackets again at the "Beer Parlour" thread and see if anyone wants to do the work to add them. Mihia (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Hello, Mihia. You have new messages at Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

en-verb

edit

You're adding inflections in the wrong order. The past forms must come last, e.g. en-verb|gives|giving|gave|given. Equinox 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Oh yeah, thanks for spotting that. I haven't been looking properly at what I've been doing with those. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

edit
  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

edit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Closing out requests for verification

edit

On a number of occasions, you have removed an "rfv" tag for lack of citations, but did not mark the corresponding entry on Requests for verification/English. If you read the process at the top of the page, you need to mark the entry as RFV-failed when you close out an entry that has not gotten any citations. This acts as a heads-up to people who might want to make a last check before deleting something. Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima: I don't understand what you are referring to. Please give a specific example of what I did and what I should have done differently. Mihia (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In December 2016 you made this revision, but if you look at the entry for "go in" on Requests for verification/English, you did not edit the entry to say RFV-failed. Yesterday, I noticed that you had done so, and put in the notice, which then waits for a week before the entry is removed from Requests for verification. This allows anyone who has a problem with the decision to make a final search for citations at that point or argue that it is not actually a fail. You did the same thing here on "spin" and here on "mercy me". Kiwima (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see. You said "you have removed an 'rfv' tag for lack of citations". It sounds as if you meant I removed the tag but left the entry in place, which would not make sense with "for lack of citations". Mihia (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

all over the place

edit

Don't you find it ironic that the entry for "all over the place" is all over the place? --85.201.168.136 22:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

edit
WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

edit
WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

edit
WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Template:also

edit

Hello. Again, the use of that template is independent from the content of the page; it may be redundant, but that doesn't matter. See User_talk:Isomorphyc#Overkill. --Per utramque cavernam 23:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey

edit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

edit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

edit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your comments in RFD

edit

Hi. Just passing by to say that I really appreciate your comments in discussion pages; I always find them well-pondered and thought out. For example, over at RFD, you're one of the few people I'm always interested to read, because I don't see you resort to some nonsensical rationale when you want to keep an entry. Thank you. Canonicalization (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Canonicalization: Thank you! That's very kind of you to say so! Mihia (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

&lits come first?

edit

Hi. Where did you learn that? I usually move them to the end because they are the least interesting and most obvious. Equinox 18:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: It is only based on what I remember seeing on other pages. Please move it back if you like, but it might be worth raising it at the Beer Parlour to see what people generally think? Mihia (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/February#Positioning_of_.22.26lit.22_entries. Mihia (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

not yet

edit

Before we sign off on the rfv, I thought I'd give you a peek into the mind of the person who added the challenged sense (as an IP): this is typical of the way they approach English adverbs and prepositional phrases- any resemblance to actual English is strictly coincidental. You can see why I'm a bit nervous about this rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: It's getting a bit complicated because the original challenged sense, "almost, not quite", which I think is the one you are referring to, has now been removed. The present challenged sense, "yet not: nonetheless not", was added recently in this edit. I don't understand either of these senses, but other people seem to support one or other of them. Fresh opinions at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#not_yet would be useful I think, if you wish to comment there. Mihia (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sense order

edit

I find it so funny how similar our comments were, and at the same time (you beat me adding it though !), but our points were opposite. On some level I think we may be on the same wavelength ! :) Leasnam (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Must be telepathy! Mihia (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

My reverting, then unreverting of your recent Beer parlour post

edit

Apologies, purely finger trouble, quite unintended --Enginear 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Mihia (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Old play

edit

I think the old version is better. I hope you don't mind me reverting it P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean revert to the old version you link to? You have GOT to be kidding. That old version is poorly organised, poorly illustrated with usage examples, and misses many uses and senses. That's why I spent so much time improving it. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I was drunken editing, I thought it was a hilarious message. Turns out it was just slightly funny. P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

except

edit

In the words of Travis Bickle: "you talkin' to me?" (vs. -sche). If you were, I'll look at it again tomorrow. DCDuring (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to the question in my most recent post in the Tea Room on this subject, well, you were the one who wrote "Elsewhere they say that they don't believe that the different complements do not warrant different PoSes", weren't you? Mihia (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I finally made the correction. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning out near-duplicate definitions

edit

I, for one, really appreciate your efforts to clean out the definitions of highly polysemic common words. If I didn't have a firehose of new taxonomic entries and new instances of {{taxlink}} and {{vern}} to deal with, I would try to do the same, though probably not so well. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Mihia (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  NODES
COMMUNITY 10
Note 1
Project 10
USERS 3