User talk:Razorflame/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not change what is on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or add comments to an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Simple English Wiktionary!

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

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

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit Wiktionary:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.--Brett 02:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're getting your feet wet. I made some formatting changes to cross, and I simplified the definition. I don't think ford is a very simple word. I hope these are helpful to you.--Brett 02:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Razorflame! It's nice to see another familiar face around here. :-) - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 14:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are Tgyrrr from S:WP right? -Razorflame 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My name used to be Tygartl1 over there too but I had it changed. I will probably change it here when I see a bureaucrat around...or we get a new one. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it used to be your old username, I've already read that in the archives. -Razorflame 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

When you make a new page, specify the part of speech with a level 2 heading, like this ==Noun== It would make sense for this to be part of the {{noun}} tag, but it's not. Example lines begin with #: and all examples are in italics. The word "example" is not used. I hope that helps.--Brett 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Will do in the future. -Razorflame 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

container

I suppose container could be used in that way, but it isn't. Nor does your example use the noun container.--Brett 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely used that way, but I agree that my example does not use the noun container. Razorflame 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to another dictionary with that sense listed? As for the sentence, it seems grammatical, but I'm afraid I don't know what it means. What kind of container can contain a problem?--Brett 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a separate listing for the verb contain? Razorflame 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

None currently exists, but one would be appropriate.--Brett 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[1]

Can you please explain your edit there? Thank you. Benniguy 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is there to explain? I'm pretty sure that Tygrrr's edit summary pretty much explains exactly why I did it :). Cheers, Razorflame 03:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Entries

When writing entries, it's preferable that you write the definitions in the form of simple sentences, ones which the Simple English audience are more familiar with. For example, the definition for the fun entry is written as "If you have fun, you enjoy something. "--TBC 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that I wrote the definitions for my entries in simple words....guess I didn't make them simple enough. I will make them simpler in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 02:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the wording, just the phrasing of it. :) --TBC 08:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

e-mail

Yes, I got it and replied by e-mail.--Brett 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've received your email and have this to say: Alright. Cheers, Razorflame 00:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Exemplifying vs. Using

I'm glad you're back at work here. In your example sentences, it would be nice if they exemplified the word rather than simply used it. For example, in "There is a kiwi looking around over there," a kiwi could be just about any animate thing. Something like "For a small bird, a kiwi lays a very large egg" would be give the user much more useful information about it.--Brett 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to do that in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

English Wiktionary

Note: On the English Wiktionary, we require approval before running a bot. See en:WT:BOTS. --EncycloPetey 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! I will remove my bot from editing the en wiktionary from now on because it looks like it will not be approved. Cheers, Razorflame 03:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:"My IP address"; you'll need to tell me which one it is. --EncycloPetey 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The one that was autoblocked when you blocked Darkicebot. Cheers, Razorflame 15:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, accidentally saw this section, he did not autoblock the IP (EncycloPetey, You can see this at en:Special:BlockList for this user at [2], with the block time and summary You can find the associated autoblocked ones, the users do not have to tell their IPs, the autoblock IP is hidden behind a #number, so the IP is not published for privacy reasons)

But I would suggest to allow account creation again, I don't see why that should be blocked for this user [3] (uncheck all blockoptions should be enough if You just want to block the bot)

Best regards, --Spacebirdy 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

it.wikt

Ciao. Il tuo bot (Darkicebot) è stato momentaneamente bloccato perchè non autorizzato ad operare nel nostro wikt. Per avere lo status puoi farne richiesta qui. To have the bot flag on it.wikt see here Ciao. --Discanto 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation: Hello. Your bot (Darkicebot) was temporarily blocked because it was not authorized to operate at it.wikt. To get it approved, go to the [link]. Maxim | talk 02:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I was going to request the flag on there, however, I am unable to due to the fact that you autoblocked my IP address. Cheers, Razorflame 03:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Darkicebot@dewiktionary

Hi, the bot should not make any edits until bot flag has been granted. Thanks. Pill 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Stopped running it already. Thanks for the note. Cheers, Razorflame 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please can You answer the questions in de:Wiktionary:Bots, thanks, --Spacebirdy 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Cheers, Razorflame 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Adjectives

When an adjective's comparative and superlative forms use simply "more" and "most" respectively, use {{adjective|more=true}} to avoid linking to the "more" and "most" forms, as they are not really words and it's really common sense as to what it means (even for Simple English projects). Maxim | talk 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the help. I noticed this right after you fixed my edit to flowing. Cheers, Razorflame 02:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Defining verbs

Although both styles are in use, the standard here has been to define verbs using an if rather than a to. For example:

• If you alter something, you change it, usually in a small way.

rather than

• To alter something, is to change it, usually in a small way.

It's not a bid deal, but the philosophy is that it's more like you're explaining it to somebody, and it's nice to be consistent. Either way, to is not part of the verb and should not be bolded.--Brett 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For verbs, the infinitive form is "to <insert word here>" for verbs. That is why I bolded the to. Secondly, I would be more than happy to define verbs using an if instead of a to. Cheers, Razorflame 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Countability

Sorry to be dumping so much grammar on you. Countability is a difficult topic. When we say that a particular sense of a word is uncountable, it doesn't necessarily mean that the word has no plural form. In fact, almost all uncountable nouns actually have plurals which are used to talk about different kinds (though some words such as crockery, appear to have no plural at all.) For example, if you say the company makes three butters, you mean it makes three kinds of butter. But we would still classify butter as being generally uncountable. This applies to cream cheese. It's uncountable, but it does have a plural form.--Brett 00:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That makes sense now that I think about it. Cheers, Razorflame 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

150

Congratulations on getting 150 entries under your belt!--Brett 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). It took some work, but I finally managed to get 150 down. That still doesn't compare to the 5,600+ articles I have written for the Simple English Wikipedia, though. Cheers, Razorflame 01:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

US & UK spelling

Your edit on offenc/se suggests that the US spelling is the standard and the UK spelling is a mere variation. Policy is to treat both UK and US spellings equally.--Brett 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was writing the definitions according to what the English Wiktionary wrote on both of those pages. I do believe that I was correct in moving the page from offence to offense. Cheers, Razorflame 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

En.wikt has hundreds of thousands of word and only a handful of competent people looking them over. There's lot's up there that is problematic. Don't take it as gospel. If you're a British dictionary maker, like Oxford, then it makes sense to say "American spelling of..." If you're an American dictionary maker like Merriam-Webster's, then it makes sense to say "British spelling of", but we are neither. Check out other words, such as colour/color.--Brett 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I will go and fix offence right now and will do things like that in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Horizontal

What's the rationale behind deleting the noun?--Brett 12:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The page for horizontals does not exemplify the noun tense of the word. It actually exemplifies the verb tense of the word, which is why I moved the definition from the noun tense to the verb tense. Furthermore, horizontals does not have a page on the English Wikipedia, and dictionary.reference.com does not have an entry for the word horizontals, which makes me believe that the word is not a real word. That is my reasoning behind the deletion of the noun. Cheers, Razorflame 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't rely on en:wikt

Razorflame, can you please get into the habit of checking a number of dictionaries before taking actions such as moving pages, deleting content, or suggesting deletions. en:wikt is a great project, but as I've said before, it's also full of mistakes and missing an awful lot. ant hill is a perfectly good way to spell ant-hill or anthill. And there is a noun content which has a meaning similar to the adjective, but which has different grammatical properties. Some excellent candidates include the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Learner's dictionary. These will not always match what we have here 100%, but they are a good place to start. They're also focused on using simple English.--Brett 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I will definitely check several other dictionaries before I go and make any big changes in the future. I have realized that the English Wiktionary is full of mistakes and will definitely take your advice in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Related words

For related words, please stick to derivationally related words rather than inflectionally related. For instance: complicate gets complication but not complications.--Brett 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure :). I will remember this in the future. Thanks for the tip :). Cheers, Razorflame 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Congrats! I think you'll do a fine job. · Tygrrr... 19:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tygrrr. I'm currently checking out how to tell if an IP address is an open proxy or not. Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, congrats! Maximillion Pegasus 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Razor! TheAE talk 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Juliancolton 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sorry I didn't see your RfA until after it was over. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Coppertwig. Your congratulations means a lot to me :). I'm glad that we worked past our differences! Hope to see you around, Razorflame 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found your T-shirt (the delivery people had trouble getting over here :P). Don't lose it. ;) Chenzw  Talk  14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers, Razorflame 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You've got mail! · Tygrrr... 20:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Email? Cheers, Razorflame 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. · Tygrrr... 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Razorflame 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. · Tygrrr... 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Cheers, Razorflame 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I noticed you've added a bunch of plurals. Thought I'd save you a little time with a tip. With plurals you only need to type {{noun|dog}} (or whatever the singular is). The template will automatically add an 's' on the page itself. You only need to type out the plural if it's irregular. Same thing goes for verbs. For rain, simply type {{noun}} and {{verb}}. It fills in the different versions of it. Again, you only need to do it by hand if they're irregular. This time-saving tip brought to you by: · Tygrrr... 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC) :-)

Thanks for the tip. I will try to use them whenever I go ahead and create plurals from now on. Cheers, Razorflame 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

When deleting redirects, please move all links to that page. For example, Indian Occupied Kashmir has 12 pages that link to it, including 3 pages that redirect to it. Those should all be directed or redirected to Kashmir. Also, how is Asiatic peafowl an encyclopedic entry? Seemed like a dicdef to me... · Tygrrr... 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your first point, I will definitely move all pages that link to that page in the future. Thanks for telling me about that. Second, Asiatic peafowl is the name of a bird and belongs in a Wikipedia, not a Wiktionary. Wiktionaries are meant to be used for the definitions of words, not birds (there is Wikipedia for that). I hope that that makes it clearer for you. Cheers, Razorflame 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really clarify it. Should we not have pages for eagles, geese, ducks, etc because they are types of birds? Asiatic peafowl is basically a peacock. It belongs here in our dictionary, imho. · Tygrrr... 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can restore that page then. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Razorflame 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Razorflame, I know you're excited to finally have access to admin tools, but please be more careful in your deletion decisions. Don't prove people at SE WP right that you would be reckless with the mop because of your eagerness. That's the last thing I want to see happen. Please don't hesitate to ask for guidance if you're ever in doubt. · Tygrrr... 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. I will definitely be more careful with my deletion decisions. I do want to prove that I wouldn't be too eager with the tools, and I have already realized that I am being a bit too eager with my deletions. I will definitely be more careful. Razorflame 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be encyclopedic if it included a bunch of information about it being a national animal of Pakistan, or where it breeds, or that kind of thing. I'd only delete it if it included just that without a clear definition.--Brett 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this guidance. I will use it in the future to help with the deletion decisions. Razorflame 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You did it again... · Tygrrr... 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Gone through and cleared out those links to the deleted page (mostly). Cheers, Razorflame 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Finished moving the links to the correct space. Cheers, Razorflame 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You did it again... · --Brett 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Finished making the links correct on all articles affected. Cheers, Razorflame 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about...

I know it doesn't look so impressive on the edit count, but how about slowing down and working carefully through some complete pages from the BNC lists including full definitions and good examples? Of course, you can keep adding plurals if you like...--Brett 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I plan on taking care of the more elaborate pages once I get done with those pesky plurals :). Once they are done, I should easily be able to get down some of those longer pages :). Cheers, Razorflame 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created pages for words like volcano now. I will continue to do this every once in a while until I run out of plurals to create, when I will start creating the base words. Cheers, Razorflame 14:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first barnstar :)

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! For writing so many, many pages, and for becoming an admin, I award you your first barnstar. Good job! TheAE talk 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Razorflame 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

thesaurusi

Are you serious?--Brett 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you probably meant that you didn't want me to make the changes to that page. I have undone them all. Do you want me to delete that redirect? Razorflame 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

spelling

Hi (once more!). I spelled channel with one 'L' because that's how it is on the channel page. Wouls you change it if you are correct spelling it with two 'L's Thanks, Yotcmdr 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Both channeled and channelled and channeling and channelling are both ways of spelling it. I have fixed the channel page to say that. Cheers, Razorflame 17:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them. Yotcmdr 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problems :). That one was a tricky word ;). Cheers, Razorflame 17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What's a tense?

See tense.--Brett 17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh. My bad...I probably mean form. Cheers, Razorflame 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the barnstar.--Brett 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems :). Cheers, Razorflame 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Wikipedia contributor..

..It is a bad idea to just go around tagging usertalk pages with "welcome to project X!!!!!" tags, instead only tag the pages of editors with contributions. At the best of times it can be patronising and slightly scary "waggh, they are sending me a message about my contributions, I haven't touched anything!" and you can also end up hitting autocreated accounts of long-term editors to other projects, sending them pointless emails which prompt them to go over to anotherwiki and give a message to a user which they have to give to users 2 or 3 times a week on their own wiki, and are sick of giving. 194.81.110.83 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I only welcomed users which I knew through other projects. Cheers, Razorflame 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm just wondering why you called this vandalism. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism because he was just copying the contents of the Main Page onto the talk page for the main page. Therefore, vandalism. Cheers, Razorflame 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the user in question has already been blocked on the Simple English Wikipedia for the same reason. Cheers, Razorflame 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot status on Ms.Wikipedia

I think you should lessen the frequency of your bot's activity should you want your request approved. It has been flooding our RC and we're not happy with that. Alistaire 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have lessened it down to half speed. Cheers, Razorflame 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the welcome. Mind you, I got an 2 emails saying you created it. SimonKSK 01:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow internet speed equals having to click the submit button twice XD. Cheers, Razorflame 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my keyboard. SimonKSK 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. If you need any help here, feel free to ask me or any of the other active editors here on this site. Cheers, Razorflame 04:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

re:SB39Bot

I put this on Brett's page as well, but...

Actually, Brett is correct about SB39Bot. 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.

I'm a little surprised and worried that you did not know this already. But I'm glad that you didn't just unblock him yourself. Also, SwirlBoy should be able to communicate with us about fixing the problems on his bot's talk page or by signing in as himself. I'm not sure why this was dealt with off-wiki. · Tygrrr... 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask him to communicate with me off-wiki, it just happened that way. I was already on IRC and he asked me to unblock him, and I said that I would be uncomfortable with doing this and that I would rather he ask Brett about getting him unblocked himself. Yes, I do run my own bot, however, I rarely run it on Wiktionary, because of all of the bugs that it has when it edits Wiktionary. Hope this helps you understand my position a little better :). Razorflame 16:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No one said you asked him to talk to you there. A responsible admin would have directed him to take up the conversation here since his methods of communicating here have not been blocked. It's worrisome but not wholly surprising that you chose to deal with it that way. If you were uncomfortable doing it and knew it wasn't the appropriate way to deal with it, why'd you do it? I wish you didn't have to backtrack and try to rationalize yourself out of your mis-steps. I'd rather you just think things through before you act.

Also, how does your bot add interwiki? If it's the same was as SwirlBoy's bot, you should fix yours as well. · Tygrrr... 16:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that I shouldn't have talked to him on IRC. I will direct him to talk about Simple English Wiktionary issues on my talk page here from now on. Thanks for letting me know this.

I very rarely run my bot here, so this shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, I check over every single one of my bots' edits because of the fact that I know that pywikipediabot is not a very good bot to use for Wiktionaries. I got my bot under control. But thanks for worrying about it :). Don't worry, I am very vigilant when it comes to making sure that my bot makes the correct changes :). Also, my bot already has a flag here. Cheers, Razorflame 16:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're still not quite getting what I'm saying. It's not that you talked to him on IRC. The problem is that you were trying to fix a problem off-wiki that's needs to be dealt with here. The responsible thing to do is direct the user to discuss it with the blocking admin. It was completely inappropriate to ask Brett to unblock when he was completely right. Not only did you step in where it wasn't your place, but you were wrong. You gotta think things through before you do them. I'm still not convinced you have the demeanor and instincts to be an effective admin, and you're honestly not doing much to improve that opinion. I'm baffled that after so much time on various Wikipedias that you can still not understand basic things. Marjorly and I don't often agree, but I found his oppose vote to your 10th RfA yesterday and I agreed 100% with his assessment (except when he said you do things only in the hopes of gaining adminship. I may be naive but I don't believe that's completely true). Frankly, I am unnerved by your adminship here. I am trying to deal with it, but I keep feeling like I'm getting confirmation that the mop isn't for you. I'm not giving you an ultimatum, or intentionally trying to upset you (although I suspect me saying all this probably will upset you), but I want you to know that if my uneasiness continues to be confirmed by poor decisions on your part I may have to do request it be removed. Please note that this discussion is not solely because of this bot incident, but an accumulation of things I have noticed since you gained adminship. If you want to discuss this further with me in private, I would be happy to. Just let me know.

P.S. It's great that you say you've got your bot under control, but as an administrator, you're also now responsible for making sure other people's bots run properly and make the correct changes. · Tygrrr... 17:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did ask him over IRC to contact the blocking admin. That was one of the first things that I told him to do. I am sorry that you think that I handled this situation wrongly. I will try harder in the future to slow down and make sure that I am thinking through my actions before making them reality. You did not upset me. However, shouldn't administrators only have their bit removed if they are abusing the tools? I don't see where exactly it is that I am doing that (if you can prove me wrong, though, I am all ears!) We all make mistakes, and I believe that this mistake was an honest one. I was partially saddened that you think that I am confirming the fact that I would be unfit for the mop and I really hope that I can prove you wrong still. If you are referring to the section up there a ways where I forgot to check what links here when I deleted a redirect, I really don't see that as a big enough issue for someone to be desysopped over because frankly, I forgot that administrators were supposed to check the what links here button. If you will notice, I have started doing that for every single page that I have deleted :). It was your pointing this out that helped me understand what I was doing wrong and helped me to fix it. I would like it very much if you and me can talk on wiki about discussing this further, because I believe that there should be no secrets hidden from other users here. Razorflame 17:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not abused the tools. The issue is much less tangible than that. People have a hard time expressing why they are uncomfortable with you having adminship, in case you haven't noticed in your 10.5 RfAs (+2 here). I am among them. I am uncomfortable with your protecting and deleting sprees right after you got the tool. I didn't like that you weren't being thorough in your deletes. The pages you have protected have had nothing done to them to warrant being protected, imho. I think you handled this particular situation poorly. I am uncomfortable with you requesting adminship for someone who has only been here one month and has less than 500 edits. And those are just a few of the things off the top of my head that have bothered me lately. I don't want you rationalize each of the things I've listed. I am tired of hearing rationalizations from you. These aren't new issues that I'm bringing up, but you just don't seem to learn. All I'm letting you know is that if it somes to a breaking-point for me, I will do what I feel is in the best interests of this wiki. · Tygrrr... 17:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that you are tired of hearing rationalizations from me about things, but I am only going to rationalize one thing: I looked over Maximillion Pegasus's edits here, and I believe that this Wiktionary would benefit greatly from his ability to get the mop. I thought that he has been around since the middle of December, but I was wrong. I also thought that he had more than 500 edits here, otherwise, I would have been much more wary. Furthermore, I believe that he would be a net positive to this Wiktionary if he were given the tools; that was the main reason why I nominated him for adminship here.

I will agree with you that I probably handled the situation poorly. I did not know that you weren't supposed to use the tools as much as I did as soon as you got them. I thought that when you got them, and you saw something that needed fixing, imho, you would use the tools to fix the problem. I know that since I am new and all, that I would make mistakes, and I greatly appreciate you pointing out to me my flaws and what I have done wrong so far. I knew that I would make mistakes, and I am grateful to have someone like you to point out when I do do something wrong. I will be talking things over about this Wiktionary here...I only use IRC to help facilitate discussions about less important things and for getting in contact with an administrator if there is something that needs to be dealt with on the Simple English Wikipedia, and it looks like no one else is on to help with the situation. I also use IRC to monitor all recent changes to help combat vandalism on more than 50 other wikis, so IRC, imho, is a pretty important tool :).

I thought that my reasoning for the protection of the parts of speech template was good enough for what I was doing. After all, other other Wiktionaries and Wikipedias, administrators have protected said templates, so I did not see a problem with protecting them. Preventing tampering of templates that are used throughout the Simple English Wiktionary, imho, is a very important thing to do.

I will make sure to think through my actions carefully before I do them from now on. Thanks for all of your help so far, Razorflame 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, he was helping me on IRC get my bot fixed in #pywikipediabot. That's why we talked there. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Night owl

You're up late too, huh? :-) I'm off to bed now, see ya later. · Tygrrr... 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Ok. Night. Razorflame 06:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for catching that! [4] ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problems :). Us administrators need to watch each others' backs :). Cheers, Razorflame 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

En:wikt references

Please don't say you created a page from the en:wikt entry when it doesn't exist at en:wikt. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if all you're doing is putting in inflected forms, what's en.wikt got to to with it at all?--Brett 02:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that I just created the page for stealths on the English Wiktionary. Anyways...if you don't want me to GFDL satisy every entry I make (because I do look at the English Wiktionary to make sure that there aren't any pronunciations or alternate definitions), that's fine with me. Anyways, if you don't want me to do that, then I will stop. Cheers, Razorflame 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You've added interwiki a couple of times to pages at English Wiktionary that don't exist there. That doesn't sound to me like you're checking every single one... If it doesn't exist there, please don't put an interwiki link here to a non-existant page there. That seems like a simple request to me. Can you do it? Thanks. · Tygrrr... 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course! I'll double-check each entry that I make here to make sure that they exist on the English Wiktionary before I link to them from here :). Thanks for the note! Razorflame 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

All senses should have examples. Those without are often marked stubs. Rather than deleting the stub tag, replace it with {{exstub}} in such cases.--Brett 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will do that for every page that I create that doesn't have any examples. Thanks for the tip! Razorflame 15:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A note before you go crazy adding exstub everywhere, it's probably only needed on the headword definition pages, not the plurals or the various forms of verbs. I think adding examples for those words is not a bad idea, but it's not as needed as on the headword pages. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 16:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll keep it to the headword pages only. Cheers, Razorflame 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Darkicebot@dewiktionary

Hi,

I've left a note here. Regards, Pill 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left a response. Thanks for the message! Razorflame 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Redirects can be useful, they don't all need to be deleted. You're creating yourself extra work switching the templates, imho. There's really no need to do it. That's why redirects exist. Also, please don't delete {{obsolete}} as a redirect to {{old}}. · Tygrrr... 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have already undeleted {{obsolete}} as I realized that it would be a useful redirect, and I thank you for pointing out a mistake that I made. Thank you for the advice. I would agree that not every redirect needs to be deleted, but Wiktionary isn't meant to have a lot of redirects. It is supposed to have entries and very few redirects. Anyways, I have been thinking more about actions before I make them and I definitely think that I have improved as an administrator here. What do you think? Razorflame 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

I am very concerned about your recent blocks:

1. Blocking for 1 day without warning for one edit of removing content (which could have been a good faith removal)
2. Blocking for 1 day without warning for creating one page that at first glance appears to be pure vandalism but actually could have been a good faith edit cosidering en:wikt has a page on fuck with
3. Blocking for 1 week without warning for creating one nonsensical test page

These seem like highly extreme reactions. Please explain what you were thinking. As things appear right now, this may be borderline abuse of tools. · Tygrrr... 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. This was an extreme reaction from me. I will take the time to calm down and think about the situation first from now on. Please understand that people make mistakes. I will fix this. Thanks for the message. Cheers, Razorflame 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, every admin does things a little differently, so I may react one way and Brett another, etc. This is perfectly normal and acceptable as long as no one is responding inappropriately. FWIW, here is how I would have handled those particular situations:

1. revert but not give a warning unless they do something else
2. moved page to fuck with and recreated with appropriate info or simply deleted, depending on how much free time I had at the moment, and I would not have given a warning unless they did something else
3. deleted and warned with test2 or 3

Of course there are multiple appropriate ways to have handled the situation, but yours were not among them. I'm glad you understand this. · Tygrrr... 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand what I did wrong, and thanks for helping me by giving me other solutions. I will utilize them in the future. I didn't unblock the first two IPs that I blocked because their blocks were very short. Thanks for the help! Cheers, Razorflame 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

?

Why exactly did you create a user talk page for me with a greeting, on a project that I have never edited and am not active on? I cannot possibly imagine that being helpful. Swatjester 13:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should it matter? I was welcoming you to this project because I knew you from the Simple English Wikipedia, so I thought that you might become active in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 18:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not on this project. Why would you welcome me to something I'm not participating in? Swatjester 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I know you and because I thought you might become active on this project. Thanks, Razorflame 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Darkicebot on pt.wiktionary

Hi Razorflame!

I have temporarily blocked your bot on the pt.wiktionary. It's customary over there to wait at least three days after making the bot request before activating it. This is to allow other contributors to ask questions or comment on the new bot. Please de-activate your bot for now. If there are no questions nor comments after three days, I'll give you the bot flag and then you can run without flooding the list of recent changes. Thanks.

--ValJor 16:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot is automatically deactivated when you blocked it. Please remove the block from my bot and make sure to remove the auto-block as well, because that prevents me from editing there. Thanks, Razorflame 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked the bot and corrected the other problem, too.

--ValJor 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Razorflame 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Great to see your editing here! --Dylan (user · chat · en:wp) 03:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin here, so of course I'm editing here :P. I hope to see you editing here. Razorflame 16:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and cleanup...

...but accelerations is a perfectly valid word, last time I checked.--SarekOfVulcan 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the English Wiktionary page and saw that it can be both countable and uncountable, so I fixed the entry to have both the countable and uncountable definitions :P. Cheers, Razorflame 16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yo

When are you coming back, Razor? Simple.wiktionary just isn't the same without you! --Dylan620 ^{Speaketh · @ en.wikipedia} 16:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been able to access it for a while....it just kept on timing out. I was JUST able to get back to this site now. Sorry for not being able to log in, but I tried to get on here as often as I could, but never was able to. Cheers, Razorflame 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ammunitions?

Are you sure this can be pluralised? en.wiktionary says it's uncountable, and has no plural entry. Cheers, Tempodivalse ^@en.wikinews 02:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....not really sure. Some of the online dictionaries agree with the English Wiktionary's take on this...Yes, I guess that it could be uncountable, although ammunitions feels like one of those words that could be used to detail different kinds of ammunition, although I could be mistaking the word for munitions...cheers, Razorflame 02:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

::snort::

Yah, yah, yah... - Amgine 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I know that I welcomed you to the Simple English Wiktionary, but do you think that this is a little sarcastic? Razorflame 05:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Good to see you back here Razor! Hope you stay. :D Pmlineditor  Talk 08:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to worry. I'm gonna be staying for a while at the least, so don't worry :). Cheers, Razorflame 09:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Patrolling

Welcome back! Good to see you around again. One note on marking pages as patrolled. Before marking a page as patrolled it is a good idea to check for the following things:

1. That the word is real and belongs in our dictionary
2. That the word is not a plural or verb tense of a word that has not been created yet
3. That all parts of speech for the word are there (if they are missing, please add them)
4. Check to see if a pronunciation section exists for that word on EN WKT (and if so, please add it)
5. Regardless of whether or not they have it on SE WKT, think about whether the word has any homophones or alternate spellings (and if so, please add them)

While you have been absent, I have been the only one patrolling new pages and had a nice system for myself. I like to copyedit all new pages, but I currently have a large backlog due to so many users using the acceleration script. The yellow helps me keep track of where I have left off (for yours and Brett's creations I just have to keep track of where I left off manually). You are welcome to help me with the backlog, but I'd like to know you are doing the above items so that I know I don't have to double-check your work. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I am more than willing to help you with the backlog, and I will definitely follow this system of yours. You will note that I have indeed started doing this starting with the cougar article and I will continue doing this in the future. Thanks for the note, Razorflame 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

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

Y Done Razorflame 09:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of Barras (de)

I think you should unblock this block. This clearly shows that it is Barras' sock. Thanks, Pmlineditor  Talk 08:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, Barras did it. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 08:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked my second account. --Barras || talk 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it was your secondary account, then yes, the unblock should have occured, but I followed the username guildelines to block that account as it was too similar to any administrator on this site. Cheers, Razorflame 09:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

negative modals

There are many negative auxiliary verbs in definitions and I don't see any point in avoiding or replacing them (e.g., isn't -> is not).--Brett 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is general Wikipedia and Wiktionary Manual of Style to avoid using contractions. I am just following it. If you would rather me not, then I will stop. Razorflame 13:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

delete

Why did you undelete the page? Did you forgot something, or is the page actually good for something? Griffinofwales 04:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The page cannot be deleted as it is used by other templates. Razorflame 05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

reminder

Before you forget, remember to request that your rights be removed at simpleWP. Remember what happened last time. Griffinofwales 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I already have. If you read the Simple Talk notice I left, you will see that I have already requested this. Cheers, Razorflame 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I left this before you left the note. I hope you enjoy your time here, I'm sure you will be an asset here. Griffinofwales 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

He does not need to remove his rights if he doesn't want to. It is not your right to request that he requests his rights be removed. Microchip08

I did not request them be removed because of this message. I had already requested they be removed before I even saw this message. Cheers, Razorflame 23:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

<-*sigh* Razor knows what I meant. Griffinofwales 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Homophones

Am I missing something with cavassed/canvased? Aren't these simply alternate spellings?--Brett 00:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is where it gets really complicated. Both canvas and canvass have their own separate definitions that are not shared between each other, and while they are definitely alternative spellings, they are also their own words with their own definitions, hence the dilemna. What do you think? Razorflame 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I was missing something. Thanks!--Brett 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers, Razorflame 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note

Just if you wanted to know, I've withdrawn my RfA per the concerns you raised. I've replied to what you said here. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you will make a good administrator here in the future; I just don't think that you are quite ready yet. I look forward to seeing you apply again at a later point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 21:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

POV IP editor

first off thanks, I was starting to look for someone to deal with him. Also as soon as you blocked it looks like he may be back with 92.0.241.14 Jamesofur 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

and already done...00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Cheers, Razorflame 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Could you give me the Rollback flag, Razor?--  † CR₉₀  05:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Permission assigned Please becareful with the tool. (Sorry Razor, that I've stolen your work :) ) Barras 11:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Brother as a part of verb

Where's that from? ;) I can't find it anywhere! :) I think PeterSymonds removed it (I was going to wait to see what you said) but seems a little bit of a stretch/neologisim, I looked at a couple other dictionaries and wasn't able to find it. Jamesofur 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a valid use of the word, so therefore, it was correct to remove it. Cheers, Razorflame 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

yea, I was quite confused when I saw you added it ;) that's why I paused before deleting it. Jamesofur 03:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I added it? I don't remember adding it...Razorflame 03:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

looks like it ;) [[5]]Jamesofur

My bad, then ;). Cheers, Razorflame 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Please explain this tag on the article talk page. Thanks, Griffinofwales 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am retired from Simple Wikipedia. Therefore, I will not explain. Razorflame 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So I will remove the tag. Griffinofwales 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Razorflame 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vacation

Enjoy your holiday vacation. Microchip08

Thanks. I got back quite a bit sooner than expected, so I should be back to editing the Simple English Wiktionary within the next day or two. Cheers, Razorflame 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Crat

How would you feel if I nominated you as a crat? I know the it's not a big deal but Bret isn't around much right now as shown on his userpage and the open RfA. In the end having a 2nd one may be better so that it's more likely one is "around" when needed and I thought you may be the best one for the job here. Jamesofur 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I humbly accept your offer to nominate me for bureaucrat. Thank you for offering. Cheers, Razorflame 02:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi, Razor. Just wanted to let you know I've removed you from the IP block exempt user group, as IPBE already comes packaged with sysop status, admins don't need to add themselves to that group. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Tempodivalse 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks for the information. No, I don't mind. Cheers, Razorflame 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for...

...rollback, please. Snake311 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper nouns/Key Largo was deleted....

Hi Razor you deleted Key Largo awhile back i'am just wondering why because you said your reason was it was encyclopedic entry I just have added Bahamas and Costa Rica and I think the english wiktionary allows Proper noun places around the world. Barras is also helping me. Thanks Shyguy (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary does allow entries for countries from around the world, as well as cities that have some historical or religious importance. Otherwise, such articles do not fit the scope of the Wiktionary project, and therefore, are not correct to be made here. I believe that my first deletion of this article was correct because it does not fit in the scope of the Simple English Wiktionary. Razorflame 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I admire your great work

keep up the good work Razor! 67.244.243.248 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I intend to :). Cheers, Razorflame 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-active?

Far from having made fewer than 50 edits in the last two months, I've made over 1,000. Try to be a little more careful.--Brett (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know that you've made a lot of edits...which isn't exactly what I was meaning by semi-active...I was meaning semi-active as not around as often as other members. I know that you edit very sporadicly (meaning you come on for like 30 minutes at a time), instead of a few users who are on for hours a day...that was what I was trying to get at. I know that you are very active, it is just that you are usually active for small periods of time per day...that was what I meant. Razorflame 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean not around all day, then say not around all day instead of some nonsense about fewer than 50 edits in two months.--Brett (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that wrote that in the first place. I was merely just heightening the limits from 30 to 50 edits. I've moved you back to active anyways because you are indeed active here. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Razorflame 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your block of 79.176.57.147

Just wondering, why did you block 79.176.57.147 (talk · changes)? While I agree that the entry defenestration was a copyvio and not appropriate, there was no vandalism, and the offence didn't seem severe enough to warrant an immediate 24-hour block. The IP could have been trying to help, we should assume good faith. I think it might have been better to simply leave a note on his talk page explaining him why the entry wasn't appropriate for this wiki. Blocking immediately, without even a warning, seems too drastic. Just wondering. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left the account creation option open because the user was making bad pages (copyright infringments). After talking it over, I believe that I was indeed just a tad too hasty with that block, but I believe that copyright infringment is a serious thing that should be taken seriously. Cheers, Razorflame 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree copyvio is a serious thing and should be strongly discouraged, but still it would have been more appropriate to give a warning first, imho. "Users should be warned [...] before administrators block them" (Wiktionary:Bans and blocks). The IP may not have been aware that copying from Wikipedia would constitute a copyright infringement. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that it exactly what the other administrator that I talked to said. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will strive to correct this in the future. Thanks again, Razorflame 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hi RazorFame. Why are you creating entries such as "narrowing‎", "narrowed‎", "narrowest", and "narrowest‎"? I don't think someone would search for them, and even if they would, the root word is narrow so that's the where the definition is (the entries you created don't have a useful definition). It also clogs up the random entry feature with content-less entries. 99.224.31.185 (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

They are still words nonetheless, so they need to be created. Furthermore, if you look on the English Wiktionary, you will notice hundreds of thousands of those form of words that have already been created. They need to be created as they are English words that are in the dictionary. There is no real good way of making the entries for them as they are fairly straightforward. Furthermore, you say that nobody would search for them, which is not true. People probably search for them every day, and by creating such entries, we make the Simple English Wiktionary more complete. Razorflame 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

bully

Hi! Thanks for your improvements to my new definition :) I'm still learning the correct layout - but I think i'm getting there! The adjective form is not "uncommon" as such, rather it is considered out of date and old - it's not used in day to day conversation (at least here in England) but is still well defined. How should it be formatted to be included? --Skenmy ^talk 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! If it is out of date and not used, then just use {{old}} before the definition of the word. Therefore, it would be as such:

==Adjective== {{tl|adjective|more=false}} #{{tl|old}} <insert definition here

Something like that, but without the spaces. Cheers, Razorflame 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

your deletion of Cooperstown?

En wikt has towns names and i looked on here and Zealand is a real place why did u delete cooperstown? GoofyBirdy64 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Cooperstown because the city itself is not of historical importance and did not have anything important happen there. Dictionaries have certain towns in them that are important to a vast majority of people. Otherwise, they are usually reserved for the encyclopedias. Hope this helps you understand, Razorflame 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of CarsracBot

Please, make sure that you read the local bot policy before blocking bots here. The other burocrate asked for global bots here. My bot has the botflag to run here with the pywikipedia software with the -wiktionary option on. So making your point by blocking my bot is not the way to do it. Removing my bot flag after discussion about the iw bot policy is a better way to do it. So please, please lift the block on user account CarsracBot, because I have stopped editing here and I will only start editing here with my bot if someone else from the simple.wiktionary.org community asks it nicely. Carsrac (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Account unblocked. How should we see if the bot works correctly. Just a few false positives. THis happens and the bot op can't see if it works after fixes if the bot is blocked. Just remove the bot flag. You are crat, such mistakes and bad decisions shouldn't happen. --Barras (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The block was justified because the account was making incorrect changes. Brett blocked my bot after it made some of the same changes, so I followed his lead and did the same here. Please note that I thought it through before blocking and to tell you the truth, the block should've stuck. I will now remove the bot flag. Razorflame 19:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because Brett did this doesn't mean it is ok. Even the block by Brett on your bot was wrong. --Barras (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking did solve the edit conflicts between my bot and interwicket. I think that the block is too long. And that the iw rules here are very confusing. Carsrac (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the IW rules here are confusing. Please be more careful here when running your bot in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 19:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah!

Now I see the reason for the Audio requests. Happy editing, The New Mikemoral (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers, Razorflame 03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you ever need more pronunciations, just drop a line at en:WT:APR, --The New Mikemoral (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Razorflame 03:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Closure??

Per this [6]: First you want changes and create an extra subpage for this. Later, you propose the closure (perhaps in a rush) of simplewikt. It is really nice to see that one of our local crats wants this project closed. But I agree with this. If you don't want to help here and want the closure, you shouldn't be admin, nor crat on this wiki. I'm very sorry to tell it you this (perhaps not really nice way), but I need to say it. --Barras (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1. And I am no longer an adminitrator nor bureaucrat on this project. Razorflame 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

You'd like to have rollback? --Barras (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just granted it to you, hope you don't mind. If you don't want, it let me know and I can remove it. Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked first because he has the flag global. But never mind. --Barras (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Rollback is fine. Razorflame 19:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing suggestions

When you give a definition, you should use the word the way it is typically used. In relate, you've provided the following definition: "If you relate, you tell something in a way that is descriptive." and you mark it as transitive, but it looks intransitive. Rephrase to something like "If you related a story or conversation, ..." Same goes for the other senses of relate. Similarly, for military, your changes have made military look like it appears predicatively when in fact it is almost always an attributive adjective.

Vocabulary like treacherous in snake is NOT simple. Synonyms should also not be rare. suggesting adder, serpent, and viper for snake is not helpful.

For validity, I have no idea what your newly added definition means: "A validity is a quality of measurement that shows the degree by which the measurement reflects the thing beneath it."--Brett (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Brett. Thank you for the kind advice on how to make edits here. I will look into them as soon as I possibly can. As to the definition of validity, it was the only way the countable form was used on the English Wiktionary, as well as the Merriam-Webster dictionary, so I thought that I wrote the definition as such. I try really hard to come up with simpler ways to say what I try to say, so please don't think that I don't try. Cheers, Razorflame 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of bits, temporary adminship, routine deletions

Hi Razorflame! Your recent requests to Kylu on IRC came up for discussion on the stewards mailing list. I would like to clarify some things for you.

• First, by policy, stewards do not unilaterally grant or restore bits where there is a community and a local process, as there is here at simplewikt, that should be exercised first. That is why I turned your bits off again, restoring them was an inadvertent error. When you ask for something, it's expected that you have given careful consideration to your request and the consequences of it and are prepared for the request to be carried out, not that you will change your mind on a whim a few minutes later. In future hopefully you'll keep that in mind before you act rashly or in ill-conceived haste. There is a local community, take your request to them and see what happens. It may be a good idea to wait a while. Contribute in a non controversial and mellow way, build up your reputation again, and take some thought before asking.
• Second, by policy, stewards do not perform routine administrative actions, such as non emergency deletions (that something needs deletion and has been sitting a while does not itself make it an emergency deletion) when there are local admins to carry out the work. Your request to delete blonde was misplaced for that reason, and Kylu rightly rejected it. There was no emergency. That you wanted to move something was not an emergency.
• Third, when Kylu turned that request down your next response was to ask for a temporary adminship here. By policy, stewards do not grant temp adminships for routine matters when there is a community and local admins. Your request was very ill advised. If the community has not seen fit to restore your adminship yet, why would giving you a temporary adminship be appropriate in any way? Kylu properly referred to policy rather than granting your ill-considered request.

I hope that this clarifies matters for you. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to let me know. I'd appreciate your acknowledging receipt and understanding of this message by a reply stating that you do understand these points and will comply with policy in future regarding requests to stewards. Thanks, and best wishes. Lar (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand these points and will comply with policy in the future regarding requests to stewards. Thank you, Razorflame 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are an...

...autopatroler now! I just granted you the tool right now. I think you can use it very well. Have fun (and if you think you don't need, just say a word, even thought you should have it ;) ) Regards --Barras (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. No problems, cheers, Razorflame 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Audio requests

Y Done --The New Mikemoral (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Cheers, Razorflame 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :)

Do you think this system will work well, or perhaps something different? --The New Mikemoral (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this system will work fine, as is evidenced by how well it works now. Razorflame 03:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

<--Thanks for the message and Y Done. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Razorflame 03:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Audio Y Done again, rather late. Mikemoral♪♫ 01:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

polyglotism

Merriam-Webster's appears to have a plural for polyglotism. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And sorry, I messed up writing the definition. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Looks good to me now. Cheers, Razorflame 01:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why isn't in a nutshell appearing in Category:Idioms? The bottom of the page shows it should be. I've purged the cat and entry a few times. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed template and re-added it, and the entry now shows up in the category. Razorflame 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers, Razorflame 02:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome - I suspect my contributions will be minimal - eg realm def#2 I could not think of any simple way of wording it! Saltmarsh (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That is because there is no real simple way of writing it. Sphere of influence is fairly complex, but I guess it could be boiled down to circle of influence, but then, it would lose the intended meaning, which is why I left it as is with a wikilink. Please observe the changes made to realm and follow these in the future, as they are the general formatting rules here on the Simple English Wiktionary. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice. I found out what I needed by looking at a more extensive definition (water) which helped me find the templates that I needed. --Xania (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is great news :). I look forward to seeing many edits from you in the future! Cheers, Razorflame 01:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See ya

I'm sad to see you go. Any reason as to why you've decided to leave us? Microchip08 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going on a Wikibreak...I'm not leaving the Wiki. Razorflame 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple wiktionary

It's nice to see you back Razorflame. Please, keep in mind that this is simple wiktionary. Words like abode, inattentively, woe, and calamity are not simple.--Brett (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Brett. I know that they are not simple, but if they are wikilinked, and they have entries made for them, then a user can click on them to find out what them mean. That was my reasoning for including them. Razorflame 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, when most people look up a word, they don't want to have to learn five other words just to figure out what the first one means. Wikilinking should be a last resort.--Brett (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And further to our discussion of synonyms, you've done it again with awkwardness. Please, just go here, type in [=awkwardness] (including the brackets), and see what comes up. It's easy.--Brett (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll remember to do that in the future. Thanks for the link :) I'll use it in the future! Cheers, Razorflame 18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

divided & disunity

Yes, your sense of divided is a perfectly valid usage of the word. The problem is that it is not a sense that belongs to the adjective but one that belongs to the verb in the passive voice. I know you've been away for a while, but we've been over the difference between participles and adjectives before. Also, the verb divided is far more common than the adjective and should be listed first.

Next, disunity is not a particularly common word, but disunite is a backformation that is exceedingly rare and, used mainly in jest. It's hardly worth linking to as a related word lest people think it's something they should use. --Brett (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Brett. Thank you for explaining your actions and your edits to me and for explaining to me where I went wrong. I appreciate your help and I will remember what you've told me from now on. Thanks again, Razorflame 21:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

QD of cardboards

I thought much the same thing, but it seems I was wrong, please see my talk page and Brett's notes on this word. Avicennasis (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't exist, so Brett should have no qualms about its' abscence here on the Simple English Wiktionary. Cheers, Razorflame 22:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Just to let you know since you were involved a bit, I have added a comment (question, really) at Brett's talk page, here. :) Avicennasis (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Razorflame 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

amber

When are you going to get off your high know-it-all horse? You know less than most people both here and on Wikt. You get up most peoples noses with your prescriptive attitude. Instead of simply adding a couple of improvements to the entry amber you have to make changes to the text which were simply BAD ENGLISH. And you have the nerve to tell me to read the Entry Layout instructions. Your changes were for the most part incorrect. My original wording for the colour definition was just fine, being as how this is the standard entry for the majority of the colours. Go change them as well, seeing as how you seem to OWN wiktionary. Once again, Flame, I don't like your lack of good manners on Wikt, and I like them even less here. Leave me in peace. P:S: Learn something about countable and uncountable nouns will you. All you have managed to do is confuse the simple English user forever. I will leave your changes to amber as a testimony of your lack of simple knowledge. --Algrif (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is conceited into thinking that you know the policies here. I've been around the block here, and I know the formatting rules here. Cluttering up entries with words like visible and one such are not in the best interests of the Simple English Wiktionary, and your attitude is even less what this Wiktionary needs. I don't act like I own this Wiktionary; I'm just the one who cares the most about the Simple English Wiktionary because I don't want it to turn into a poisonous cesspool like the English Wiktionary has become. If you'd like to continue dragging this pointless arguement on, feel free to, but know that I will not tolerate any offensive statements from you, and I will not allow you to drag any of that poisonous atmosphere from the English Wiktionary onto the Simple English Wiktionary. If you think that I don't kinow the different between a countable and uncountable noun, you are sorely mistaken. I've always been the best in my class on grammar and sentence structure, and I've never scored less than a 90% on an English paper in my life, so don't give me any of that nonsense dribble that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about here when it is clearly you that does not know what he is talking about. Any further messages from you left on my talk page will be reverted as I do not want to continue this discussion with you further. If you have any qualms about my conduct, bring it up on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Razorflame 23:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I couldn't help but notice that this conversation exactly highlights the same issue I'm having. Your attitude would be funny if it wasn't so sad and destructive, razor. However, your statement that you're "the one who cares the most about the Simple English Wiktionary" is funny, not to mention completely rude to those of us like myself and Brett, to name a few. All you can seem to do any wiki you go is cause animosity and push people with your arrogant and ownership-type comments. Thank you algrif for stating what I've been too polite to say for years, but I've just about had enough. · Tygrrr... 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edits

You can't just arbitrarily change formatting and expect everyone to follow it. You need to follow the rules that are laid out. What you're doing is actually borderline vandalism IMHO. We wouldn't let some random person go about changing formatting from the guidelines, why should you be allowed to do so??? I'm not gonna wheel war with you because it's irresponsible. But I highly suggest you change your edits to follow guidelines here. IF it is decided by the community that the changes being suggested are worthwhile and the MOS is updated to reflect what the community decides, I will follow it. In the meantime, you need to do the same and follow the current style guidelines. · Tygrrr... 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As already stated in my last post on your talk page, I've brought up the topic on the Simple Talk, and will wait to see what the community says. All I am trying to do is help expand this Wiktionary. I've made so many entries here, it is ridiculous, and why should a respected user be treated in such a manner of an immature child when he is clearly not. Your attitude could also use some adjusting. If you see something different, instead of just immediately assuming the worst case scenario, if it looks good and helps the Wiktionary, why bother making such a big fuss over things? Razorflame 09:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You act like you know everything, but clearly don't. That's the problem. And you get treated like an immature child because that's the way you act. You have not addressed any of the questions and good points that I have brought up here, on my own talk page and on the page discussing the proposed new formatting. If you're not going to discuss the content of what I'm saying and change the subject, I don't even want to talk to you. Please answer the valid questions I have asked you.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit acting like I'm making a big, f-ing stink just to do it. You are the one making formatting errors and saying I'm wrong for following our formatting standards. What upside-down world do you live in where that makes me the one wrong??? · Tygrrr... 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly did not think that my way of doing things on here was the wrong way of doing things. It's the way that I've been doing things since I came back about a month and a half ago. Nobody's told me that it was wrong, so therefore, I thought that it was the right way to do things. To answer some of your questions: I don't think that I am more important than the rules on this site, and if I was not following them, I will be happy to change the ways that I do things on here. I try to act in an appropriate manner on here, and I guess that things can get a little heated from time to time. I am deeply sorry for any trouble I have caused, and I will adhere to all but one of the current formatting practices...I still don't know why Synonyms/Antonyms/Related words/See also should be level 2 if they apply to every part of speech, so other than that, I'll follow the current formatting practices. That should be a fair compromise to this situation. Razorflame 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame, I'm not interested in the social aspect of things and I try to keep out of it, but from where I sit it sure looks like you're harassing useful people and it would be nice if you'd stop.--Brett (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Brett. Nice to see you back and well :) I'm not trying to harass users on this site. I was merely trying to help them out by pointing them to the appropriate formatting rules. This was before I knew that my way of doing things was the wrong way to do them, so it won't happen again (in terms of the wrong way). Hope this solves this situation. Razorflame 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

New here

I am very new to this place, I used to be at enwiki, but thought to explore new worlds so I settled here. Can you guide me from now onwards here? --Extra999 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking somebody else. Barras (talk · changes) is very helpful. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Peter, but you should not butt into other people's conversations like this. You don't even edit this Wiki, so why do you bother to write condescending messages such as this one? Razorflame 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki, he can reply if he wants. Barras was online at the time and could provide a faster response. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what he should have done, however, he did not do it in the appropriate manner. I know that he does not like me, and the tone that I got from his message was that you shouldn't waste your time asking me for help, which is utterly rude and offensive. He should have helped the person instead of writing such messages as this one. Razorflame 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Like you pointed out earlier, he's not a regular on the wiki, Barras is. He did the appropriate thing. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a correct way and an incorrect way of wording things. He should have worded his message differently. Razorflame 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how you take it..just drop it. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is the best course of action now. Razorflame 18:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)