User talk:Gliorszio

How are you? Your secret admirer

Hello. Would you like to make those edits to airplane instead. I am going to change aeroplane into a simple redirect. SemperBlotto 10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The redirecting is POV.―Gliorszio 10:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? that you don't want me to make aeroplane into a redirect to airplane? Aeroplane is just an old British word for Airplane. SemperBlotto 11:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is US-POV.―Gliorszio 11:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell from your clipped replies, but are you saying that only an American would think that Aeroplane is an old British word? Because I am a 63 year old Englishman, and even I think it's old-fashioned. SemperBlotto 14:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I re-added my revision so I can go back and integrate your changes. But I'm not sure about the Italian meaning latex, and now find myself at a loss for the related terms you entered. Would you like to reenter them, or do you want me to? --Connel MacKenzie 13:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the related term back in, but still am at a loss for latex. Could you please review it now? --Connel MacKenzie 14:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, either at Talk:スケルタル or at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, why you think that this article should be deleted. Uncle G 16:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is this correct? It looks strange to me. I've never seen it before. — Paul G 16:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Qlcu." also appears in my it-ja dictionary, and "qch" for quelque chose, "qn" for quelqu'un appear in fr-ja dictioinary. ―Gliorszio 13:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

May I introduce you to all of the lovely categories at Category:Italian language that you can categorize your Italian nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and (infinitive) verbs into? See Wiktionary:categorization. Uncle G 16:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I see that you changed the Vietnamese readings section. Do you know Vietnamese or have a nom dictionary? I don't, which is why I was cautious and only included "tự" in a comment. I read that on Wikipedia but didn't find it clear enough to include other than as a comment. My guess was that the reading is from something akin to "Old Vietnamese" and that it is now no longer used.

The other point is the wording Reading: originally tự, chữ makes it look like "originally" applies to both readings. Is this what you meant? — Hippietrail 03:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your helpful corrections to many of my entries. I am curious, though, why do you remove links for furigana and romaji? They may lead to redundant entries in many cases, but a link on the furigana can lead to homonyms. For いえ a link to ie will introduce the user to an English abbreviation and the Dutch word for egg.

The style guide at Wiktionary:About Japanese#Hiragana and Romaji recommends linked hiragana and romaji forms. I agree with this. In my view, this is a wiki. Links should be added, not removed. --Dunhamrc 15:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The kana-to-romaji link is no use.―Gliorszio 05:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't find your argument very convincing. If there is more information at ie than at いえ, it's a good thing to make that information easier for a user to get to. Conversely, it's a bad thing to make that information harder for a user to access. --Dunhamrc 15:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit perplexed with these actions myself. More links is a good thing. Kana may be elementary in Japan, but it's a point of interest, of "use", for those of us with zero knowledge of it. Removal of linked kana obfuscates their meaning. Please reconsider.

I too am curious why you would remove links to Romaji forms. As I understand it, linking to Romaji forms is standard -- could you point me to a policy page that says otherwise? Cruinne 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As part of the exercise to remove section headings from templates, I have removed the ===Conjugation=== heading from all the Italian conjugation tables. They will now need to be added after such a heading in any new verb entries. I shall update all the existing ones. Cheers. SemperBlotto 07:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for all the stuff you're adding, though you don't need to italicise the definition. 24 20:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove the {{elemento|x|y}} templates from articles, they are for spanish elements. Thanks - TheDaveRoss 06:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the template is bad, it is reducing the possibility. ―Gliorszio 06:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 03:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)>

Gliorszio, when reverting someone's changes (particularly a logged-in user), it is best to provide an explanation for it, preferably on the talk page for the term, and definitely in the change summary (rv doesn't provide any helpful information). If you think the person is likely to defend the contribution you've undone, it would be prudent to leave a comment on the talk page and give the person a chance to respond, so that the issue can be worked out before any reversion war begins. This all may seem a bit political, but it's the only workable means of dealing with people who disagree with you.

しかも, a reversion does not count as a "minor edit". Please reserve that demarcation for typos, minor grammatical changes, minor style changes, etc.

</Jun-Dai>

<Jun-Dai 05:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)> I'm going to revert かたな in a few minutes. Stop me if you are in the middle of formulating an argument against the format of the article that I've put together. </Jun-Dai>

Thanks for correcting my changes to "traduce". I now realise that I misunderstood the purpose of the Spanish and Italian sections. It would have helped if you had stated the reason for your correction, either in the Summary for the edit, or as Talk. I spent a few minutes justifying my changes before I realised that I was wrong. 213.208.107.91 5 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Hi there! When you are adding on to List of all Spanish verbs A don't go past ap- because I haven't got past that part yet. Thanks! K-unit 21:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gliorszio-san,

I have put some comments in the Talk:connection area. Can you take a look?

Thanks, Sally Ku 11:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for showing me the format for Korean words. Ed Poor 12:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you are going to continue making moves from hiragana to katakana forms could you please explain why you are doing that. The person who worked on ふらんす does not know why you moved it to フランス. I realize that katakana is mostly used for foreign words, but where both forms are common a simple redirect is not enough. Eclecticology 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think only フランス should be had, though ふらんす isn't very needed. ―Gliorszio 03:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Gliorizio, If you get this note in the next three hours, please go this page and help us wish SemperBlotto a happy birthday. Thanks. --Dvortygirl 04:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi - you recently edited the pronunciation of the Greek letter α. Please can you explain as I had written /æ/ and /ə/ which I had looked up Wiktionary:Pronunciation_key picking the two nearest sounds. Had you looked up the value elsewhere or do I have the sound of the character wrong. I have similar comments on the SIMLA entry - cheers :) - Saltmarsh 14:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Pronunciation_key is written for the English pronunciation. /æ/ and /ə/ are not Greek phoneme. —Gliorszio 14:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why are you deleting links in Japanese definitions like you did in 構造? The standard according to Wiktionary:About Japanese is to have them and the consensus in the beer parlor seems to agree. Perhaps you should add to the discussion there if you don't like them? 214.3.138.234 16:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gliorszio,

I disagree with your opinion. In my eyes, the decomposition is important and interesting, as it gives the reader the possibility to understand how the characters are composed. It actually makes sense with a lot of characters, and it helps to memorize Chinese characters as you have to reduce the number of "sub characters" in your mind to a minimum.

Bye, --Abdull 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gliorszio,

as I can see on your user contribution page ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gliorszio ) you started to delete my "character decomposition" entries from some Chinese characters.

It is not fair to destroy other person's hard work. This is not what the Wiktionary / Wikipedia is about! You have to accept that some things are more important to others than to you.

Before doing any more reverts, please start an open discussion on this issue on an Wikiproject site for Chinese characters, so other Wiktionary contributers can comment on the usefulness of the character decomposition line.

Thanks, --Abdull 13:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your all edits are meaning nothing, only the SURFACE, no meaning, and you have to study the construction of Chinese characters. ―Gliorszio 10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

fins plural of fim - is that correct, or was it finger trouble? SemperBlotto 13:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is correct. In Portuguese, the words end in -m (nasal vowel), their plurals are end in -ns. ―Gliorszio 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you absolutely sure that тра́вок is accusative for травки? I can't think of a sentence as an example for this (I am a native Russian speaker, but not a scholar). I think it should be only тра́вки. -- Oleg Katsitadze 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my dictionary, "травка (f3)"; f3 plural: и, -, ам, nom/gen, ами, ах (nom, gen, dat, acc, instr, prep). ―Gliorszio 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I may be dumb, but I don't see the accusative in this quote, nor any '-ок' suffixes. Any dictionaries I have access to don't specify accusative suffix either. Can you please clarify further? --Oleg Katsitadze 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

"травка, pl.gen. травок (f3)". ―Gliorszio 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is correct, but this is genitive, and I am talking about accusative. Anyway, if you don't mind, I can delete accusative травок from the declension table. If you do mind, I can ask in the Tea room. So what should I do? —Oleg Katsitadze 09:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, Stephen G. Brown already removed it. —Oleg Katsitadze 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please explain. 請說明以下. ご解説をしてくださいませんか。 A-cai 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your edits are seems strange. Why do you made strange categories? I think proper categories are:

• a
  • ā
  • á
  • ǎ
  • à
  • āi...
• b

• [:Category:ba ㄅㄚ]、[:Category:gong (Pinyin)]→ "Chinese pinyin bā, bá, bǎ..." (need tone marks, no need duplication: pinyin and zhuyin)
• [:Category:fàng 放]→ see each character ARTICLEs.

finally, more study pinyin ortho. ―Gliorszio 11:51, 6 Feb. 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, it makes sense now why I was arranging it such. Many westerners have difficulty with Chinese tones. Therefore, it is better to group all syllables with different tones under the same syllable.

e.g.

• Chinese Pinyin index
  • m ㄇ
    • ma ㄇㄚ
      • mā 媽
      • mā 妈
      • má　麻
      • mǎ　馬
      • mǎ　马
      • mà　罵
      • mà　骂

I hope this explains the method to my madness. A-cai 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are two reasons for including both Pinyin and zhuyin.

1. Adding the zhuyin guarantees that this category will only be used for Chinese Mandarin. If we only create a category called ma or má, it is very likely that it may conflict with another language someday.
2. Although everyone in the PRC uses Pinyin, most people in Taiwan use zhuyin. So we should accommodate both.

If it would make you feel better, we could change the category "Chinese Pinyin index" to "Chinese phonetic index." A-cai 16:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The reason that I created these categories is that each time I add a new word, I have to create the entry, then navigate to the individual character page, and update that. I can work a lot faster if all I have to do is put a category such as Category:fàng 放 in my new entry. A-cai 17:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I contacted you above, but it's possible it's tacked onto an old entry so not easy to see :) It would be helpful to me if you could stop removing the links around romaji in Japanese entries. These red links remind me to fill out the entry when I come back later; if they're removed, I'll likely still get around to it, but first I have to edit the original entry to put them back. The romaji entries are helpful for non-native speakers of Japanese, especially beginners who can be intimidated by/unsure of kana readings. Thanks :) どうぞよろしくお願いします。

can you please respond, rather than simply removing more romaji links without discussing it? Cruinne 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another attempt to get you to engage in discussion about this issue: please see Wiktionary_talk:About_Japanese#Romaji so we can try to reach some consensus instead of editing back and forth all the time. I'd appreciate your input. Cruinne 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you please stop removing links to the Romaji entries of Japanese words. They are important because:

1. Someone looking up Japanese words may not know (or want to know) how the word is written in "real" Japanese.
2. The persons computer may not display Japanese Characters.
3. Most books teaching Japanese do not use Japanese Characters.

As a Japanese person you may not use (or even like) Japanese written in Romaji, just as I wouldn't write English in katakana, however this is the English Wiktionary written for English speakers most of us only know the standard 26 letters in the English Alphabet. Therefore all languages will need to be entered with those letters. Thanks, Gerard Foley 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not the needing reason for the links. People who want to know Japanese are must learn Japanese characters. ―Gliorszio 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

No they don't have to learn Japanese characters unless they want to read Japanese. If someone is going on a two week holiday to Japan, they are not going to need to read much, but they will want to say a few things.

The links to the Romaji entries do no harm and many people are in favor of them. Gerard Foley 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed -- many Universities in the US do not introduce kana until second year; many programs in conversational Japanese do not introduce Japanese writing ever but rather use Romaji throughout. Romaji entries allow those users to still look things up -- and not everyone has the proper software to input Japanese in the search boxes, and so must search by Romaji. It doesn't matter if you want to use Romaji or will find it useful -- Romaji links are useful to English speakers, however, and should be left in English wiktionary. Again, I've asked for discussion and consensus here: here. Cruinne 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about having you as admin too? If User:Dijan can get it, you'd be just as likely to pass. You wanna have the power to delete the Main Page? --ex-admin part-time sockpuppetting quasi-vandal Wonderfool 12:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just thought I'd drop you a line and let you know that I reverted some of your edits on ἄνθρωπος, because it linked to a redirect back to the original page. A lot of Greek words without accent marks or breathing marks are simply redirects to the "correct" page. So, you might want to watch that and not assume that there's a full page concerning the modern Greek variant. Thanks. Cerealkiller13 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you're interested, please read Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Wiktionary Romanization standards for Japanese. Please feel free to read and submit your opinions there. A-cai 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why are you un-linking the romaji? A lot of words have romaji entries, and some editors will create missing ones. It also is an easy way for someone who doesn't grok hiragana to find homophones. You didn't say why. Robert Ullmann 12:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

• we don't boldface kanji or kan in headwords
• we don't capitalize rōmaji, even in proper nouns Robert Ullmann 13:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
• do not remove kana forms that you feel are redundant
• do not change color to colour or vice versa

all of these are vandalism Robert Ullmann 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where, when is it decided? -Gliorszio 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In answer to your question, all of the issues raised by Robert Ullmann are the result of lengthy discussions held at Wiktionary:Beer parlor over the last several months. A number of contributors participated. The essence of the discussions were then transferred to Wiktionary:About Japanese. Please read it, if you disagree with what it says, please post your opinions on the talk page of Wiktionary:About Japanese.

A-cai 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

ここまでくるともうあなたの行動には手の施しようが無い。-Gliorszio 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not in my hands; we'll see what the community and the administrators think. You've steadily ignored requests to stop vandalizing entries for a year now. Robert Ullmann 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, what do you wanna say? --M. Powel 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you added the link to the radical index to the template, and then took it out again? Perhaps it didn't work quite the way you wanted (you were including the + strokes count in the link). It would be fine to link that again. Robert Ullmann 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

These are fine, but please DO NOT REMOVE sections for Mandarin because you think the character is not used: those sections exist because the ISO standardization group got them from a reliable source, they are probably rare. Those changes have been reverted. Robert Ullmann 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

See for example, 紣. It probably isn't in your dictionary, but is in the KangXi, page 919, line 16. This is why you should never remove information just because you don't know it, or the dictionary you are looking at doesn't have it. We have asked you several times now not to remove information.

Thank you for noting the incorrect pinyin for (rui4), (cui4) ... these do need to be fixed. Robert Ullmann 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed because Chinese characters including the part 卆, all that is Japanese shinjitai, or 俗字. ―Gliorszio 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh really? Not only is it in the KangXi, it is quite common on Chinese language (SWC, Simplified Mandarin) search pages, (116,000 hits in PRC/.cn, it means "looking"). Yes, the 卆 part looks like the character would be shinjitai; it is both. As before, please do not remove information you are not familiar with! Robert Ullmann 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Note that if a character is common, it belongs in wiktionary, even if its nonstandard (俗字). Kappa 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You removed the def from 專有名詞 where it doesn't belong, but didn't move it to 固有名詞? Robert Ullmann 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for correcting my careless mistake. I've made a new page at 固有名詞. Kappa 07:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked by name and IP address. The problem is not so much what you are doing, but that you will not discuss it.

Fixing the Mandarin Pinyin is very useful, I've been working on it myself (User:Robert Ullmann/Mandarin Pinyin). But when something you have done is questioned on this page, you must reply. Robert Ullmann 07:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please note that the IPA sound represented by /e/ does not occur in English except in the dipthong /eɪ/. The short e sound is represented in IPA and on Wiktionary by /ɛ/. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The English phoneme /e/ (broad transcription) is equal to the phone [ɛ]. English haven't distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/. It's just broad. ―Gliorszio 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

But IPA is phonetic, not phonemic. Since Wiktionary is multilingual, we do need to make the distinction between /e/ in Spanish and /ɛ/ in English. --EncycloPetey 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have this entry marked as an abbreviation. I thought each letter's name was given. This would make it an initialism. --EncycloPetey 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply