Jump to content

Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

De actionibus Vestrae Excellentiae[fontem recensere]

Gratias maximas ago Vestrae Excellentiae, sed Latina mea, heu, pessima est. Studeo hanc tres vel quattuor menses.Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 18:50, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De Dundate, politico Anglico[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Si vultis, potestis corrigere meos errores huius paginae.Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 16:12, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago; paginam mox inspiciam ad errores corrigendos -- si errores insunt! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:32, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Et vobis item gratias ago! Scribam hanc. Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 17:30, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bella civilia[fontem recensere]

I combined your page with the already-existing Bellum civile: but I don't know, in fact, whether you intended to write only about the Roman civil war(s), or a page about civil war in general.

See Categoria:Bella civilia, and please feel free to improve the relevant pages: they need all the improvement they can get :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 16 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the Taberna. Excellent news! Keep on doing this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 16 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De 1000 paginis[fontem recensere]

In Theoria numerorum, vide historiam mutationum: "Amahoney (Disputatio | conlationes) m (10 593 octeti)." Ooh! Getting close! But to clear the 10,000 bar and therefore gain 0.04 instead of 0.01, the text will need to be bigger than about 12500 octeti. That's because the octeti comprising the interwiki links (and maybe a few really minor things) are deducted from the official total. I myself just raised Atheismus and Bellum Centum Annorum above the 10,000 level, thanks to information in the new update of Paginae sizes, so our score should have a noticeable rise this month.‎ Good luck! IacobusAmor 16:11, 26 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- in fact, the interwiki links add up to about 1900 bytes, so I need a little over 4000 more. Hope to get there before the next update of the official scores! We'll break the 20-point barrier for sure, maybe even 21. A. Mahoney 16:24, 26 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21.00 looks out of the question for this month; I'd guess we stand at around 20.16 right now. IacobusAmor 17:19, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I guess we don't get a blue ribbon for growth this month! You've definitely done most of the work on this one -- I've added a handful of math pages but you've written a lot more. I have a couple I want to work on for my summer and fall classes, though, which might get us a few points in June as well. Onward and upward! A. Mahoney 17:27, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excelsior! But don't be modest: among the 1000 pages, you've probably added more verbiage. And we have to remember that the big prize, 0.09 points, is for articles exceeding 30,000 octeti. In these respects, Usor:Secundus Zephyrus/1000 paginae sizes is quite helpful. To reorder that list by size, click on the object that looks like a bow tie. IacobusAmor 17:49, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been using the page and I'm glad SZ has just updated it. I'd love to get Mathematica up to 30K but that may take more work than I'm going to do this week. Nothing else near that boundary in my own areas of interest (I don't know anywhere near enough about, say, Islam). A. Mahoney 18:03, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paginae de rebus sanscritis movendae[fontem recensere]

Has paginas inveni:

  • Kalidasa debet fieri Kalidasus (factum)
  • Asvaghosa Asvaghosus (factum)
  • Canakya Canakyus
  • Asoka Asokus (factum)
  • Sankara Sankarus
  • Abhijnanasakuntalam ...um
  • Ramayana Ramayanum (factum)
  • Upanishad Upanisades (n.b. s for palatal ś, not sh?)
  • Bhagavadgita ...um (no! this should be feminine, not a-stem masculine)
  • Kamasutra ...um
  • Asokavadana ...um
  • Buddacarita ...um
  • Kumarasambhava ...um
  • Divyavadana ...um
  • Siva Sivus (factum)

Fortasse plures sunt. Scio quoque verba in paginis mendanda esse (e.g. "Indra" in "Indrus"), quod faciamus quando talia videamus. A. Mahoney 15:14, 12 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De stipulis[fontem recensere]

Salve, A. Mahoney! Te scio non nulla scripsisse in Taberna de stipulis creandis. Egomet nescio quo modo rem male gessisse videor, neque Andreas scit quid esset, quod male gessi. Si tibi placet, et si tempus habes, quae scripsi hac in Disputatione lege! Cura ut valeas, Mattie 23:48, 20 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve from me too! I saw your note at Britanniarum Regnum. You were right to wonder, I think. As on other wikis, there was a tendency here to overlink just because one can. If you're editing a heavily-linked page, feel free to reduce linking to what might be useful in context to an intelligent reader! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:10, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm not the only one who checks Nuper mutata from time to time! I've just discovered "Check Wikipedia" and was looking around at some of the markup errors noted there: this kind of cleanup is easy to do in between meetings and so on. A. Mahoney 20:30, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professorship[fontem recensere]

Salve iterum! Cum gradum suscepturus sim, meae cursus vitae sane mihi excogitandus est. I'm interested in professorship -- I thought I could perhaps teach linguistics or certain languages. (Or both ... I don't know what people usually do.) Since that's what you're doing, I was wondering whether you could give me pointers as to what I should study in university, as well as give me an idea of the kind of work you do (I think most professors do research on top of teaching, right? does a language professor do the same?). Naturally, I wouldn't be asking if I'd been able to find something on Google! :D Thank you, Mattie 23:32, 24 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, what a response! :D I'll answer you more thoroughly when I have more time, but thank you for taking the time to write all that. I appreciate it and it's very helpful! Mattie 02:38, 26 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you didn't see it -- I answered you. Mattie 00:36, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(and again) Mattie 01:30, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova stipula desiderata[fontem recensere]

Ave, amica! In case you have time, we need {{echinodermata-stipula}}. Or show me (again?) where the instructions for devising stipulas might be? IacobusAmor 18:40, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: illae mille paginae[fontem recensere]

I'm sorry it's been so long! I've been so busy...just graduated and I've been looking for work. I just tried running the script, and I got a syntax error, which is strange because I haven't changed any of the syntax since I last ran it. I'll try rolling back to an older version of the application... --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:04, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factum est! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 02:23, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tibi gratias ago![fontem recensere]

Thanks for your explanation. May I ask your help for the future? See you soon

Rex Momo 06:56, 26 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, of course: around here we all help each other out! A. Mahoney 13:00, 26 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula 1000 paginarum[fontem recensere]

Thanks to your table of these articles, I've done some precisely focused work on these pages, trying (in various ways in various articles) to raise our point score, our median, and our mean. You and Andrew seem to have worked similarly. Maybe after the semester ends we could designate a mensis 1000 paginarum, when everybody tries to enlarge & improve these pages. IacobusAmor 17:22, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing: you've done a lot on these, especially all those rivers and seas -- I'm impressed. I'm working on mathematical pages again and generally trying to tidy up loose ends. I like the idea of a "mensis millepaginia" -- let's propose it for, say, June.
I've also looked a bit at what would happen if those new 2-decimal weights were implemented; we'd go down from 1.1 to 1.07. That would affect a few of our pages -- anything that is presently less than 10281 would fall to below 10000, A. Mahoney 17:31, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I added a few hundred characters to Animalia and Hispania, the articles just above the 10K cutoff, lest they inadvertently slip below it. IacobusAmor 17:40, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and anything less than 30842 would be below 30000. Since there seems to be some consensus around the extra digits, if the new weights get implemented at all, we may want to keep an eye on pages that might drop to a lower category. A. Mahoney 17:31, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the most endangered, Mathematica, is in your bailiwick! ¶ I'd like to do more today, since it's the end of the month, but work in the real world (tm) seems to be impinging on my free time. :/ IacobusAmor 17:40, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got Mathematica half an hour ago! :-) Personally, I'm through with classes for the day, so am indulging myself with Lingua Hebraica for a bit. It beats grading Greek quizzes! A. Mahoney 17:44, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Just import the bibliography from de:Hebräische Sprache and you're over 10K! IacobusAmor 18:27, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good thinking: I've taken goodies from several versions and my own library catalog, and we're in business. A. Mahoney 18:56, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Running the script?[fontem recensere]

Is there a chance you could run your script so we can see how closely its figures match the official figures? We'll already have to allow for the 938 characters that I've added to Karachi today, which presumably won't be counted in the official figures for January, and others of the 1000 pages will soon be diverging more & more from their status at the end of 31 January 2012. IacobusAmor 18:24, 1 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. I've just kicked it off; it's pretty quick. A. Mahoney 19:49, 1 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and there it is. A. Mahoney 19:59, 1 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a good Latin collective term for the Imperial fora, please suggest it now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:34, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine of course. I've deleted "Page" now as you requested. Always feel free to experiment! It is probably more likely that you'll be questioned by cross-wiki timelords if you happen to be using an IP address: they are very clever at detecting unexplained anonymous activity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As they should. Since I was trying to learn how to run a bot and, in particular, how to get it to sign on, it ended up appearing as my IP rather than me -- which was instructive, and as may be obvious from Nuper mutata, I could immediately correct the program and make it do what I wanted. Miraculously, no actual pages got messed up! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:32, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my note at Disputatio:Limes (mathematica). Could you if possible add interwiki links to the page? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 24 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy; I've reciprocally linked with English, and bots should fill in the rest shortly. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:54, 25 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment at Disputatio:Lingua Vallonica if you have a view! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 10 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistica Lovaniensia[fontem recensere]

Gratulor tibi valde pro verbis additiciis quae pro tua benevolentia addere dignata es huic scriptioni. Ausus sum nonnulla verba addere et nonnulla mutare quod ut spero non tibi displiceat. Vale semper optime.--Bruxellensis (disputatio) 07:02, 14 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laetor igitur pro responso tuo affabilissimo.--Bruxellensis (disputatio) 06:18, 16 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and welcome! You will already have noticed, probably, that you have new options under the little grey arrow at top right, and also the option for a one-keystroke "revert" in article histories. What fun you'll have ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 25 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little scary, but I won't let it go to my head! :-) I'll read "new admin school" in :en relatively soon, and hope we don't actually need much administrative work! Thanks for proposing me. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:52, 25 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for finding the Catalan version of "Treaty of Gisors". I would never have thought of looking there ... but they are very enterprising Wikipedians. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 11 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Actually, I started with Gisors in French, found a general page on all the treaties there (who knew there were so many?), and went from there to Catalan. As you note, they've got everything! I like the puzzle of finding inter-wiki links so it's one of the things I do in spare moments between classes. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:11, 11 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and again[fontem recensere]

I'm glad you noticed about the pagina mensis. I promised to do this job when Mattie couldn't, but although I'd noticed Mattie wasn't around much (very busy, I suspect), I failed to make the mental leap. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 1 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mattie is in his first term at University. I advise first-years here, so I know how busy he probably is! I'm having a crazy semester too, but at least I can do some minor housekeeping in between reading students' draft essays, grading quizzes, and going to meetings. Makes me feel useful, ya know? :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:28, 1 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De rebus Indicis[fontem recensere]

Please glance at Disputatio:Ardzuna. I was about to move to "Arjuna" when it struck me that you might vote for "Arjunus" ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 9 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buckyball at nano[fontem recensere]

That bucky ball at the nano tek page is a great addition and very illustrative!Jondel (disputatio) 07:27, 17 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- but I can't take any credit for it: you added that picture back in January! :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:02, 17 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotundo foramen[fontem recensere]

Ave Mahonia. In pagina usoris tua potes vidi linguam Graecam antiquam. Egomet paulum Graecae modernae loquor. Similiter antiqua est. Multa nomina adiectiva Graeca in pagina usoris mea adscripti ita scis. Me adiuves domina? Libenter scire demirandi mihi, potes narrare quae "circulus", "anulus", et "discus" Graece antique (si dicere fungit) est? In moderne est κύκλος, kýklos, δαχτυλίδι, dachtylídi, et δίσκος, dískos.

Donatello (disputatio) 17:30, 11 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Paginae non annexae[fontem recensere]

In Vicipaedia:Taberna#Categoria:Paginae non annexae disputamus de paginis non annexis. Haec est tabula harum paginarum secundum creatores digestarum.

Nonne melius "in subscriptionem … et indicationem"? --UV (disputatio) 23:40, 28 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ita; rectificabo. Et fortasse scis tu quare "taberna" heri fuerit "meeting point" (in parte sinistra paginarum) sed nunc iterum "taberna" sit? Hoc volui invenire apud TranslateWiki, frustra autem. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 11:51, 29 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago! Quod tabernae descriptionem attinet, nescio. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 21:19, 1 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De profundis bananis[fontem recensere]

To make proper use of the interwiki orphan Banana (fruit) I have extended it and made it match the English en:Banana (fruit) -- which is one of the thousand and was formerly, wrongly, linked to our Musa (genus). I also renamed my page to Musa (fructus) because that seems clearly to be the best-attested Latin name. I've updated the links at Wikidata and added the 1000 tag, but if you can think of anything else that needs to be done to ensure our Musa (fructus) is counted instead of our Musa (genus), please do it! Thanks, Anne! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 28 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks right: the link visible at en:Banana this morning (well, it's morning in Boston -- I realize you're finishing up lunch!) is to our Musa (fructus), as desired. Since the fruit page is twice as long as the genus page, we will actually gain points in our score as a result --- which is excellent since none of the rest of us has had a chance to increase anything this month. So thank you, Andrew! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:19, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Vide Haydn. One tends to think of the 1000 pages toward the end of the month. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:51, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spiffy! Thank you! I'd been thinking of getting to that one today or tomorrow; I'm glad old Papa Haydn hasn't been neglected. (And I also think he's a good addition to the list.) All I've been able to do is keep up with Wikidata links -- Tokium is surprisingly complicated; see talk pages in :en and :d for the whole soap opera. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:57, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Neander's description of a stipula to this page (because I think he was describing something more than what we have up to now allowed to be a stipula) and added some stuff of my own. Please consider whether I've done well or badly, and boldly change if necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've added a further point, that articles in Latin WP should somehow have to do with Latinitas sensu latiori -- else, why are we here? But this may not find universal acclaim! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:57, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think that could arouse some discussion when it's noticed. Latinitas spreads very wide, of course, but maybe not quite as far as pop music, video games and television comedy ... I shall observe with interest! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is useful (if extremely scholarly) material in the introduction (which is in vol. 1) to the text edition to which I've just added a link. Don't know if you've already looked. I am very far from being a mathematician, but I could get some biographical stuff out of there. On the other hand, you are a mathematician, and if you fancy developing the article as a whole, I have lots of other things to do as well! Up to you Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! I'd noticed the changes to The List the other day and figured I'd tidy things up in the office today, around class (Ad Familiares this morning, Brutus on Thursday -- have to explain "s.v.b.e.e.q.v" and the like in about 10 minutes). I'll move the article from micro-barely-acceptable-stub to quasi-stipes over the course of the week; you are welcome to play, too, but your time may be better applied elsewhere! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:15, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to you for the present, then :) Vol. 1 takes a measurable time to download. It is a copy of one of those standard Sanskrit editions of the thirties, but with a very long introduction in English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anne. As far as I'm concerned, yes, go ahead and make a page for Caliphatus Abbasidarum. No doubt there needs to be one. I can't now remember the reason why I edited Wikidata on this subject! don't worry, take it on from here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good luck[fontem recensere]

In Italian we say "in bocca al lupo" for your exam. good luck!--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:07, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks -- though it's tomorrow during the grading that I'll really need it :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:09, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praedicans[fontem recensere]

Interesting article Logica. But where are you getting 'praedicans' from? In medieval logic (where nearly all logical terminology was derived from) it would be 'praedicatum' to go with 'subiectum'. Also 'de generibus propositionum' is not right. (a) The section only covers the 4 categorical forms, and there are many other 'genera' of propositions than that. Also, the medievals were more likely to say 'de divisione propositionum'. Regards Edward Buckner (disputatio) 18:07, 30 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't remember where I found praedicans; you're welcome to correct it, and, indeed, to expand on the article as much as you like. My own interest is in mathematical logic, sort of a different breed of cat, so your expertise will be quite useful here! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:43, 31 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feriae hilares[fontem recensere]

Te gaudere iubeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 26 Maii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago; Matritum et (ut quoque anno) Lutetiam visitabam, ubi caeseo, vino, museis fructa sum! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:46, 12 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[fontem recensere]

Well, requests, really:

1. Any chance you could make the "Formula:Listen" work in We Shall Overcome? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:23, 31 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Any chance you could run this program soon? I've been trying to find links for (some of) my creations. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:23, 31 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Is there a way of adding Petrus Seeger to the 10,000 pages? He's more important (singer, instrumentalist, composer, political organizer, educationalist, conservationist, author, and even documentary filmmaker) than many individuals already there! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:23, 31 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Shouldn't be too hard: I'll take a look.
2. I'll do it Tuesday when I'm on campus; can't run it from home :-(
3. Go over to Meta and get into the discussion: you'll need to propose someone to remove from the list (just as for the good old 1000 pages), but that shouldn't be too hard -- look at all the movie stars and pop singers. The list is pretty volatile, and less contentious than the smaller list, so far anyway; you probably won't get flamed. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:14, 1 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just run the non-linked pages utility -- there are about 50 fewer than the last time, which is good! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:17, 5 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good work! Btw, the people responsible for updating the calculations for the 1000-page list seem to have gone fishing. See the discussion here. :( IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:00, 11 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that; I gather the program is kind of a pig to run, though, so I'm not volunteering to install the necessary utilities and commit to doing it myself -- anyone who steps in while MarsRover is on vacation (or whatever the deal is) may get asked to maintain it permanently, which I don't want to do. Meanwhile, we can go gather extra points, I suppose! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:01, 12 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore[fontem recensere]

Hi, Anne. Would you care to comment at Disputatio:Bengalurus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 2 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and here I figured "hui" was some obscure dialect interjection! :-) (I have commented, as you may have seen.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:05, 2 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice, though the only thing I'm wondering about (putting it here so as not to interlope in that conversation) is auctor vs. scriptor, first because Sallust may actually have used actor, at least according to this note, and also because Cicero and many others seem to have used auctor in the "author of a book" sense.

You're right, of course, inter nos. I know there's a textual problem in the Sallust; and, yes, auctor has to have that sense at least sometimes, or it would be really hard to explain Fr. auteur, En. author, and so on. But for a beginning writer of Latin it's easier to keep it simple; someone still working on case functions is probably better off sticking to simple vocabulary. Beginners need to get used to the idea that Latin words don't always mean the same as their descendants (or loan-words). I guess I tend to be fairly black-and-white in elementary classes, bringing in grey (to say nothing of bright colors) only later on. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:14, 16 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I agree! and I'm sure that ancient Romans must have felt the other meanings of creator, producer, doer, etc., and the connection to augeo, much more than we do in English with author. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:19, 16 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin question at the Reference Desk of the English Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Ave. Quaeritur hic de lingua latina. Adjuvare potes? Gratias ago multas. Basemetal (disputatio) 21:38, 7 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respondi! Licet etiam tales rogationes in Taberna nostra rogare, ut omnes videant. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:33, 8 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias. Intellexi. Sic faciam. Basemetal (disputatio) 14:38, 8 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some stuff to this page. I noticed you inserted the image of Venetus A and said it was 13th century. Was that a slip? Or are my sources out of date? They say 10th century. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 12 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be a slip: of course it's 10th c, and I know that -- I'd even worked on publishing some digital images for it, years ago. Do fix it! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:02, 12 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we're asking you ...[fontem recensere]

(see Iacobus's plea elsewhere) ... let me ask you, do you happen to have any views on the question raised by UV and the suggestion I made there? I ask you because, if any bot could adapt the lists mentioned by Lesgles to something that we can work on here, something maybe eventually useful on Meta, it could well be your bot. (My initial thought would be to take the biographies from en:Category:High-importance Women's History articles just once, list them here [with Vicipaedia pages if those already exist], so that we could then manually add more to the list.) Whether or not that's possible, the more significant question is, is it a worthwhile idea? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the start of term here, so I've been doing odd bits of housekeeping in spare moments but haven't had time to weigh in on the larger question. Yes, of course I'm all in favor of more women in VP. One list that no one's mentioned yet is the list of women in Women Writing Latin (ed. Churchill, Brown, Jeffrey, Routledge: 2002). It would also be easy enough, as you surmise, to pull the lists from Meta or :enwiki, since I've got code that does similar stuff. This seems valuable and not too difficult, so I'll put it on my list, around introducing first-years to Catullus and sophomores to Erasmus! :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:30, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding! Absolutely no hurry. Hope they enjoy their Catullus. I like his adjective "ostreosior" more oysterous. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're snowed under, eh? I hope the problems soon diminish. I have just started Vicipaedia:Feminae 3000. One may as well be ambitious. Please add names, manually or automatically, as you choose, if you have time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 3 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. We've had over 3 feet of snow in the past 7 days; the university closed for three of them, which is most unusual since it's primarily a residential campus. Everyone is now behind on everything! :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:35, 3 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ...[fontem recensere]

Please look again at the Taberna. Tiny misunderstanding. I would never have dreamed of asking for automatic deletion! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 5 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good, then we're on the same page! I did mis-interpret the proposal. To say "this page was flagged on 5 March 2015" is probably doable, but would require crawling through the history; on the other hand, it is possible to make a list sorted by last modification date, which may be close enough for many purposes. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:35, 5 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an even better way, because one could see immediately which pages have been untouched for longest.
Deletion is a painful task, one that UV and I (I think) perform most often. I wouldn't wish it on any bot! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 5 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CatScan can query e. g. a list of all pages which have been untouched for 2 months: [1] Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:49, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldus Adamson[fontem recensere]

Salve Dr Mahoney!

Please find below some amendments which might be helpful to Wiki:


Haec pagina ad tempus protecta est ob maleficia perpetua. Quaesemus, emendationes suggere in pagina disputationis vel magistratum ad hanc deprotegendam pete.

emendare collegio Luduvici Magni ... universitate Londiniensi

corporatione Coriarorium Londinensium (Anglice: Worshipful Company of Curriers) ... ordinis Palmarum academicarum

Versiones ... (Westminster: Penguin Books)

==Nexus externi==

Categoria:Auctores Anglici
Categoria:Socii Regiae Societatis Historicae

Gratias M Mabelina (disputatio) 23:58, 21 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina -- As I said on the talk page, I'm not going to un-protect the page. I did correct the mis-spelling of "Ludovici Magni"; the capitalization is not a problem. There's no need to gloss the "Worshipful Company of Curriers" -- the right solution here would be to have a page about this society, and if you wanted to create it, that would be a service. It will require finding a source for the Latin name of the Company; there presumably is one, given that the Company dates to, what, the 13th century. I'd recommend that you label the page with the "tiro" formula, since you are still a relative beginner at Latin -- people will treat you more gently if you acknowledge this! (This is what I tell my own students -- for an example of their work see Iulius exclusus e coelis.)
We normally don't link dates, places, or publishers' names in bibliographies. The "Auctores Anglici" category is too broad and the page is better placed in the more specific category of "Interpretes Franco-Anglici." But you're right about the other category, and I've added it.
PS: yes, "Dr Mahoney" is formally correct, but we're not generally so formal here; "Anne" (latine "Anna, -ae") will suffice! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:06, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Anna. Gratias tibi ago pro notitia tua. M Mabelina (disputatio) 21:21, 23 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. please find additional info & links to the Gilda article on Latin Wikipedia; these I trust are of help. Perhaps building up the background history and outlining the present-day activities of Livery Companies & Zünfte could be better than starting individual articles about each such ancient corporation at this juncture - also, much obliged if you could advise how the Latin in the aforementioned (Dr. Donald Adamson JP) article should be further improved; hopefully a correctly phrased biographical article like this would be useful to all..? Best M Mabelina (disputatio) 02:31, 24 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Dr Mahoney
As the subject of this article on Vicipaedia I am happy with its general content. However, I have written on subjects other than French thought and literature. Bearing in mind that a protection tag has been placed on it even though there has been no Edit whatsoever since last April, I suggest that this tag is no longer necessary. In any event I should be very grateful indeed if you could see your way to removing it.
Many thanks in advance.
Ammochostos Ammochostos (disputatio) 15:46, 6 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salve tu quoque, Dr. Adamson. Of course you're familiar with en:Wikipedia:Autobiography and the general rules against conflict of interest: even if the page does become unprotected, you wouldn't be editing it in the normal course of events. I protected it because Wikipedia tries to be cautious about biographies of living persons; the repeated edits in rather poor Latin, by your students I suppose, were nearly as damaging as vandalism (except, of course, for being well meant, innocent errors). If I were to unprotect it, you'd probably want to ask those of your students who aren't proficient in Latin to refrain from editing it: they are not doing you any favors. (I regularly assign Vicipaedia work to my own students, so I have a sense of what beginner-Latin is like, and I know what can be involved in cleaning up the mess afterwards.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:06, 7 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ave Dr. Mahoney
Thank you for your reply. I agree that students can be exuberant but also well-meaning. I am confident that no such further edits will be made and I confirm that I have no intention of making any myself. I trust that you can see your way to removing the unnecessary tag. Best wishes. Ammochostos 22:50, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see you back and kicking ass.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:54, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! It's been a rough semester in these parts; we set a record for snowfall, missed a bunch of days of school, had random political kerfuffles.... So it's nice to get back to a favorite useful distraction! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:02, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-- err. Like ---like on facebook.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:09, 5 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Si vales, bene est! Any chance of getting an update on Usor:Amahoney/Non stipula? I think we've fixed a few but labeled even more. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:21, 17 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: I'll do it when I'm in the office again, on Tuesday. It's quick, so I should have it done before 9:00 EDT. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:25, 17 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no rush! Lesgles (disputatio) 02:14, 19 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed ...[fontem recensere]

.. reading your article about Vicipaedia! I'm sure it will encourage other teachers to use it as you do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 1 Septembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! I figured it might be useful to publicize it here! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:45, 1 Septembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Projected "supplementum" space[fontem recensere]

I guess you're busy even beyond Vicipaedia, but if you have any ideas or comments relevant to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Spatium supplementorum -- positive or negative -- it would be very good to know. All the best Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a different place you might care to comment is Disputatio:Numerus quaternus ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm: need to chase sources on that one. Might be an amusing diversion! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:33, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

  • Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
  • Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
  • Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![fontem recensere]

Hi, Anne! Thanks for updating the 1000 table. There was talk (somewhere) about an update of the list of non-stipulas in date order that you originally created. Don't know if you have time ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:54, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty quick: I'll run it off before dashing to my meeting. Classes start the end of next week and I hope to get back to Vicipaedia once I'm in my office again. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:11, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you've been updating the other ones, would you mind doing this one when you have a chance? Lesgles (disputatio) 21:28, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done --- and this showed me what the problem is with Usor:Amahoney/Non stipula, so I'm fixing that now too. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:09, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and glad to have helped. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 21:13, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not among the 10,000 articles[fontem recensere]

Any thoughts on Lingua artificiosa? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:11, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuftenses[fontem recensere]

It might please you to know that Vicipaedia is ahead of all European languages in offering the biography of a diplomat and foreign minister who is a Tufts alumnus :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 14 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbos are everywhere!  :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:45, 14 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 18:40, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 01:38, 13 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 00:47, 20 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dearest Amahoney, it's Rei Momo, from Casellae Landorum, how are you?

Please, I need your help, beacuse my Latin isn't so good as your. I put a new line in this page. Please, can you read it and put in Latin correct? I'll be pleased to help you in Italian and Portuguese.

Thanks a lot for your great help!!!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:17, 16 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published[fontem recensere]

19:25, 1 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

No updating of the 10K list anymore?[fontem recensere]

They seem to be having a problem over there. Any chance you could help out, or persuade someone else to do so? See here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:56, 2 Novembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm: that's unfortunate. I see that "Yerpo," one of the generally competent folks, is looking into this; Yerpo also maintains the 1K list, which is shorter and easier. I'm not in a position to take this on myself right at the moment -- as you can probably tell from the fact that I wasn't even aware that the table at Meta hasn't been updated since August. But it looks like other people may step in. And I will eventually get round to updating our own local tables. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:48, 2 Novembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I check every month, as I'm trying to strengthen our most important offerings. We've got all the articles on the 1,000-item list (or maybe we've recently been tricked out of one of them, as the list was changed), but several thousand articles are missing from the 10,000-item list. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:48, 2 Novembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've been up to date on the 1,000 list for a long time, and we're actually doing OK relative to other Wikipedias on the 10K list -- though there is lots of room for improvement. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:30, 3 Novembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (now that I've checked), we had all 1,000—and then we didn't, but now we do again because I added Nagarjuna. (Which one of ours should be taken off the list? Does that happen automatically in your program?) On the 10K list, we rank 51st, and we lack 3,637 articles—fewer after this weekend, when I plan to add several more. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 3 Novembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back![fontem recensere]

Any chance of an update of some of your scripts? You'll see how I've been editing "Paginae non annexae" as I've been making progress in adding links, but pages not in the list may have been added since the last update. The most important are probably the "Epitome Myrias" and "Epitome 1000 Paginae," both of which haven't been run in more than a year. These lists of yours are most useful, especially when they're up to date! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:06, 24 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually! I'm trying to get the tail end of my semester finished up; this business of teaching on line is remarkably wearing. Also one utility that I was relying on (a web browser extension) disappeared some time back and I haven't re-arranged the workflow to work around that. On the other hand things aren't changing in Meta-Wiki as often as they were a couple of years ago, so the lists themselves are probably fairly stable. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:41, 24 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future possibility?[fontem recensere]

Hi, Anne. Hope you're OK! I guess you're not likely to come to France this summer ... Anyway, that's not the question for today.

We have a lot of external links to Salvador Miranda's Cardinals website hosted by Florida International University Libraries. The site has moved a little bit without leaving backward links. Could your bot correct all the links? The necessary change is perfectly predictable, or so it seems from the samples I've done: all instances of


have to be changed to


Is this something that your bot could do? When it has time ... Best wishes meanwhile Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 19 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All well here: finally got through a rather messy semester. I don't know the first thing about on-line teaching, and happened to have 3 very different classes, on Greek drama (in English), historical linguistics, and ancient math. Plus the usual round of committee meetings, which didn't stop. No, not planning to get to France, but maybe next year: I miss it! As for the Cardinals site, that's an easy change and I can do that this morning; it's nice to be back to doing useful Vici-things (res Vicianas?). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:08, 19 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've now got them all. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:26, 19 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for finding the time to do that. Hope you have a good summer over there beyond the Atlantic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 20 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles + Meta's ability to find them[fontem recensere]

A question about moving articles comes to mind: if an article is posted under the title of, say, X, and is later moved to have the title Y, will Meta's point-awarding formula for the Myrias list be able to find them? I ask because that's recently happened twice, and it'd be a shame if we lost 6 raw points just because of a typo in the original titles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:00, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem so long as we leave a redirect behind or, better, get Wikidata updated to reflect the title we really want. The Myrias list and the 1000 list both go by Wikidata. If the Wikidata item Qxxx points at title X, but we have a redirect from X to Y, the list utilities will go through to the Y page. If the Wikidata item points directly at Y, so much the better. If the page isn't in Wikidata at all, or if there's one of those bogus Wikidata items that just points at our page and isn't connected with other languages, then the page is invisible to the lists under any name. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:01, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find nowadays that when I move an article Wikidata is automatically updated within a few seconds. Hence, before I make my last tiny correction, the interwiki links have already reappeared in the left column, and I don't need to touch Wikidata at all (this will reassure Iacobus, who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't yet plucked up the courage to go there).
The Wikidata bot may fail to act in, let's say, one case out of several hundred, and one has to make the change oneself. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's often not a bot but a live human, though there is a bot that runs around cleaning up inter-wiki links and updating Wikidata -- eventually. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:36, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good to know. Meanwhile, I've just now gotten five of my pages properly annexed, thanks to the update of the Usor:Amahoney/Non annexae page. (The remainder are less urgent, as they're taxonomic names, correctly placed in taxoboxes, even if not properly cited in texts.) Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:07, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. These list pages continue to be useful -- thanks for reminding me I meeded to look at the "Non annexae" :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did! But you needn't worry overmuch about the edible thicklobe (Dacryodes edulis), because it's properly placed in its taxobox. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:54, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magistra, nexus cuius titulus est 'partem novam addere' reperire non potui, sed autem nexus titulo 'add discussion' reperio. (id dico non ut sim incommodus, sed ut sim certus nos de eadem pagina loqui.) Novam telephonicam habeo, necnon vicipaediam Latinam intellegendam ergo persollicitus sum paginas litterasque omittendi! Quae cum ita sint, Ad crasternum diem Robin Terrymonkey (disputatio) 20:38, 12 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for the English. I like reading Vicipaedia on my phone, but I find it very difficult to do serious editing from a phone. I use my computer for that. But perhaps that's just me :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 13 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Dixsti te brittanicum esse, ergo, sicut Andreas, tibi anglice respondebo.) You can set up the Wikipedia interface to use any language you want -- go to "preferences." Here I use Latin, which is why I quoted you a Latin link title -- but of course if you're not using Latin you'll see whatever language you've chosen. And I agree with Andrew that for any kind of editing I want a proper keyboard. But my students seem to be perfectly comfortable with typing stuff on their phones, so I see it can be done. Another hint is that you can also switch between the mobile interface and the normal interface any time: I forget exactly how to do it because I haven't used Wikipedia on my tablet in a while, but there's a pretty obvious link. I like that because I'm more familiar with the normal interface, even though it's not all that graceful on a small screen. Now, go forth and edit cheerfully! Do note our peculiar customs, which aren't quite exactly the same as in English Wikipedia, but the software itself (how to format a page, how to link your page to others, how to put your page into Wikidata, and so on) is exactly the same so you only have to learn it once. Also we're generally friendlier than the denizens of some other sister projects. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:21, 13 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In June, you removed the "Myrias" marker, saying "non iam inter 10,000 paginas," but it seems to be there in the latest iteration of your list, so I restored it. Did I miss something? If it's correctly on the list, then all the desired birds are done! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:25, 24 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a program that my bot runs occasionally that looks at the list and checks what's in and what's out. I don't run it every time I update the tables, though. The list is a moving target, as you know -- in particular, people are always mucking around with the Wikidata items, so the names of the pages in the list at Meta may be the same but they may end up pointing to different articles. It's hard to keep up! But congratulations on ornithological completeness: every straw helps build our nest, ut ita dicam. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:51, 25 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people will tinker! Meanwhile (in addition to the 104 birds), the 56 fishes and 63 insects are done, and now I'm moving on to the 147 mammals! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:39, 25 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of an update?[fontem recensere]

... whereas ... (to continue Iacobus's thought) ... I am now hard at work on foods and drinks. Plenty of room for improvement here. Any chance that you could update Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio? And, by the way, Anne, and more significantly, I hope you are surviving the health and political challenges of 2020. We live in interesting times. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 13 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that I should do updates -- maybe I'll try to work this in around grading essays tomorrow. Also all those novae imagines sine descriptionibus, which ought to be fixable mechanically with a bit of cleverness. Thanks for the kind words; my campus is in fact one of the safest places in the US at the moment, with aggressive testing. Yes, interesting times, but probably getting better. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:27, 13 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the "getting better" part: the football coach whom the voters of Alabama last week elected to represent them in the US Senate for six years is on record as saying the US fought World War II "to free Europe of Socialism." (And no, he didn't mean National Socialism: he meant the Marxist-Leninist kind.) ¶ Incidentally, yesterday I finished the fifth consecutive cycle of the 1-article-a-day-for-100-consecutive-days challenge; of those articles, the most recent 490 or so include an item in the Myrias list. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:27, 13 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Math question re English minuend & subtrahend[fontem recensere]

(These must be from minuendum & subtrahendum.) In a conversation recently, I encountered the statement that "no mathematician uses [these English words] in real life. We usually call the things that are added and subtracted 'terms.'" Is that true? Were minuend & subtrahend ever in common use? I ask because I remember distinctly that our fourth-grade teacher used these words! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:01, 18 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know they used to be used -- also "divisor" and "dividend," "multiplier" and "multiplicand." "Addend" is still common. My subjective impression is that "minuend" and "subtrahend" would only come up in discussions of elementary math: I don't remember hearing them in number theory classes. So I don't know whether my friends in the math department ever have occasion to use them -- how often do they talk about subtraction? But "no mathematician says 'minuend'" strikes me as similar to "no mathematician says 'sauce béchamel'" or "no mathematician says 'harmonic minor scale'": true enough, but relatively vacuous. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:24, 18 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timely response! Most useful! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:36, 18 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your position as an admin in the Latin Wikipedia. In particular, we want to learn about your experience, the issues you encounter with articles created with Content translation.

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Latin Wikipedia to ensure standard and quality articles are not compromised. However, it is a big task to encounter content that is not standard daily, and a difficult decision to delete them because they fall below standard.

Our observations

We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more frequently than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool. 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. Therefore, the tool's low usage and the deletion rate signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to your Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will give us insight into how we can improve the tool to get quality articles and reduce the number of deletion, hence making your work easier.

Please follow this link to the Survey:

Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback in this thread or via email on the following questions:

  • What makes the articles created with content translation fall below standard in your Wikipedia?
  • What are the common mistakes that editors that use content translation make?
  • How do you think we can improve the  Content Translation tool that will help you with your work or make your task easier and reduce deletion of articles in Latin Wikipedia?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF language team.[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[fontem recensere]


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:17, 4 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)

Latin authors for this term[fontem recensere]

I'll want everyone from the syllabus to be here: Heloisa, Petrus Berchorius, Angelus Sabinus, Franciscus Maria Molza, Johannes Secundus, Marcus Alexander Bodius, Balduinus Cabillavius, Eleazar, Nicolaus Heinsius, Janus van den Broucke, Ioannes Winthrop (professor b. 1714), Ronaldus Knox. Olympia Fulvia Morata isn't on this term's list but could add her as well. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:56, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De nomine Catalauniae/Cataloniae/Catalanae[fontem recensere]

Salve! Commentationem de Lingua Catalana augere volo. Tamen ex disputationibus eius paginae atque Catalauniae videtur numquam consensum esse de nomine eius terrae et linguae. Egomet huius rei haud sciens sum. Quaeso tu et alii in Disputatio:Catalaunia sententiam, si habes, proferas. Arbarulo (disputatio) 14:48, 25 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ut mihi videtur, et "Catalaunia" et "Catalonia" bona verba sunt, et ambo in libris et lexicis invenimus. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:53, 25 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]