Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008 et 2009.

Usor:MWBot recensere

Hi, I control that bot and after I do the 50 test edits, I'll request bot approval. Please unblock it (as the block reason said: Hello, please create a userpage for your bot and tell us who operates this bot (= a link to your userpage on the wiki where you are most active). Then, you can be unblocked again. Thank you!. ). Thanks. --MisterWiki 23:24, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello MisterWiki, I will unblock your bot in a minute. Given that you have been blocked indefinitely on en.wikipedia, es.wikipedia and commons, we will monitor your edits and your bot's edits closely. I therefore ask you to make no more than about fifteen bot edits on any day. Please note that la.wikipedia policy does not have any rule that says "anyone who applies for a bot flag will receive it after 50 test edits" or after any number of edits – granting the bot flag is at the discretion of the community. Greetings, --UV 00:31, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

MisterWiki's bot recensere

This guy has a reputation for sock puppets and other nefariousness at en. I'm not suggesting a similar ban on the user here, he's done nothing wrong to us. But allowing his bot to run? --Ioscius 23:31, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I see, Usor:MisterWiki has done nothing wrong to us, although he has been blocked on at least enwiki, eswiki and commons. I have no problem with Usor:MisterWiki running his bot at low speed without the bot flag: That way, we can closely monitor the edits – I see no reason why we should disallow a low-speed bot without the bot flag. Greetings, --UV 00:31, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have the same view. Thanks, UV. --Ioscius 13:19, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply
You might be interested to know his bot has now been blocked at for continuing to run it after his request there was denied. -Djsasso 00:15, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see. --UV 22:26, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Beba Lončar recensere

Hi my friend, how are you? I've seen your help in this page, thank you! But... the picture from Wiki.IT says that after 20 years becomes public domain. Why in Wiki.LA we don't wacht it?

Thanks for your help.

Rex Momo 08:50, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rex Momo, this picture is in the public domain in Italy but not in other countries. This image is still copyrighted in other EU countries and in the United States of America. Therefore, it can be uploaded to it.wikipedia but not to commons. Greetings, --UV 08:57, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again recensere

Thanks, UV, not only for correcting those two category names, but also for interwikilinking all the new categories I made yesterday! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Greetings, --UV 21:06, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply

unblock recensere

I'm user:IndvTbot's operator. I make Bot's user page. so unblock please. --Devunt 11:55, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

thank you for creating a userpage! --UV 23:29, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please advise recensere

UV, please look at my blocking of Usor:VolkovBot, check whether I did the right thing, and correct if I didn't! I left a message on the Russian talk page ru:User talk:VolkovBot. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:48, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have unblocked it now. Volkov has corrected the errors. See his explanation on my talk page. I wonder it would be better if our {{Disambig}} template had a different name? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
In my view you did the right thing both when you blocked VolkovBot earlier today and when you unblocked it again this afternoon.
de:User:Xqt knows the pywikibot framework very well, I asked him for his advice whether he can correct the problem in pywikibot and whether it is necessary to rename our {{Disambig}} template. --UV 21:42, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I came here to ask about my bot and I couldn't help not reading the discussion. So I hope it won't be considered rude to tell my opinion :) There is another problem with {{Disambig}} template, It should either be used as a template for disambiguation pages from now on or you may wish to inform bugzilla (It may also be another way for that but I am not sure) about its current use otherwise Specialis:Paginae_disambiguationis is useless. Can you also tell where should I apply for a bot flag. Sorry again for my uninvited opinion and thank you in advance. --Egmontaℨ συζήτηση 09:09, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Useful note, thank you! I have corrected the page MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, on which our formula "Disambig" was wrongly listed. Perhaps this will solve that particular problem, next time the list at Specialis:Paginae_disambiguationis is renewed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:28, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello Egmontaz, there is no need to apply for a bot flag now. Just run your bot, and the community may decide to grant you the bot flag later. See Project:Bot policy. Greetings, --UV 23:51, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Gratias ago tibi (?) That's what I'll do. I love latin and have a simple understanding but surely can't write my own texts so excuse me if trying to thank you in latin sounds funny :) --Egmontaℨ disputatio 20:03, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Gratias ago tibi" is perfect! Thank you for joining in our efforts to improve la.wikipedia! --UV 22:28, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply
de:User:Xqt has been able to help. He corrected the pywikibot software, so there is no need to rename our {{Disambig}} template. --UV 22:28, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Vetus Testamentum" vs "Biblia" recensere

Salve optime, UV. The reason I didn't put Categoria:Liber Genesis and its companions under "Vetus Testamentum" is that while everyone (including both Jews and Christians) agree that they belong to the Bible, only to Christians does the term "Old Testament" make sense: it is therefore a little POV to put them under that category. I raised this issue at Disputatio Categoriae:Vetus Testamentum (which you probably didn't see!) Am I right, do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

Ah, sorry I did not see that. What you say of course makes sense, feel free to undo my move! Greetings, --UV 22:31, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

moving and deleting recensere

Hey UV, I saw you fixed my move/deletion/revert of Pantocrator's move last night. Could you tell me what I did wrong so I know for the future? Thanks! --Ioscius 12:11, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iosci, not a big deal: Pantocrator moved anon's talk page (using the "movere" tab). Consequently, the talk page together with its entire history was now available under the new title.
Instead of moving the page back to its proper location (again using the "movere" tab), you copied the contents of the last revision (only) to the good location and then you deleted the entire page history (together with the user contributions on the talk page). For article pages, such an action might also cause license problems because the attribution is no longer visible from the page history – see Vicipaedia:Movere.
I therefore undeleted the page history of the talk page and moved the history back to its proper title.
Hope you are well! --UV 22:08, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hope you're around? recensere

UV, could you glance at Vicipaedia:Taberna#bot flag request for User:MerlLinkBot. You can probably supply the answers! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. Greetings, --UV 22:43, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

A job for UVbot? recensere

Greetings, UV. I wonder if UVbot could add the formula {{Pagina non annexa}} at the head of all pages listed at Specialis:Paginae non annexae ... assuming you don't see an objection to this. It seems to me a very good idea. Xaverius has just begun at A, but there are an awful lot of them and automation would help! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 24 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

I replied at Vicipaedia:Taberna#De paginis non annexis. --UV 13:46, 24 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

Page Evaluation recensere

I was wondering if you could take a look at the stub Super Smash Bros. Brawl and give an opinion. Thanks

Icountryclub 21:10, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Icountryclub, I am not too familiar with the subject of the article, so I made only a few small stylistic changes. Please feel free to ask for feedback in the Vicipaedia:Taberna, where more people will read your request. Greetings, --UV 21:18, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

bot flag recensere

Salve UV. Legas quaeso si vis petitionem hanc, de vexillo automoto a nostro amico KamikazeBot desiderato. Gratias ago et valeas velim. --Ioscius 06:29, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gratias tibi, sententiam meam dedi. --UV 19:52, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Blanklines between stanzas recensere

UV, your improvements in double-column formatting in Aloha Oe and Hawaii Ponoi removed the blanklines between the stanzas. Could you put the blanklines back in? And be ready to fix a related article similarly over the weekend. Thanks! ¶ By the way, in case anybody asks: if you translate the Latin into English, you'll find it doesn't exactly agree with the English in en:Aloha Oe and en:Hawaii Ponoi. That's because I'm translating directly from the Hawaiian, and the English in :en: sometimes becomes fanciful. IacobusAmor 22:35, 7 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I did not intend to remove the blanklines. I put them back in now. --UV 20:53, 8 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Formulas for anthems recensere

UV, you'll see two of them in Hawaii Ponoi: "Formula:Infobox Anthem" and "Formula:National Anthems of Oceania and the Pacific Islands." Can they be made to work in la:? IacobusAmor 22:58, 7 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

I made a start with the latter at Formula:Hymni nationales Oceaniae but the contents of this template need further translation.
As to the infobox, things look rather complex on en.wikipedia. In the Hawaii Ponoi article, I now made a table that looks like an infobox, but that is not really an infobox template. Perhaps if you ask on the taberna, someone will try to create such a template? Greetings, --UV 20:53, 8 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

TjBot recensere

Hi UV/2010, Apologize for late reply. I have completely forgot to update the bot, and now I am updating daily. How to proof ? Thanks & Regards. Tjmoel 02:03, 26 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tjmoel, I have unblocked your bot. Greetings, --UV 21:50, 5 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{Cite book}} recensere

Hey, UV, would you mind bringing the la version of this template up to date with the en version for me? I would just C&P it, but I'm not sure if our version was ever identical to the english version. --Iustinus 00:15, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Andrew, would you like to comment/help? I see that you created this template, which is much simpler than the one at en: (and I wonder whether the complexity of the template at en: is really an advantage …) Greetings, --UV 23:23, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks UV, I just wanted it to be possible for us to use "cite book" etc. direct from en:wiki (Iacobus, for example, often copies these references over) without the full complexity of the en:wiki templates: I'm not sure I fully understand them and I'm almost certain that they present excessive detail to the reader. So, Iustine, show me an example where it isn't working properly and I will see if I can make it do so! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, well, it's not that it's not working properly, it's more that I would appreciate having more options. If I recall correctly, I asked because I recently wanted to cite multiple authors, or an editor, options which en has but we do not. But it has some other nice options, such as page and chapter. --Iustinus 21:12, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply
It might be easier to expand our current template than to adopt enwiki's complex template - cite book at enwiki apparently depends on 36 other templates (click on "view source" at enwiki and you will see the list of transcluded templates near the bottom of the page). Multiple authors can be cited using the author= parameter, and there already is an editor= parameter. Page and chapter can easily be added to the template - but where exactly within the citation should they appear? --UV 22:40, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, really? I'll take a look when I get a chance. --Iustinus 23:46, 4 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, I just tried adding a coauthor to Bresciani's book cited in Lingua Aegyptia Demotica, but it doesn't seem to work. --Iustinus 03:15, 7 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
On how to cite a chapter, compare my Pestman reference at Hyrgonaphor --Iustinus 03:04, 7 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll have a look at the coauthor thing later. There is certainly a way. As to citing a chapter, I admit I hadn't given attention to that: I don't think the case had arisen here before. May I think about it a day or two? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 7 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

And here's another not dissimilar question ... recensere

I am thinking of using the template family described at en:Wikipedia:Route diagram template, and specifically the icons at Commons:Category:Icons for footpath descriptions, on pages about Roman roads. Clearly it means copying many templates over -- about 30 seem to be required, to judge by the page I just cited -- but I could do that. The system is used on de:wiki and several others. Since you know about templates, I thought I'd ask whether you foresee problems in doing this here?

You can see a quick example on my English user page en:User talk:Andrew Dalby#Test of Roman road template. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not foresee any significant problems (aside the tedious task of copying the necessary templates). Greetings, --UV 21:45, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Categoria:Homines recensere

"Categoria:Homines should contain articles about individuals only." Why? The English equivalent of Categoria:Corpus humanum is en:Category:Human body, and that's a subcategory of en:Category:Humans, which = homines, implying Latin Categoria:Homines. Would you rather it be a subset of Categoria:Homininae? The problem with that is that homininae include chimpanzees & gorillas, and they're not human. IacobusAmor 09:23, 16 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

We could create a category for the species, Categoria:Homo sapiens (it would accord with our treatment of scientific genera if we agreed not to pluralize). It is a fairly notable species ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 16 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
That might work, but better perhaps at the genus level, Categoria:Homo, and then, following :en:, that would be a subcategory of the subtribe Hominina, a subcategory of Apes = the family Hominidae. IacobusAmor 11:47, 16 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
There seemed to be good reason to creeate both "Homo" and "Homo sapiens" as categories: each has sufficient members. Curiously, en:wiki seems to have no category corresponding exactly to our Categoria:Homo (the genus), but several others do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Currently, Categoria:Homines corresponds not to en:Category:Humans but to en:Category:People, a category that contains (or should contain) only articles about individuals. I would strongly advocate to have such a category (whatever its name), because this makes it easy to perform checks: E. g. all articles in this category should be categorized by year of birth, all articles in this category should either be categorized by year of death or with Categoria:Homines vivi, etc. If articles about individuals get mixed up undistinguishably with other articles that have to do with humans (such as articles about human anatomy, human behaviour, human society and culture, articles about groups of individuals etc.), checks of this kind would not be possible any more.
For these reasons, I would strongly favour to have a category that should contain only articles about individuals (like en:Category:People). If you would prefer that Categoria:Homines corresponds not to en:Category:People (as it does now) but to en:Category:Humans, that is fine with me, but then we should find a name for a category that corresponds to en:Category:People (and move the current contents of Categoria:Homines there). Greetings, --UV 14:40, 16 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure? recensere

Hi, UV! Are you sure the move of Alba Iulia to Apulum was right? See discussion -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, not at all, see Disputatio:Apulum. Greetings, --UV 20:34, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Birth categories recensere

Congratulations on emptying "Categoria nativitatis desiderata"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! It was not at all difficult a task, just a bit tedious … Greetings, --UV 12:53, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Categoriae ex hominibus appellatae recensere

I find it difficult to decide what logically belongs in these categories and how they fit in with others, so I'm very glad you are keeping an eye on them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:23, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the "problem" is that there is no support in the MediaWiki software for distinguishing between the different possible semantics of categories:
  • Some categories follow an "is-a" scheme (and I try to impose that for Categoria:Homines). Examples: Everything that goes in Categoria:Homines or in any of its subcategories is an individual person. Everything that goes in Categoria:Montes or in any of its subcategories is a mountain. Everything that goes in Categoria:Montes igniferi Oceani Pacifici or in any of its subcategories is a volcano in the Pacific Ocean. On de.wikipedia, those categories are called "Objektkategorie" ("object category").
  • Other categories follow an "belongs to" scheme. Examples: Everything that goes in Categoria:Gulielmus Shakesperius shows a relationship to Mr. W. S. Or: Everything that goes in Categoria:Oceanus Pacificus is related to the theme "Pacific Ocean" (e. g. its fauna, its explorers, the countries situated there, …). On de.wikipedia, such categories are called "Themenkategorie" ("theme category").
When categories contain other categories, the situation is as follows:
The reason why I am keeping a somewhat strict eye on Categoria:Homines is that I (slowly) try to work through completing the birth and death year categories for all articles about individuals. And some checks (e. g. Vicipaedia:Dump/Birth and death categories) (would) get quite difficult when Categoria:Homines becomes (too) cluttered with articles about non-individuals. Greetings, --UV 21:06, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply
Very interesting. Thank you so much for explaining. In my studies (long ago) of library classification, the need for such a distinction was rarely important, yet the distinction between is-a and belongs-to makes immediate sense to me: in those library terms, it's a little bit like the distinction between the general library classification (in which everything is-a something) and the special collections (we happen have a collection on Shakespeare, in which we put anything that's related to him).
To avoid putting a belongs-to category in an is-a category, I guess we can sometimes use a see-also line at the top of the relevant page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 1 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mortui dicti recensere

For testing i have temporary changed the config from using Category:Homines vivi to Category:Homines secundum annum natalem which gives much more results [1] because not all born people are categorized as living or dead. (CatScan). I'll change it back at weekend. Merlissimo 10:30, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know that not all born people are categorized as living or dead yet ;-( – thank you for telling me about your test! Greetings, --UV 19:06, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pages with red categories only recensere

Do you have a list of these? If there are many more, I, too, could probably help to give them blue categories, but I don't think I have any way of finding them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is a list ;-) : Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae sine categoriis. I analyzed yesterday's dump in order to get a list of these pages. Thank you for offering your help! Greetings, --UV 22:35, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kgsbot recensere

Hi I updated my user name in my bot page. Could you please unblock my bot? --Kiran Gopi 08:31, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you for creating a userpage for your bot. Greetings, --UV 12:27, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Help:English to Latin Translation recensere

Hello! I need help on English to Latin translation. Please visit the page User:Amit6/c-en2la07 and translate that following list of english words to Latin. If you do the translations, please do not write those here and prefer to write those on the latin section of User:Amit6/c-en2la07. --Amit6 18:07, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please refrain from crossposting your request to many pages. One request in a well-selected place, such as the Vicipaedia:Taberna, is a better idea. --UV 21:33, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your suggestion. --Amit6 06:08, 18 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Paginae non annexae recensere

On Epicurea (Usener) there was a template saying the page was not 'annexed', so I made a link to it from Epicurus and removed the template. Now, UVbot has put the template right back in. Is UVbot programmed to remove the template by itself, after a while? Best regards, --Fabullus 07:36, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thank you for pointing this out. When I yesterday had UVbot process the "paginae non annexae", I used the data available at Special:Lonelypages without paying much attention to the top sentence there: The following data is cached, and was last updated 12:31, 25 Augusti 2010. You made a link to Epicurea (Usener) on August 26, and when I ran UVbot on August 27, I was using data that was two days old. Sorry for the confusion that I caused!
Up to now, UVbot did not remove the template by itself. I now wrote a program that analyzes a dump to find out which pages should have the template removed, I will have UVbot process this list in a minute.
By the way: I found out that there are far more lonely pages than the number shown at Special:Lonelypages. For example, if a talk page links to a page, Special:Lonelypages will not list it – but in my view, such a page should still be considered "lonely". After the next dump is available (hopefully tomorrow) I will have UVbot update the list again, which will probably make the number rise from the current ~2966 to about ~4500 ;-( . Greetings, --UV 22:24, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply
pages in category Categoria:Paginae non annexae: currently 4332 ;-( --UV 23:02, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mort recensere

Hi UV, I've submitted a signpost article at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-13/Special story 3 about the death anomalies project and as I've mentioned the Latin wikipedia I wonder if you'd be willing to add a quote? WereSpielChequers 15:44, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done – is it too long, would you prefer a shorter quote? --UV 21:32, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
The new entry on Vicipaedia:Mortui dicti is the result of a hoax. I've annotated the entry: was that the correct thing to do, UV? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Good idea. Merlissimo's bot will overwrite everything between the <!--MB- markers with the next run, and if the vandalism was reverted on, then MerlBot will not output it again. But your annotation is useful information for other wikipedians who consult Vicipaedia:Mortui dicti today. Greetings, --UV 22:40, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Categoria:Ecclesia Antiqua / antiqua recensere

Hallo UV, offenbar bin ich schon ein wenig zu müde: Ich habe kurz nacheinander die Kategorien Ecclesia Antiqua u. Ecclesia antiqua produziert. Kannst du das bitte wieder bereinigen? Danke--Utilo 20:54, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kein Problem, habe die überflüssige Kategorie gelöscht. --UV 22:40, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Categories for years BC recensere

Greetings, UV. I remember that UVbot created the year categories from 1 to 2010 (see discussion at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 11#Supplementary question and continuation). Would it now be a good idea to create the categories for BC years, say from the first Olympiad Categoria:776 a.C.n. to Categoria:1 a.C.n. ? There are now plenty of subcategories that ought to link to them.

A few have been created by Schulz-Hameln, I think: see e.g. Categoria:Saeculum 1 a.C.n., where about seven year categories are already listed.

The birth and death categories such as Categoria:Mortui 13 a.C.n. ought to become subcategories of these new categories once they exist. A full list of potential subcategories could be found (I think) via Categoria:Annales. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, done. Greetings, --UV 21:27, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I noticed the manual work you put into this yesterday evening. Thanks very much, UV! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem! --UV 11:01, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unblock me recensere

Hello the robot Usor:Mjbmrbot in mine from persian wikipedia My Robot is not auto and and i use it to edit interwikis Please UnBlock It. Thank you. Mjbmr Talk 08:03, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a userpage for your bot. I have unblocked your bot. Greetings, --UV 23:44, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Glyphs and tables recensere

I'm having trouble with the hiero-tag inside tables again. Could you help me figure out a better way to do what I'm trying to do over at Lingua Aegyptia Demotica? --Iustinus 21:37, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have now removed the border around hieroglyphs like they do over at the German wikipedia. (I wonder why there was a border around hieroglyphs in the first place.) You might have to force-reload the page in your browser and/or wait a day or so for this change to take effect.
Is this alright or does this cause display problems in other pages where hieroglyphs are used? Greetings, --UV 22:04, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm still seeing the boxes. Just in case this was a cache issue, as you suggest, I tried reloading the page several times. When that produced no change, I tried using a different browser entirely (safari, firefox). Still no change!
I have no idea what those boxes for, but they are only visible under very specific circumstances, such as class=wikitable. We previously dealt with this problem for Chamois.
--Iustinus 22:15, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
It sometimes takes a day or two until changes to MediaWiki:Common.css actually take effect. Let us wait and see until tomorrow or the day after. Greetings, --UV 22:23, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Message received and understood. Thanks! You are indispensable. --Iustinus 22:28, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yay! It finally switched over! --Iustinus 06:28, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fine! (And no, I am not at all indispensable, but I am glad to help if I can.) Greetings, --UV 12:08, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, related question: is there a way to make the boundary between two cells invisible without actually merging the two cells (or making all borders invisible)? --Iustinus 15:02, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is. The exact way to do this depends on how exactly the borders between cells are implemented, but in most cases setting the border style attribute to hidden will work:
Header text Header text Header text Header text
Example Example Example Example
Example This is a cell with style="border-right:hidden;" Example Example
Example Example This is a cell with style="border-bottom:hidden;" Example
Example Example Example Example
Greetings, --UV 21:13, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unblock recensere

Hi, please unblock my bot, thanks a lot.Ebraminio 20:26, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for creating a userpage for your bot. I have unblocked your bot. Greetings, --UV 20:28, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
thanks again :) Ebraminio 20:30, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regio Luzonus Orientis Semptentrionalis, Pessima?!! recensere

UV. I can not quite agree that my latin is that bad. Is there another reason why you would put this notice. Thank you.--Jondel 11:21, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC) Could you provide me if I may ask, with what you find horrible or unacceptable. Thank you.--Jondel 11:42, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC) I have made some corrections and I hope that this will be acceptable. Your guidance is highly appreciated.--Jondel 11:55, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)me paenitet.--Jondel 12:49, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jondel, thank you for already improving the page. A few things that still catch my eye:
in Orientis Septemtrionalis insula Luconiae -> in oriente septentrionali insulae Luconiae?
Sanctis does not agree with Fernandi -> Sancti Fernandi?
praesidentium -> praesidum
quorum ei sunt -> qui sunt
Quartam does not agree with provincias -> probably Quattuor provincias
Greetings, --UV 22:08, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for taking the time to examine and suggest(+ions). Your guidance is highly appreciated.--Jondel 01:21, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quator? Quartam? recensere

I want to say 'The region has four provinces.' Shouldn't the adjective quator agree in declension (accusative, plural) to provincias ? This is a basic sentence pattern which I frequently use and Im referring to the rule that adjectives need to agree in declension, and gender with the noun they describe. eg . Regio quartas? /quartam? /quattuor? provincias habet.Gratias ago.--Jondel 01:55, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Simple possession is often rendered with the dative: Regioni sunt quattuor provinciae. IacobusAmor 12:22, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is encouraging to see another person recommend what is known in grammar. I might be using this for other things though.Thanks .
Jondel, the entry in the dictionary after quattuor which says "indecl" means that the word is indeclinable and is the same in all cases and genders. Latin has a sizeable number of these words, especially among the cardinals.--Rafaelgarcia 05:42, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Primum spectare mihi est. This is the first time for me to see this and will be very useful. I you didn't mention this I wouldn't have name. Magnam gratias ago.--Jondel 09:00, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
quartus, quarta, quartum = the fourth
quattuor (indeclinable) = four
Please also see the comments by Iacobus and Rafael above. --UV 21:30, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Will do. They are very useful and informative. Thanks to all of you for your guidance.--Jondel 09:00, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Chronologia Antiquitatis Posterioris recensere

Salve UV. Scripsi indicem chronologicum, quod in vicipaedia Theodisca inveni, sed sunt nonnullae res quae in latinam linguam vertere non possum. Fortasse miki auxilium donare potes?--Xaverius 17:25, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Salve Xaveri, nonnulla in linguam Anglicam verti, spero alios adiuvaturos linguam Latinam vertendo. --UV 22:08, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Gratias ago. Nunc egomet eas possum in latinum sermonem vertere.--Xaverius 22:18, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interwiki recensere

Hi UV, first of all am appreciating you for identified the issue in my interwiki py, a great job from your side. Am updated my with the latest one(includes translation-fix for eo-wiki (bug #3114448)). I understand the issue clearly, now onwards I'll update the .py before operating the bot. Please unblock my bot thanks in advance. --Kiran Gopi 14:45, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I have unblocked your bot. Greetings, --UV 23:26, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your response cheers, --Kiran Gopi 04:57, 26 Novembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did we reach closure? recensere

Hi, UV. Sorry, I have forgotten on what talk page we were discussing this! Is it OK now, do you think, to distribute those infoboxes about CatScan to the biography categories? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Disputatio Categoriae:Poetae saeculo digesti ;-) moved to Disputatio Vicipaediae:CatScan --UV 22:53, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply
Unless someone objects (well, the infobox looks quite ugly), I would be ready to distribute the infoboxes to the biography categories. However, I would wait until the next Vicipaedia:Dump is available (the last dump was generated in November, new dumps will not be available until the hardware failure at wikimedia's server has been fixed, so it may take some more days). Greetings, --UV 23:43, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done. --UV 22:53, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interwiki recensere

Please add to Yot legitimate interwikis:

it:Jod 11:06, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

I transferred your request to Disputatio:Yot where Andrew, who started this article, will surely deal with it. --UV 19:54, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please help me recensere

I am the controller of Wwbot. Where should I request for bot flag ? Please reply me here. Thanks. --Wikiwriter 08:01, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for creating a userpage for your bot. I have now unblocked your bot. You do not need a bot flag to run your bot here. The community may decide to grant your bot the bot flag later. See Project:Bot policy. Greetings, --UV 00:59, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "UV/2010".