User talk:Rukhabot

Archives
2007 · 2011 · 2012

If you see me do something bad, please leave me a comment here; I'll notice immediately, and will refuse to make any more edits until Ruakh has seen the comment.

Any other comments can go either here, or at his talk-page (User talk:Ruakh), as you prefer.

Rukhabot 00:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

January 2013

gild the lily

This entry is not about the verb "gild" - it is about the verb phrase "gild the lily". The section "Similar expression" is about the verb phrase "gild the farthing" and was reverted without discussion.

Please restore "Verb phrase" and the paragraph "Similar expression", perhaps substituting the heading "Similar verb phrase". 71.3.208.88 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I have not touched that entry since August, and at that time my only change was to add an interwiki-link to the Burmese Wiktionary. —Rukhabot 06:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Autotranslit to write transliterations from modules where it's missing?

Can this bot do a very useful job of writing transliteration for words missing transliterations form transliteration modules? Only for selected languages in Category:Translations_which_need_romanization, which have modules, which can be used for this purpose. This is the list of language codes: ba|bg|be|hy|el|ka|kk|ky|mk|mn|os|ru|si|tg|tt|ug|uk (as in Template:t) for which autotranslit works well. The module names follow this pattern: e.g. Bulgarian: Module:bg-translit, function name: "tr", which returns a transliteration string.

IMO, it's not a replacement for manual transliteration but many users refuse to transliterate or don't know how. The autotranslit should not replace the existing manual transliteration (especially when word stress is important and there are exceptions) but Vahagn requested for Armenian and Georgian to override existing transliteration, many of them are old. Perhaps a one-off job could be created for this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a lot of time these days . . . I'll take a look, but I might not ever get around to actually doing it. —Rukhabot 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Vec

Hi, I saw here that the bot changed vec (Venetian) translations from "t+" and "t-" to "tø", but the Venetian Wiktionary already exists (for 4 months). Thanks. --Tn4196 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm fixing them right now. —Rukhabot 02:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Check your settings

Rukhabot's been modifying instances of {{t}} in Wiktionary space. MG reverted several edits, so it may be over for now. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There aren't really any "settings"; I just give it a list of pages to examine and update, and in the latest run, the list included all pages whose wikitext included {{t| or {{t+| or {{t-| or {{tø|, provided that what came next wasn't zh or kk or iu or cmn. I guess you're saying that I shouldn't have included pages in the Wiktionary namespace? . . . I think you're right. Looking through the bot's edits in that namespace, many of them were bad, and I don't think any of them were necessary. I'll revert. —Ruakh_TALK 05:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: After looking through all its non-mainspace edits from this run, I'm thinking that it should probably just run in mainspace entries and in appendices. Does that sound good? —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, but what do I know? I just noticed MG's reverts, and saw that no one had brought it to your attention, as far as I could tell- so I stepped in. I figured you would have a better grasp of the situation than I would, once you were aware of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2014

Redirects in interwikis

Hi Ruakh, is it possible for the bot to check whether an interwiki is a genuine link or just a redirect before adding it to a page? In this diff, for example, the bot added interwiki links to the Indonesian and Chinese Wiktionaries (id:Liver and zh:Liver) to the page Liver. However, if you actually follow these links, they go to id:liver and zh:liver. These are interwiki equivalents of the lower-case liver, which is completely unrelated to upper-case Liver. If it would be difficult to make this check, then feel free to ignore this message. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed there's a similar discussion going on in the Grease Pit right now. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Grease Pit discussion is actually about something different. (It's about "redirects" in the HTTP sense, which is not the sense that you mean.) But to answer your question — the bot's behavior is intentional. The community has discussed such interwiki-links before, and the consensus was that we actually want them (for a few reasons). —Ruakh_TALK 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

current month

Mozarabic contribution

Hi Rukhabot! Could you tell me where you got the transcriptions ءُوبْ دُوبْ for Mozarabic ob and dob? The former (ءُوبْ) looks particularly weird (that is, unlike how the Arabic script is usually used), but maybe that's what the manuscript has. I was wondering about it because I'm not aware of any site that has a scan/facsimile of the manuscript, or transcriptions of the Arabic in Unicode Arabic. (I wonder if I could get facsimiles somewhere...) I also quickly checked the 55 kharjas on jarchas.net and I found only one with the relevant word? That'd be kharja #4, showing 'dblry as ad ob l'iréy, apparently a very uncertain interpretation as everyone agrees it's written as one word in the Arabic, hence the other readings advolaréy and ed volaréy... And 'dblry would suggest ادبلري. Help!--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 00:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ser be etre shi, Rukhabot is a bot, not a person, and it does not add translations. If you want to ask the person who added it, you can look in the history, and if you think it's wrong based on your research, you can remove it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Ahh, pfff. I misread who had added it, and jumped onto making this comment in this Talk page without noticing this was a bot. I assumed "Rukhabot" was just a plural noun in Hebrew, with the ־ות plural suffix! I see it was a user who was not logged in who did it (81.33.228.245). And yes, I have some serious suspicions that this person may have made up those Arabic spellings... I will proceed and remove them.

Regarding Mozarabic... unfortunately, I find even the jarchas.net website does not do a good job transcribing the Arabic script, using h to transcribe all three of ح ه ة and possibly also خ. Really unfortunate, as it would be wonderful to add the vocabulary reported in it here. Maybe something could be done with the unambiguous words the various researchers are quoted as completely agreeing on, such as myb and myby (surely ميب and ميبي) for the descendant pronoun of Latin mihi, or m'l (مال) for < male, Spanish mal, without attempting the vowels at all. What do you think?--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 03:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)