Talk:Portal:𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰𐌱𐍉𐌺𐍉𐍃

Why are you constantly editing this dictionary out of discontent? I don't know why you are always after sabotaging it and complain about it instead of using that effort to revise it. It might be bad hither and thither but that is what Wikipedia stands for: revision. You can't just kind of close this dictionary I put so much effort in just because you are discontent and link to another page where currently only a handfull of words are... I don't get what the reason for that is. Use that time you'd take to build up your other dictionary to revise this one so it gets better. It already has a lot of words that circumcise what was used on this Wikipedia and elsewhere and I started to revise it, continue that but don't affront me or this dictionary by just neglecting and closing it. I really don't understand why you are making it so hard to work with you. -.-' Kevin Behrens (talk) 21:46, 15 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐍃 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't closed the dictionary. The only thing I have done, which actually you should have done, is warning users that this dictionary contains words which are simply wrong and not constructed well which makes them useless. If you want to accept any word in Gothic, than it becomes a language similar to Klingon or Elvish and I don't want that to happen, that is why I want to, in a later stage, replace the current dictionary with one which contains words reconstructed by linguists, which contain a *, and words constructed by individuals and checked if they are in agreement with the compound word rules (which you obviously don't use as you recommended me natistaþs, which is completely wrong) in the book Die Gotische Grammatik of Wilhelm Braune. Also I don't understand why you are calling me something who manipulates and sabbotages while I have been putting some effort in 1. deleting all unnecessary pages 2. deleting the current Latinska Meleins which will be replaced with a similar system as the Old English wiki, PiRSquared will implent it as Espreon and I discussed that with him, I haven't deleted all of them yet but Shikku and I want to continue that later 3. I have been changing several words from the interface which were grammatically incorrect 4. I 'm replacing the current months which have no scientific basis at all which I can find, with a list reconstructed by one of the members of the gothic-l group by using the Latin names, as there is an extant Naubaimbair in Gothic these are probably the most likely month names which would be understood as there is too much difference between the Dutch, Old High German and Anglo-Saxon ones to make a reliable construction based on those 5. I have been requesting the possibility of a universal good readable Gothic font to be applied to this wiki at Phabricator, where requests for changes at wikipedias go to, if it's accepted the problem of not being able to read this wiki or to read it with a horrible font will be over 6. I have been asking if the TranslatorWiki can be opened up again, also for this a request is opened at Phabricator and a decision will be made if it either get's deleted completely or being opened up again. Just keeping it open like it is now is no option because the current interface is grammatically horrible.

I have seen your comment earlier how you think that it's all wonderful and nice to accept articles with wrong grammar. How would it be to read the Latin wikipedia with the accusative and dative used wrong in every article you open? Of course, you are right that articles are open and free to change, so this is no problem, but claiming that the interface or a dictionary intended for all users and new users can contain mistakes is ridiculous. I don't understand why you want to offer new users a dictionary which you haven't checked 100%. Make a decision, check the dictionary and after that put it up here again, only offer the parts which you checked or don't offer it at all. If you don't like it that I included a warning at the dictionary page you should first try to show some empathy for new users and how frustrating it is for them to let them work with words which aren't even checked. Bokareis (talk) 22:20, 15 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐍃 2015 (UTC)

I agree that what I put up there is maybe not completely right so I will change it. Bokareis (talk) 22:21, 15 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐍃 2015 (UTC)

You revised a part of A, but I see "afar Xristus", which of course should be "afar Xristau". Yes, I can revise this dictionary, but that would mean a lot of revisions. I will see if I either revise the current one or replace it. It might be an idea to revise the existing one too, but I was so used to not being able to change it that I forgot that I could do that. Bokareis (talk) 22:29, 15 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐍃 2015 (UTC)

A warning text was there all along. I have changed it twice because you told me to. It was on the portal main page and at the dictionary side itself that all words have to be counterchecked and used with care for we cannot guarantee correctness and some are definitely not correct. Now the whole main page just gets bannered by the big caution slogan as if something dangerous would happen when someone would use it. Not all words are wrong and more than 95% came from the list of the gothic mailing list. They were not created by me. That were only a few and some are wrong for sure but as there are almost no people who are actually using it and those that are using it should be actually knowing how to use such kinds of dictionaries, everything has to be questioned and counterchecked. But it prevents writers to come up with thousand synonyms for one word when they are writing articles and making words up because they haven't looked on the dictionary page. My point is that I couldn't understand that you declared this dictionary the 'old one' now and are thereby kind of shutting it down, whilst you are linking to that page were only few words are. This dictionary could still be the normal dictionary when it gets revised. The effort you would take to create the 'new one' wouldn't be less than revising this one, it probably would be less.

And of course I am more than lucky that you are doing all the other things and improving this Wikipedia so much, don't get me wrong about that. But I can only advise that you shouldn't take things so serious. Of course it is annoying that many interface messages aren't grammatically correct, but there is hardly anybody really reading them except for the three or four active users here. So it's not that we are losing our face in shame for those ungrammatical forms, and we are not the grammar police to freak out about every mistake. They should be changed asap, of course. But when it comes to this dictionary I think it would very very contraproductive if you put huge claimers and slogans on the main page of this dictionary and warning people when using it. The dictionary isn't bad through and through. The normal advice of caution before was totally fine, in my eyes. But anyway, the list itself is more important for my work, not the main page. But I won't be that much around here anyway, not until I have dealt with the other projects of mine. So, now that you are an admin, you can (and I am confident you will) keep an eye out for vandalism and correct the grammatical problems with the interface and improve this Wikipedia. Kevin Behrens (talk) 23:33, 15 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐍃 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I take this serious is because there are actually modern books which will be published in Gothic, childrens' books, and that is no joke, they will be published around march/april. That means that the use of Gothic should be taken more seriously just as Cornish as there will be literature available in the language itself in the future. I will remove that new dictionary and I will remove some of the worst words which don't have any good basis at all. And what you say is incorrect, there are new users here with no good knowledge of Gothic or dictionaries at all which use this dictionary because they expect the words to be correct. Therefore, instead of removing a lot of words, I added question marks to words which have my serious doubts and I completely removed words for which I could find no basis at all and unnecessary. Bokareis (talk) 23:49, 15 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐍃 2015 (UTC)