User talk:Chealer
Redirections
We don't do redirections like Wikipedia. See WT:REDIR. It probably serves to create a new page for it if you have to include it. Please also note our WT:CFI and WT:ELE. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want me to see on these pages. --Chealer 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You created a redirection. I said you shoud define it instead. The first link is so you can see our redir policy. The second and third links are there in case you are not familiar with layout of an entry or the criteria that need to be satisified for inclusion of new terms. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Well, I didn't realize you said I should define the redirection instead, but why do you think so? --Chealer 06:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because we don't do redirections unless it's been specifically discussed and allowed. It's not because I think so, it's because it's the way it's done here. What exactly was your intention with the redirection? Firstly, substitute for is not the same as substitute. Secondly if a word is used an alternative for another word (which is NOT the case here), you define both and in the definition line of one, use the
{{alternative form of}}template to signify as such. Thirdly, this is a multilingual dictionary; how can you be so sure that no other language has the phrase substitute for, however unlikely it is? Essentially the redirection makes no sense. Remember this is NOT Wikipedia. We have a different set of rules here. Hope this is clearer for you now? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)- The intention was to facilitate finding Wiktionary's substitute entry when looking up the meaning of "substitute x for y". I don't see how I could be sure that no other language has the phrase substitute for. What makes you think we don't do redirections unless it's been specifically discussed and allowed? --Chealer 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you keep trying to avoid reading WT:REDIR? Being obnoxious is not going to get you anywhere. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I already read WT:REDIR. --Chealer (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you keep trying to avoid reading WT:REDIR? Being obnoxious is not going to get you anywhere. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The intention was to facilitate finding Wiktionary's substitute entry when looking up the meaning of "substitute x for y". I don't see how I could be sure that no other language has the phrase substitute for. What makes you think we don't do redirections unless it's been specifically discussed and allowed? --Chealer 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because we don't do redirections unless it's been specifically discussed and allowed. It's not because I think so, it's because it's the way it's done here. What exactly was your intention with the redirection? Firstly, substitute for is not the same as substitute. Secondly if a word is used an alternative for another word (which is NOT the case here), you define both and in the definition line of one, use the
- I see. Well, I didn't realize you said I should define the redirection instead, but why do you think so? --Chealer 06:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- You created a redirection. I said you shoud define it instead. The first link is so you can see our redir policy. The second and third links are there in case you are not familiar with layout of an entry or the criteria that need to be satisified for inclusion of new terms. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
We don't allow redirects except those that have been excluded from the ban: it's true. However, WT:REDIR does say:
- For longer phrases where there is little or no chance of the entry title being valid for another language, redirects are allowable. For example, burn his fingers or burning one's fingers should redirect to the pronoun-neutral and uninflected form burn one's fingers.
Based (I think) on this, a deletion discussion (at WT:RFD) of a phrase that does not meet our criteria for inclusion will sometimes end in an agreement to redirect the page to one of the phrase's components; thus, for example, had substitute for been written as an entry and brought to RFD, it may well have ended up as a redirect to substitute. I've written such hard redirects myself; e.g., defeat the purpose. While I don't think substitute for is worthy of such a redirection (as people won't, I think, look it up), IMO the matter is debatable (as opposed to 'speedy-deletable' without recourse to RFD). I can certainly be convinced otherwise, and will let Jamesjiao (who I guess is still watching this page) chime in.—msh210℠ (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not because I don't think it doesn't meet our CFI, it's because there is no reason for a redirect like this to exist when an alternative form entry is a better substitute (irony here) for it. If you think it's a good candidate for RFD, I can certainly restore the entry and bring the subject up for discussion to a wider audience. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Do you have have any reference about the ban in question?
- I personally looked up "substitute for" on Google on February 12th. For what it's worth, Wiktionary's substitute entry, which covers "substitute for", did not appear in the first 10 results. 2 of the 10 results were about "substitute for". --Chealer (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
happening once in an age or century
Saving:t+fr:séculaire ...
An error occurred while saving.
Block
Chealer (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
I have provided an explanation of the problems for the faulty contributor. However, I strongly recommend that Wiktionary either adopts its own blocking policy, or that it makes sure contributors are otherwise educated on blocking before granting them blocking privileges.
By the way, I would appreciate to be pointed to where Wiktionary bugs should be reported.
Thanks in advance
Update: The block appears to have been revoked. Thanks