User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-06

If you are here at the top of the page, you are lost. Go here instead.

Hi Connel, in IRC hippietrail asked me to put a message on your talk page for him. He currently can't edit because his IP (196.40.76.35) is blocked, so he needs to be unblocked. The IP might need to be reblocked after he logs out. Thanks :-) --Tosca 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks dude! — Hippietrail 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whew. I couldn't figure out why you hadn't sent me an e-mail. Then I noticed my e-mail client was not running.  :-) Welcome back! Don't forget to re-perma-block it on your way out of that internet cafe. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hate to be saying it, but "cunt juice" and "piss-warm" are probably legitimate entries to have, even if the contributor was likely a vandal. bd2412 T 04:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Please create those entries, if you are so inclined. The childish entries that were there, though, were pointedly worded to simply be vulgar. Whether I was right or wrong about the specific identity is irrelevant; the contributions were worthless - perhaps to the point of making legitimate entries from those headwords much more difficult to compose. I shall spend my time on more useful tasks, rather than trying to properly define these. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you undelete those two, I'll fix 'em - I had already started to work on both, and was planning to get back to them. bd2412 T 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

For you? Done. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - worked 'em over a bit. bd2412 T 05:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Connel, It was me who set up User:Dangherfool, not with bad intentions. It was directly because of this undesirable page, which I thought I could move to User:Dangherfool/Urbandictionary or something, as a kind of compromise. A bit sillt maybe. So I unblocked it (as I myself was thus banned). Don't worry, I'm not going to ever use it. Or share it with WF, for that matter! --Dangherous 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, OK. Sorry for the inconvenience! --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

answering to your request on my talk page

There are three major parts of speech in Lojban: brivla] (predicate words), cmavo (structural words) and cmene (proper nouns). brivla can be subdivided further, this results in the complete list:

• Cmavo
• Cmene
• Gismu (root words)
• Lujvo (compound words)
• Fu'ivla (words borrowed from other languages)

There are also rafsi, which are morphemes and not complete words. Icek 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You just left a hello on my user page.

I've done a bit of wikipedia but little wikitionary. I just did a bunch of computer related edits to patch, diff, and apply and made new entries for apply a patch, patch file, diff file, patch program, and diff program. Oh yah, and I started with hunk.

Please let me know if I've done something stupid, and if I got the Troponym/Hypernym linking right. I'm officially burnt out now and need to get back to work but will eventually learn from my mistakes. Thanks. --kop 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, upgrade too. --kop 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Serves me right do doing "subst:welcome"s right before hitting the road.  :-)

I like what I see from each of your contributions. There is a general sentiment against multi-word terms these days, so some may not survive (even though I think they should.) I see you very wisely choose computing terms that, for the most part, have entered the language, at least a little. Keep up the great contributions, and Welcome again! --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well that's good then. Thanks for the welcome, and for the review of my edits. One thing that I couldn't confirm or deny from the style guide is the style of patch Transitive Verb, number 8 (computing) with respect to it's sub/derivitive definitions. It seems there should be definitive style, although, then again, that might prevent good things from happening organically. --kop 05:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am pretty vocal in my opposition of sub-senses (as they make the definitions less usable, down the road and harder to match translations to. But for some handful of entries now, subsenses have been tolerated by the Wiktionary community (despite my objections.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

They are valid defintions in their own right and probably are as or more common today than the first usage. I'd have no problem making them 'top level' definitions except for one thing, I was really looking to capture the "hence", in the sense that the first usage is how the others came into being. Maybe the right thing to do is come up with references? That way people could see that the later usages were, uh, later. But the "hence" makes the origins explicit in a way that references would not. Is there a solution? Anyhow, I'm too lazy to come up with references this hot minute. --69.17.73.250 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right. My preference is to make them top level definitions, but what you've done seems quite fine. I'm not full of better ideas myself, at this point, so I'll certainly leave them alone, until someone things of a more elegant approach. (Erm, but maybe this is just that.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanbks for the welcome back. My Wikibreak started as having to deal with the inconveniences of the real world, then I got bogged down in the hopeless task of trying to catch up with e-mail. So since last night I've been trying to catch up with BP, and that alone has been a big task. I can't possibly respond to everything.

Your summary on my talk page is very helpful. I've looked at some of the issues, but still need to inform myself on others. The likelihood that we may be able to get rid of some of those redirects left over from the conversion is certainly welcome. "Grease pit" sounds a lot like "slippery slope", but since I'm the one who came up with the name "Beer parlour" I can't complain too much. :-)

I see you have made a lot of progress on the Cheat Bot. It doesn't really change my fundamental attitude about bots, but I still have to recognize the work that has gone into this.

Poor(?) Primetime does have difficulties co-operating with others. He had some interesting ideas and energy but it's too bad he couldn't undrstand what working with others involves.

Of the three things that you cited that need attention I admit that I have been slow to act on two of them; the CFI item looks like just another routine flare-up. In view of the mixed signals that I have been seeing about the role of bureaucrats in setting up namespaces I should raise this on the Wikitech mailing list. If bureaucrats indeed have the right to set these, I may still need help with the technical aspects. Agreement about the Index and Appendix namespaces has been there for a long time; Thesaurus/Wikisaurus needs to wait a little longer. On the category issue, I have been remiss in developing a coherent expression of my own vision, so I should give a high priority to work on that. (I see where you shocked people by asking them to show patience; maybe you are changing as you get older. :-)) Eclecticology 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A couple things then.

The Primetime issue was less about cooperation, more about copyright violations. Tracking down changes he made to J pointed to Wikipedia. After an alert on the Admin noticeboard, many Wikipedia admins got involved with researching his contributions. They found all of them to be copyright violations. ALL. When confronted, he tried all the same tactics as had worked so well for him, here. They seem to be using better methods than I have at my disposal to find and block his sockpuppets. (Dozens, if not hundreds of sockpuppets, so far.)

Please refer questions about the "renamespacing" tools to User:Vildricianus, as he has delved deeper into that, than I have. It does seem that Thesaurus/WikiSaurus is the most pressing of them. Don't forget Transwiki: - it is perhaps the least controversial.

Maybe I'm changing; maybe I'm trying to pay closer attention to my (too often) humorous comments. Gaining some wisdom is helpful, no matter what one's age. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What makes me hesitate about the Thesaurus/WikiSaurus issue is the lack of consensus about the name. I prefer "Wikisaurus" with a small "s", but could live with the others. Does Transwiki really need a separate namespace. From the beginning the idea was always that these would be temporary pages which could be deleted once the information was assimilated somewhere in the rest of the project. Eclecticology 04:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, there is a huge difference between Special:Mypage/monobook.js and Special:Mypage/monobook.css. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that much I know! (Interesting you should happen to mention that just when I was playing with them -- or did you happen to notice me doing that in recentchanges?) –scs 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. Yes, I saw what looked like css code in your js file. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, but it wasn't, now, was it? (big grin) –scs 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, kindasorta. It is Javascript that outputs css (which is OK, but now I'm quite curious as to why you want/need to do it that way.) --Connel MacKenzie T C

Heh heh heh heh heh. If it works, I'll tell you, and until then, you can try to guess. :-) (There's a hint in WT:GP.) –scs 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh? Ohhh. OH! --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(grin again) Don't hold your breath, though; it's likely to be a few days before I have anything to report. And the next set of games gets hairier, so I think I'm going to play them on the home wiki, not here. –scs 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hadn't noticed it before. — Vildricianus 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually looks like a pretty dull comment of mine. I think I was initially posting something much more disruptive. — Vildricianus 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you've lost me entirely. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, but you're missing the point. You're asking for the impossible and the unfair by saying that if some of you are bad, none of you can edit. Doesn't make sense at all, especially when you realize that some fantastic contributors, such as Celestianpower (first one off the top of my head), would be eliminated. bugzilla:550 would deal with that problem exceptionally well.

As an aside, after perusing Wiktionaryspace and your contribs for a while, I can't find Wiktionary's version of WP:ABUSE. I'm interested in seeing it so that I can try to better w:en:'s version, get some ideas from the Wiktionary side of things. Could you point the way, please? Thanks very much—I'd love some fresh ideas. How has your success with it been? Snoutwood (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw yours and pengo's point. Being called a troll I figured was a good indication that a response wasn't desired.

• WT:BLOCK#Block letters sent was where I intended to keep archives of the form letters sent. Things being overwhelming as they are, little has come of it. That one school however, did take some action to that individual. There has not been a repeat from that IP range since.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link! Pengo was being overly sarcastic and, well, a dick. Sorry about that, and doubly sorry for being a bit of one myself. I did say that I would've phrased things differently than he did, but then I go and put my foot in it... anyway, I don't think you're a troll, I just really disagree. It's a big problem over on w:en: (don't know if it is over here), so I think that your I'm sure well-intentioned dislike of #550 will just taste sour to many of us who have to deal with the problem a lot. It's big for me personally as I come up against the situation a fair amount when I deal with schools, and as it's already frustrating, having someone say the solution we've been waiting for is bollocks engenders some bad reactions. Snoutwood (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I don't think you were being a dick (Pengo; well, yes.) I certainly have a different view on the matter of bugzilla:550, but it seems pretty certain I was shut down quickly. I have no idea what goes through the dev's heads, so I won't pretend to guess.

Yes, we have the same problem here, to a much lesser extent. We've blocked AOL entirely. I'd link to Special:List of blocked ips, but there'd be thousands of "Tor network" blocks you'd have to sift through first. Schools tend to be a different issue, but we have experienced that problem only a little, so far. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Glad you didn't think I was being a dick. :) I'd support a w:en: block of AOL, so long as they can still edit through https/CACERT. I think you fellows did the right thing there, AOL vandals/blocks are a MAJOR pain in the ass, and it isn't something AOL is going to deal with for a while, if ever. I like #550 because we can really bust down on schools that way: the current problem of blocking good editors, even if I did support it, holds way to much sway and suggestions to simply hard-ban the IP wouldn't get anywhere. This'll allow us to banninate schools with no significant downsides (apart from potential new user loss, but then the vandalism reduces the value of that somewhat). I can't think of a feature I'd rather have come out apart from selective revision deletion. Snoutwood (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let's cross our fingers :) Snoutwood (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fucking brilliant. Well done. That's the sort of block-first-ask-questions-later kind of attitude I'm trying to foster over on w:en:. I've been pushing for indefs of non-compliant schools for a while now (we HAVE to have leverage or we'll just be laughed at... you can't threaten if you can't act). Naturally, and as we discussed above, I'd like to have accounts to be O.K., but you can't have everything right now. I think you have a fine letter and I commend your efforts.

Just so you know, here's a list on w:en:'s abuse reporting resources:

• w:Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Guide to abuse reports: Self-explanatory, really
• w:Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Boilerplate messages: A boilerplate block message and e-mail
• {{w:AR links}} and {{w:AR talk}}: Templates for a report and for a reported IP's talk page, respectively
• And here's an example of how we format cases: w:Wikipedia:Abuse reports/216.79.194.96

Those might come in handy every now and again. Keep up the good work! Snoutwood (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that I know you've responded, make a null edit to my talk page (go to my talk page, click on the 'edit this page' tab, then click the submit button at the bottom). Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Please enter translations only for English terms, to reduce the redundancy. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome. So basically what you mean is that non-English words should only have translations into non-English languages? Ingoolemo ^(talk) 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct. Thanks for the syncronized talk link idea here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another thing; you did not cite soureces for ministerial, and it looks very OED-ish. Please remember that we don't glom dicdefs here (being a dictionary) so the copyvio threshold is much lower than you are probably used to a Wikipedia. If it is from the OED, please tag it with {{delete}}, so I can delete it and restart it using the Webster's 1913 definition. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did use Random House as a source, but I did my best to rephrase it in my own words. If that isn't good enough, feel free to tag the article and replace it with the free version. Thanks for the assistance, Ingoolemo ^(talk) 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess my complaint then, is that your writing style is too good!  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A few other things...

I'm keeping the boilerplate at the top until I work out how I want to use it. Hopefully you aren't waiting for me to remove it before you reply.

I'm sorry if I'm being overly copyvio alert at the moment. I'm in the middle of researching fuck#Etymology (User:Primetime copyvio of AHD) and am sort of stuck in that mindset.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to this abuse business, but I think we might be going about it all the wrong way. I agree with the shoot-first approach. But we are trying to enforce our rules on the Internet community, and we get all pissy with the offending IP's administrators when someone doesn't follow our rules. That's a huge waste of time. We've got communications templates, abuse logs, and all sorts of wasted admin time. I think all we really need is one detailed notice that reads something to the effect of:

1. your IP address has been blocked...
2. examples of vandalism from your IP address are...
3. (if enabled) you may create your own account...
4. your IP will be unblocked if your IP administrator...
5. you may wish to use the following template when contacting your IP administrator...
6. your IP administrator contact information is...

It's not pressure from our overtaxed volunteers that will make a difference. It will be pressure from the really pissed off IP service provider's customers that will. AOL laughs at us. Will they laugh at hundreds or thousands of their own customers. Will school, university, or business administrators blow off their own students, faculty, staff, users? I doubt it. I say: cut an IP off when it becomes a problem, and if its users want to edit badly enough, give them the tools to fix the problem themselves. Rklawton 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That approach worked well for us, with the U of Maine, hopefully will again now with CSU. I'll have to dig up the templates we used then... --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

One of the points of declaring Think Tanks and Draft policies is to focus discussion. I'm afraid most of the stuff that goes in Beer Parlour is exactly what you would expect in a Beer Parlour, a lot of well meaning but mostly uninformed people shouting out their off the top of their head opinions, not really giving the idea some decent, quiet reflective thought, and doing the necessary research. To get a decent policy you need just a few thoughtful people to discuss it quietly and diplomatically in a backroom somewhere. Which is what the Think Tank and Draft Policy pages are. All that is really needed in Beer Parlour is a notice saying the policy debate is on, and an occasional report on progress, so that people who are interested can go along to the policy back room to see what is happening and possibly contribute. Personally, I would not take anything said in Beer Parlour as policy. Which I feel is where you frequently come unstuck. You expect people like EC etc to stick to what is said in the Beer Parlour. Why ? Why should they ? What is said in BP has no standing what so ever, no more than what is said in some Parliamentary bar somewhere can be taken as government policy.

Well said. OTOH, most contributors (Ec included) do tend to follow the consensus, is one is reached in the BP. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now, can you PLEASE go back, re-read that first paragraph (in the Spellinging Variants debate), and make your considered contributions to the debates which, in the past, you have done so much to stir up, and, quite frankly, unnecessarily inflame. It is necessary for you, one of the main protagonists, to sensibly join the debate, and then go along with whatever compromise is eventually agreed upon.--Richardb 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've read it several times. I do not see my actions as "unnecessarily inflam" in the past discussions. What you perceive as inflamitory comments are perhaps too politely worded. I am baffled that people don't comprehend the relevance of the regional disputes. It really has taken years now, to get even some people to realize that colour is considered a misspelling (in every spell-checker that I use) and needs to be indicated as such somehow; Conversely, color should be indicated as a spelling error in all other regions.

Your characterization of me as a "protagonist" shows that you still are not thinking clearly about this topic. I'm not the one pushing an agenda - I'm the one seeking an amenable solution that will satisfy all parties...not simply saying we just use UK spellings. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There you go again, exaggerating/inflaming . Just how can the above request possibly be construed as asking for "total capitulation" ? Just what act of capitulation am I guilty of asking for ? I was trying to be sensible and conciliatory, and ask for your needed and appreciated contributions.--Richardb 05:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You were asking me to approve of that first incorrect item. I've commented on it before. I commented on it again last night. You fucking dismissed my comments out-of-hand. That was quite an irrational thing for you to do. Please go back and read what I wrote again. Your denial of "pushing REDIRECTS" in that policy are flat-out wrong. The draft policy page as it is written, very strongly advocates the use of incorrect redirects. If you recall, that was my very first complaint about it! And second. And third...

Using that draft policy as an avenue to promote redirects (yes: that is what it is doing) is astronomically wrong. Is that my POV? No! That is what the Wiktionary community agreed to a long time ago, and has been practicing for at least a year now.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have written this here, since I think you two are taking far more interest in the subject than anyone else, but move it to the the W:SVIEN talk page or even the BP if you wish. Has anyone got a constructive suggestion on how to move forward? As a newbie who came across Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names a couple of months ago, I was impressed on three counts:

1. That it achieved an automatic jump from one (call it correct for the present) spelling to another, potentially allowing a single entry without the present circumstance where one arrives at a "2nd class" alternative spelling page, implying, to me at least, that my spelling is "less equal" than the contributor's.
2. That the sense of equality from the automatic arrival at the main entry page is helped further by finding an alphabetic list of all spellings which that changed from my normal usage out of respect for US ideas of appropriate usage are (or were) considered correct somewhere.
3. That this less POV feel to combined entries would be likely to discourage the proliferation of multiple full entries for words with slight (but emotionally rousing) differences in spelling, which lead to, at best, additional time in upkeep, and more frequently, poor, unmatched, entries.

Re (1), I don't want to reopen (or even read) what seems to have been a long discussion on use of redirects before I arrived. But please tell me: is there any other technique which sod it, this is how I write, let's just accept each other's styles in private communication does this so well? and if not, was this point fully considered when the original discussion took place? If it wasn't and there isn't, maybe we should consider re-opening it. Otherwise, we'll have to live with it. I don't see personally why an auto redirect should not be used in preference to a manual action acheiving the same effect, but if that's been decided, sobeit.

Re (2), To me Alternative spellings and Spelling variant have the same feel. But if some have objected to variants, let's avoid it. The important thing is that all the spellings, including the one which is the actual headword (rather than the redirected one(s)) should be in the list, in alpha order (or some other clear, and not obviously POV, order). I don't see any difficulty in tagging each spelling with the relevant restrictions on use, eg "color (deprecated in UK), colour (deprecated in US)", "sock (socks, sox (deprecated in UK))" . Archaic, local dialect, etc spellings could be noted similarly.

Re (3), although data storage space is a (relatively minor) consideration, the degradation in quality/additional effort from having more than one entry for what should be identical definitions is a serious one. I know nothing about wiki-coding and template production. Is there a method of saying (in one entry) "insert everything which lies between x and y (or perhaps everything tagged w) in entry z"? This could be used to enable, for example, everything except notes relating to particular spellings, to be carried across (although in my view the whole entry should be copied, with restrictions on usage of particular spellings noted). But, even if this is possible I would far rather avoid the issue by using one main entry, even if this ended up as "col*r" (NB, not "col?r" or "col??r" ;-) ) with users seeking both "color" and "colour" having to click through to it. In my dreams, I think of adding the names of each person who has refused a single entry for the relevant word(s) to a public humiliation list on the click-through pages "You need to click again because of ..." -- but I suppose that would make as inflammatory as each of you! :-p --81.179.118.54 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry that was "anon" - I didn't spot that wt had logged me out --Enginear 03:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, perhaps the biggest thing you've forgotten is that the words re pronounced differently. That, in and of itself, is the biggest indication that they are different words, that merit their own entries.

The only "truly" common aspect of the term (when closely inspected, as we did in past discussions) in the ===Translations=== section. The Etymology is different, the derived terms are different, the definitions themselves are quite often different.

In the past, having one entry (besides being insanely offensive) caused multiple entries to be created. This turned out to be a larger, ongoing clenup effort.

Also of note is that Wiktionary does encourage alternate spellings of all other terms...the only exception I know of is "American spellings" where the British majority here fight tooth and nail, every step of the way.

How to move forward? Use the technique currently demonstrated in color/colour. At least three times, the entries have been incorrectly "re-unified"...so they probably look very similar right now. The translations, however, are identical. Editing the translations section brings you to the common page. The rest of the entries (correctly) remain separate.

I do see the humor you were trying to convey with the "public humiliation" bit, however, with separate (diverging) entries, there is nothing to click through.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this, and sorry I didn't spot wt had logged me out. I think I now have the gist and you've probably saved me hours of reading through. I suspect you mean a non-American (or perhaps even anti-American), rather than British, majority. For example, no one who not only remembers, but thinks to include, words like sparrow fart should be thought of as British! (Not that I'm condemning it; I enjoy its Aussie irreverence; I even admit to once hearing an Aussie say it. But it's un-British!)

While we should all be not judging books by their covers and considering words dispassionately, this is not a good decade to be American in an international arena. Catch me on a bad day, and even I may let politics interfere. But we need to remember that the majority of English speakers are neither US, nor UK, nor Aus. What are we offering the rest? The world has been full of anti-British people since the days of our empire. Now it is also full of anti-American people. After a while, you learn to accept guilt only for those politicians you failed to vote/organise against, and agree that many of our countrymen have behaved very badly, but not with our blessing.

Re col*r, I am embarassed at my ignorance that there was such a difference. Maybe some usage notes highlighting the differences would reduce erroneous reunification. I'm also puzzled how the translations can be identical if the definitions are not. Perhaps in reality they should be different too, but they have not received equivalent attention. Generalising to other semi-contentious words/word pairs with fewer shades of meaning, I still think it would be best to have a single page for (say) synchroni*e, making any differences for the different forms clear. But if this sort of thing was discussed and rejected a little over a year ago, it may be too early to raise it again.

What are we in wt offering the rest of the world? Is the color/colour solution expandable to a three or four col*r process? Probably, if it has to. Is it the most appropriate solution, given that other countries using English probably feel equally bitter about both of us (previously sided with the US against UK, but now are against both)? I don't know. Was that partly why RB railed at both of us the other day? Maybe not, but I know that many Aussies hate what both UK & US stand for. My ignorant guess (you may have the figures to confirm or reject) is that the % of English users outside UK & US who use wt is considerably lower than in our countries. (If confirmed) is that because they see nothing tailored to their needs (because few people who know their detailed needs edit here). How do we change that? I haven't any good ideas. But I do think we should try to remember it when we're fighting our own local battles about contentious words, and hope that inspiration will come.

My principal point however, is that I suspect that most words with more than one spelling are not particularly emotive, and if one person adds an entry for all the spellings he knows, it will be months or years, if ever, before anyone bothers to edit it. Where I came in was my entries for chometz etc (see my comments at ).

I agree with Davilla. It seemed to me to include a less apparently POV method of showing equal variants. To take an example, I recently added a word chametz/chamets/chometz/hamets/hametz where the multiple spellings, all of which I found in technical Jewish writings, presumably stem from alternative transliterations of the original Hebrew word. I had originally intended to put the main entry as chometz, which usage has escaped into an English local authority website and a newspaper, but then settled on chametz to match a Wikipedia article.

To my (limited) knowledge, none of the spellings is superior to the others -- I believe they are equally valid. However, under the current rules (which I used) someone entering chametz gets straight to the article, whereas someone entering chometz, or any of the other spellings, finds a note to say it is an alternative spelling, and must then click on the link to find the main entry under chametz. My (or more accurately the pedia editor's) POV is very apparent and in your face.

Under one of the methods in the draft policy, those entering chometz would be redirected to chametz without further action, which is, IMHO, more egalitarian. While not quite apparently NPOV (the note re the redirect still appears) it is much less apparently POV than the present system, ie the editor's POV is less obtrusive. While it might not be acceptable for, eg, some of the more emotive US/UK variants (for which the draft policy suggests copying the entries to each variant), it would surely be OK for most equal variants.

Maybe I'm being arrogant to assume that the five alternative spellings are non-emotive, but certainly no one has yet suggested otherwise. I still think that, in case they're just mildly emotive, the solution for non-contentious words offered by the draft policy (ie redirects) is much better than the status quo.

The one issue I am not clear on from your response is whether, a year ago, there was just a dislike of automatic redirects, with a preference for clicking through Alternative spelling pages , or whether it was a deprecation of both solutions, with a preference for full duplicate pages even where no emotion/contentiousness was involved and there was no known difference in content . Do you think it is too soon even to revisit this for non-contentious non-emotive heterographs? --Enginear 03:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please! Please try to trim your comments down. This is quite a bit to read; if you can say it in one sentence, please don't use a paragraph. (Yes, I know I need to archive my talk page again, but still.)

You must be extremely upset with me then :-). — Vildricianus 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The issue with redirects vs. stub entries comes from the multilingual nature of Wiktionary. Other languages may have the word color but not colour (Latin, Spanish.) For consistency, the practice has always been to avoid redirects because of that.

If we used Wikipedia-style disambiguation, such as color (Spanish), that problem would be avoided. But we don't. So yes, all redirects in the main namespace are "bad." The events surrounding the case-sensitivity changed the rules regarding uppercase and lowercase entries, but redirects from other spellings are still always frowned upon, as they make it very difficult for newcomers (especially those not familiar with English) to overwrite the redirect with short entries and add their own language section. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. All questions now answered. I'll now copy it to my User page for my reference, so delete if you want. I get more verbose when I'm tired. To bed now. --Enginear 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Changed the rules" you say. Will they change again now the Noarticletext magic solved some things? — Vildricianus 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why Did you just remove the RFV tag again? Did you not read the RFV comments? Retore the RFV tag, or format the friggin citations, but DON'T LEAVE IT FUCKED UP. Look at that entry!

You did that just to get my goat, didn't cha? --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which page are you on about ? If you mean butt monkey I removed the Rfv tag becuase it was no longer listed in the WT:Rfv page now. It had been resolved (I think in BP) as being a legit entry! If you don't like the format, then rfc it. But for !*!* STOP BOWDLERISING!--Richardb 06:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC) OOps! I withdraw that comment, as I just checked the history and you hadn't bowdlerised it!--Richardb 06:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hope you'll leave all the romaji cruft out of your cleanup in the next round? Or should we correct them? — Vildricianus 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm leaving it out of the next round. I thought they should have POS, but the responses I've gotten so far (WT:BP?) have been too ambiguous. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, not leaving them out, but rather, treating them the same as a ===Noun=== heading. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you also disregard all postpositions, affixes and other non-English parts of speech? — Vildricianus 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If third level heading contains one of these:

abbreviation acronym adjective antonym article brivla cmavo cmene contraction correlative exclamation expression fu'ivla gismu idiom initialism interjection letter lujvo noun number numeral phrase prefix preposition proverb romaji suffix symbol transitive verb

then I exclude it. Which of these are incorrect? Which should be added? (Comments from the peanut gallery, not only Vildricianus, are appreciated here.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That I can think of now: infix, affix and postposition.

Also, which list is that? I mean, 3rd level headers in any entry? Then you're missing quite some more. Or is there a first criterion met before you check for these? In other words, from which todo list is that? — Vildricianus 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

/todo3.

Excluding strange unicode characters entries, yes, that is it. Those are the POS headings that I recognize. Of course there are a lot more third level headings, but I'm looking for definitions for entries. Now that the to-do lists are shrinking, I'm considering making the change that SemperBlotto asked for a long time ago - listing all such sections that don't have a "#" line. Right now, if the any of these has a "#" line, then the entire entry is marked as "clean," until the list gets a bit smaller still, anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, and "adverb"? But indeed, it looks like the todos are shrinking. The majority of entries are those insane Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Greek things, and other non-Latin script entries. — Vildricianus 21:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Adverbs get picked up as "verb"s somewhere along the way.  :-) As pronouns get picked up as nouns. Probably lots more errors hidden away in there. But I kindof want to get this list (that used to be over 10,000) down farther before expanding the scope. Ooh, I did forget "conjunction". Anyway, last time I widened the scope, I got 27,000+ results. At the time, wikimedia refused to take pages quite that large (and I hadn't started subdividing them yet, back then.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way you can find how long an entry has been on your todo list, and if beyond a certain limit, could we delete such things? — Vildricianus 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a way to do that, no. I think it is worth pointing out that I came across these today, off /todo2. Back in 2003, I don't think these were considered poorly formatted, but they sure are now!

I don't know that we can apply the same criteria as {{nolanguage}} or {{notenglish}} to these. Appearing on my lists for a long time simply means that no one has gotten to it yet. Whereas with nolang/noteng, we know the content (not just the format) is bad. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, is reasonable. Another thing then: what about "archiving" some of the pages that keep on returning? Any way to do so? I'm in particular thinking about the Ancient Greek & Biblical Hebrew stuff. — Vildricianus 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hell no! Those are my primary target these days. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Enjoy! :-) — Vildricianus 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey man. I've found another machine with IRC if you're online, not too busy, and want to chat about any Grease pit stuff. — Hippietrail 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

G'day Connel,

Thanks for the very prompt note that wiktionary doesn't use redirects for inflected forms, and for having the time and patience to undo my mistakes. It's very much appreciated!

Cheerio,

--210.23.139.158 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (User:PJF) when I can remember my password)Reply

You're not going to re-trigger TheCheatBot until we're at 150,000, right? — Vildricianus 12:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You know, with only a Gigabyte of memory (on this machine) this page is becoming rather difficult to load/view. Maybe that is why fewer and fewer people are replying here?  :-) Too bad everyone can still e-mail me, though.

Except for the cleanup runs, TheCheatBot is mostly done now. One cleanup for retemplating, one cleanup for new entries since last XML dump. Then off to User:ComparBot. Hrm..., I still need to start the formatting flamewar for that one, don't I? --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I thought TheCheatBot still had to start for good! I have tons of questions why it didn't create some entries, but there's no room here. Please don't archive this page, it's longer than the Beer parlour. Oh wait, I'll send an e-mail :-). — Vildricianus 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's the idea? Look at how well I didn't list this at RFD! :-) — Vildricianus 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whatwhat? Oh, when I blitzed through those thousands of entries with no ==English== a couple months ago, they all had the same screwy ===Pronunciation=== section. I meant to replace them all cleanly with this template, but it started getting cumbersome. As I didn't like the final result, it never made it much past the testing/experimental phase. Don't bother RFDing it - delete it if you don't like it, or rework it to actually do something, better. Hey, waitasec, I know I had at least two samples linking to it. Where'd they go? --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I must have replaced these. I thought the table style was long deprecated. I bumped on the template cleaning up {{~if}}. All done now. — Vildricianus 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The raw table was very problematic - that's why I was trying to hide the gunk of it in the template. I was not happy with the final result though. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You might seriously consider moving some of your talkpage to an archive. It's even hard on my computer, and I've got a really good one. Ingoolemo ^(talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd been archiving by year, but that is apparently inadequate. A few people have mentioned this - I keep saying I will...maybe I will someday. In the meantime, the technical limitation may slow the growth rate of this page down.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't do it. I suggest you add something to it. For instance {{subst:Wiktionary:Grease pit}}. — Vildricianus 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hrm. Editing the whole page is quite problematic now. I may have to edit them into the archive one at a time. Yikes. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's happened to the number of articles? Gone down by over a thousand since your 150,000 hit, but no obvious deletions. SemperBlotto 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see now what is happening. If an entry does not meet some arbitrary minimum length, it no longer counts towards the "real" entries.

The conversion I did this evening of TheCheatBot plurals results in very short entries (all the "stuff" is in the template) so a couple thousand entries no longer count as "real." At least, not until they have pronunciation or etymology or alternate spellings (or anything else) added.

Nice to know that after months of Ncik hassle, MediaWiki doesn't consider the entries worth "anything."

--Connel MacKenzie T C 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also of note, we're over 1/4 million entries total now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow. BTW, do you know how the No of page hits is calculated on Special:Statistics. It always seems ridiculously low to me. --Enginear 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a pity. Perhaps you should, in order to make them count, re-run the bot and subst: them anyway :-P — Vildricianus 09:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. I didn't realize that was why TheCheatBot didn't get 145,000 too. Had I known, I might have added a comment.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh. Looking at Article.php, the isCountable() function returns 1 if NS:0=true, AND ! redirect, AND the entry (before template substitution) contains text within at least one set of ]. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Means what? I was reading w:Wikipedia:List of largest wikis right now, and saw WP doesn't make the distinction (compare bullet points). Software item to modify? If that's true, we should set it too, as it makes more sense here. — Vildricianus 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You say that, as if I could do something about it!  :-) I don't know if you can convince everyone here that is the case. Even though it seems obvious to both you and me, it might take a tremendous amount of explaining on dozens of talk pages to explain why the English Wiktionary, at the flip of a switch, has 206,859 entries, instead of 148,657 entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mmm. Are there 60k minimal stub entries? Or are these redirects included? No, redirects shouldn't count. But these "minimal stub entries" should. — Vildricianus 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A more reasonable count would be the number of ==Language== headings we have, total, in the main namespace. That would represent the "number" of "words" we have defined in the English Wiktionary. If we used disambiguation, like colour (Spanish) (as Wikipedia does,) then they'd all be separate entries. That would push our count (as of last XML dump) up to 227,829... --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, counting the ==Language== headings excludes the 33,591 ridiculous NaushuBot-style gibberish entries, (that don't actually convey any information to an English speaker trying to learn Japanese or Chinese.) Currently, the NanshuBot entries are counted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Someone should summarize these facts on WT:BP and/or WT:GP. Nah, just WT:BP. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seems like you did the previous Etymology templates. Any chance of another one for Hebrew derivations? I don't think its up at the moment (but I may be wrong). --Dangherous 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, what? Or, the Webster's abbreviation templates? {{He.}}? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, please take a look at ASAP. — Vildricianus 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: coin If you look here, you will see my quote format was spot on before your edits. If there is some reason this format is no longer valid, please let me know. Rklawton 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I thought either was quite valid, as the way I entered it was what we've been using in the past. My reason for changing it, however, was a by product of dewikifying language name Javascript that I still haven't fixed to restrict that format change to Translation sections. I attempted to start a conversation about it here but it has not has very much response, so far.

The reason I edited the entry at all, was because of the gigantic thumbnail size. Again, the quotation format was changed, only to prevent my Jacascript from changing it right back on the next preview. If you feel strongly about it, then please change it back and comment on ELE's talk page. I suppose some negative feedback is more helpful than none at all. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have no preference for format. I have a strong preference for consistency. I'll follow the guideline-du-jour, and if it's stable enough, I'll go back and standardize my previous edits. If you keep me in the loop regarding the final decision, I'll adjust my edits straight away. Though I have no preference other than consistency, I do recommend using a format that differs only slightly from the OED. In that way, we differentiate our work from theirs without losing time-tested value. Rklawton 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You might also want to drop a note to the Spanish Wikipedia where he's still around as es:w:Usuario:Principal Tiempo. I don't know how many of his contribs are illegal though, they aren't many, just the same, it might be good to warn everyone. 68.39.174.238 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (PS. I'll see any reply on eN WikipediA before I do here. Thanx)Reply

I can only embarrass myself trying to post on es:, but others here, I'm sure will take care of it. Please add it to the list on w:WP:LTA/Primetime, as {{sistervandal|Principal Tiempo|lang=es}} (and any others you find) for the inter-project coordination. But remember to point the es: Wikipedia admins to w:WP:AN#Wiktionary user, w:WP:LTA/Primetime etc., as they are the ones who need to pursue it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I assume you mean the page on your page that's being transcluded by the LTA page. Also, do you think Wiktionary could have a template, sortof like w:Template:WoW to identify his usernames here and link to the relevant WP page? Also, I'm thinking of setting up a page on him on m:Vandalism reports. 68.39.174.238 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've just tightend up macro and finished with a bunch of fussing with related definitions. I don't know much about Wiktionary templates, but they do seem to be a kind of macro. I'm not sure I understand your comment made on your last edit of macro name. I'd hope that because macro name is a synonym for one sense of macro that the relationship between Wiktionary templates and macro name would be clear. I think that at this point macro name is a pretty good definition in the context of computer programming languages, and probably computing in general. So, maybe it could be improved by changing the catagory from {{complang}} to {{computing}}. But rather than fuss I'd rather better understand your concern. --kop 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've always considered templates to be "sortof" like a macro. Macros are used to substitute text right before compilation. AFAIK, Wiktionary entries aren't compiled.  :-) The wording I saw not only referred directly to templates, but didn't even try to differentiate "real" macros. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although they are typically used during program compliation, macros are used for any sort of textual substitution. For example, m4 is (notoriously) used to expand sendmail configuration files into the fullblown logic program language that sendmail really uses as it's configuration. Other configuration file parsers have their own built-in macro expansion (the OpenBSD packet filter for example.) m4 is an example of a macro expansion facility that it not tied to any programming language, it could be used, e.g., for wacking together a mail merge facility. Word processing mail-merge is a macro facility, they just never called it that for fear of frightening people. I'm sure Wikimedia templates are just another example of the utility of macro expansion. --kop 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hrm. At some subconcious level, I'm sure I understood that before. But, as you said, "templates" are "just an example of" expansion. I guess that was the linguistic distinction I really wanted to make. That was what I really meant when I said the definition had been worded wrong. (Reminder to self: take an "effective communication" class.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to generate a list of WP admins who also have an account here? If not, a userpage then? Could you do that, so that I can add these to my watchlist? — Vildricianus 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Almost 1/4 of them have userpages here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're way too fast for me :-). Thanks! — Vildricianus 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's odd. Where's BD2412 ? — Vildricianus 17:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC). Found. — Vildricianus 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice to have been found! ;-) I'm thinking of doing the name change here as well - would be less of a pain than on the 'pedia, where I have to retrofit 5,000+ pages linked to my old userpage! bd2412 T 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

...once was lost, but now am found...

With both Celestianpower and BD2412 having sysop flag on both projects, we should see coherent activities to start reducing the Transwiki: namespace one of these days, right?  :-) In theory, you don't need sysop on both, but in practice, to see what the heck was going on, it maybe should be a requirement to have the sysop flag on both projects, just to intelligently work on the Transwiki stuff. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, you're running ahead of things again: BDA is not yet a sysop here :-). Anyway, he's not BDA anymore. — Vildricianus 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. User:ABCD
2. User:AYArktos
3. User:Alex756
4. User:Andres
5. User:Andrevan
6. User:Andrewa
7. User:Android79
8. User:Angela
9. User:Angr
10. User:Anthere
11. User:Arvindn
12. User:Ashibaka
13. User:AxelBoldt
14. User:Babajobu
15. User:Banes
16. User:Banno
17. User:Bastique
18. User:Bcorr
19. User:Bdesham
20. User:Beland
21. User:BorgQueen
22. User:Bratsche
23. User:Brion VIBBER
24. User:BrokenSegue
25. User:Bumm13
26. User:CLW
27. User:Camembert
28. User:Celestianpower
29. User:Chris Roy
30. User:Chuck SMITH
31. User:Circeus
32. User:Commander Keane
33. User:Cprompt
34. User:Cryptic
35. User:Curps
36. User:DESiegel
37. User:DaGizza
38. User:Dan100
39. User:DanKeshet
40. User:Danny
41. User:Dante Alighieri
42. User:Davodd
43. User:Dbenbenn
44. User:Deathphoenix
45. User:Denni
46. User:Diberri
47. User:Dmcdevit
48. User:DropDeadGorgias
49. User:Edward
50. User:EdwinHJ
51. User:Egil
52. User:Elf
53. User:Encephalon
54. User:Enochlau
55. User:Essjay
56. User:EvanProdromou
57. User:Evil Monkey
58. User:Ezeu
59. User:Fang Aili
60. User:Fastfission
61. User:FireFox
62. User:Flockmeal
63. User:Fred Bauder
64. User:Fvw
65. User:GTBacchus
66. User:Garzo
67. User:Golbez
68. User:GregRobson
69. User:Grunt
70. User:Gtrmp
71. User:Guettarda
72. User:HappyCamper
73. User:Howcheng
74. User:Hyacinth
75. User:IceKarma
76. User:Ilmari Karonen
77. User:Imran
78. User:Interiot
79. User:Ixfd64
80. User:Izehar
81. User:JWSchmidt
82. User:Jamesday
83. User:Jdforrester
84. User:Jerzy
85. User:JesseW
86. User:Jnc
87. User:Jni
88. User:JoJan
89. User:Johann Wolfgang
90. User:Johnleemk
91. User:KF
92. User:Karen Johnson
93. User:Khaosworks
94. User:Kilo-Lima
95. User:Kukini
96. User:Kzollman
97. User:Lar
98. User:Laurascudder
99. User:LittleDan
100. User:Lord Voldemort
101. User:Lowellian
102. User:Luigi30
103. User:Mairi
104. User:Mark Dingemanse
105. User:Marshman
106. User:Maveric149
107. User:Maximus Rex
108. User:Mdd4696
109. User:Meelar
110. User:Menchi
111. User:Merphant
112. User:Mikkalai
113. User:Mindspillage
114. User:Mulad
115. User:Musical Linguist
116. User:Mysekurity
117. User:Mzajac
118. User:Nanobug
119. User:Natalinasmpf
120. User:Nichalp
121. User:Nihonjoe
122. User:Niteowlneils
123. User:NoSeptember
124. User:Nohat
125. User:Noldoaran
126. User:Obli
127. User:OldakQuill
128. User:Oliver Pereira
129. User:Omegatron
130. User:Optim
131. User:OwenX
132. User:Pathoschild
133. User:Patrick
134. User:Phroziac
135. User:Physchim62
136. User:PierreAbbat
137. User:Piotrus
138. User:Premeditated Chaos
139. User:Pschemp
140. User:Psy guy
141. User:R. Koot
142. User:RJFJR
143. User:Radiant!
144. User:RadioKirk
145. User:Ral315
146. User:Ram-Man
147. User:RasputinAXP
148. User:Raul654
149. User:Rdsmith4
150. User:RedWolf
151. User:Redux
152. User:Redwolf24
153. User:Rfl
154. User:Rholton
155. User:Rich Farmbrough
156. User:Rje
157. User:RobertG
158. User:Robin Patterson
159. User:Rogerd
160. User:RoseParks
161. User:SCEhardt
162. User:Sam Hocevar
163. User:Sannse
164. User:Sasquatch
165. User:Sceptre
166. User:Schneelocke
167. User:Shreshth91
168. User:Silsor
169. User:Sj
170. User:Sjc
171. User:Sjorford
172. User:Snottygobble
173. User:Snoyes
174. User:Spangineer
175. User:Splash
176. User:Stan Shebs
177. User:Steve block
178. User:Stifle
179. User:Superm401
180. User:TShilo12
181. User:TUF-KAT
182. User:Ta bu shi da yu
183. User:Taw
184. User:Tawker
185. User:Taxman
186. User:The Anome
187. User:TheoClarke
188. User:Thorpe
189. User:Tim Starling
190. User:Toby Bartels
191. User:Tom harrison
192. User:Tompagenet
193. User:UkPaolo
194. User:Uncle G
195. User:Urhixidur
196. User:Wernher
197. User:Wikiacc
198. User:William M. Connolley
199. User:Xaosflux
200. User:Yacht
201. User:Zoe
202. User:Zzyzx11

Hi Connel. Will you be adding those anytime soon? I also working on this same list and adding the Urdu script equivalents (take a look at the small version that I have so far at User:Dijan/Vocab). I would recommend that the words from this list not be added yet into Wiktionary. Many are incorrectly spelled. I'm working on these on my spare time, but I'll try to get them done as quickly as possible. --Dijan 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm now *very* glad I didn't just run them in! I posted the list, almost as an afterthought, so the sections can be reviewed/corrected.

Please start a fresh conversation on his talk page, and when you two have it all worked out, let me know what you want me to do. I can barely comprehend that what I'm looking at is Hindi.

BTW, his raw data format, tab separated, is probably the easiest thing to try parsing/transforming. A Wikitable is comparatively difficult. How many of those have you gone through so far? Never mind - don't tell me. As I said, when you two work out what you want me to do, let me know, and I'll be happy to try. NO RUSH!

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. OK. Well, I've spoken with him earlier (although he has been absent for a while now) and he has asked me to make the necessary corrections and to add the Urdu equivalents if I can find them. So, right now, I'm working on that list. I'm doing it as a wikitable because it's easy for me to sort it out that way and it's easier to see which equivalents I have found, etc. Later, it could be moved to a simpler list or something like that. --Dijan 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure he's always reachable on Wikipedia.

If you could do the corrections, somewhere, that would help more. Then attack Urdu as a separate task (it's not like they'd be in the same entries anyway.)

Um, or would they? Just how does that transliteration scheme work, anyhow? NO! I didn't ask that! Strike the question! No! I don't want to know!

Ahem. Anyway, let me know what you want me to do, and when.  :-) No rush.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, actually, since you mentioned it :) we are adding Urdu equivalents as something like "alternative spellings" in Hindi entries and vice-versa. This is because Hindi and Urdu are techically (on a colloquial and poetic level) the same language. They have the same words with the same spellings and the same pronunciation (that is if you overlook the difference in the fact that they use different scripts). So, we're doing something like the Serbian entries with the Cyrillic spelling and the Roman spelling. Together, Hindi and Urdu are (on a colloquial level) considered as one language called Hindustani. They will be added as separate entries because politically again and because on a more professional/government/media level they are considered different languages. A lot of time this situation is related to the Serbo-Croatian situation. Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are a language that on spoken level (and much more than Hindustani on written level) are one language. The difference comes down to political propaganda, nationalism, and personal preference of certain vocabulary. But, that's about it about that....no more lessons....I promise! I'm going back to work on the list! :) --Dijan 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow. I'm glad I didn't ask!  :-) For Wiktionary (silly me) they do seem to be spelled differently, so I can't image how they wouldn't have separate entries. But the combination entries for the transliterations I'm sure will evenutally get there. Too bad so many are multi-word translations; single words I could try looking for comparables in the translated word's translation sections. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

...so it doesn't take you by surprise! bd2412 T 12:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weird - check block log & user rename log. What's OTRS ? — Vildricianus 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries. OTRS. He was just enabling responses/questions from that network's Network Administrator. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel emailed Colorado state's abuse address, and they replied to a wikimedia foundation email address, which was funnelled into the email ticketing system (OTRS), where I handeled it. Raul654 01:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying. I happened to spot the logs at meta, so I figured there had to be something more to this. — Vildricianus 10:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, there seems to have been some delay, as the Network Administrator of the CSU network was having quite a bit of difficulty verifying that it was/is me who sent the e-mail (that yes, I did send to abuse@csu et al.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel. I see you just added the template to sî. Please do not put a colon before it. The whole point of the template is to standardize use and make it personalizable. You asked me elsewhere about indenting it and I gave you the answer. Please see WT:CUSTOM. If you feel it should be indented by default then by all means bring it up on the Beer parlour, otherwise you're just adding to the mayhem. — Hippietrail 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Yes, it is a thorny issue. The old style was certainly indented, and in the process of switching to the 'custom' thing, the indentation was removed. Editing quickly, I've dropped the ":" into four or five entries now. I agree that superflous cosmetic changes should be discussed on the BP, but I think that should be done before such changes are set as default.

This may be a good test case of how petty formatting disputes are handled. As each subsequent one will be more controversial, perhaps we should have a WT:VOTE thing set up to field these things, as there are bound to be so many. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well the old style was about a dozen styles varying in italics, boldness, commas, ands, and even multiple lines - as well as the colon. If there was an actual standard somewhere before that I didn't know about then you should just go ahead and edit the global CSS to whatever that was. I just picked defaults that seemed the most used - I don't even use the defaults myself. But anyway it's easier and more predictable to add indenting with CSS than to take it away since the colon does not equate to a specific number of ems - at least not that I could find out.

As for discussing these things before, I've had plenty of occasions when I get zero responses so instead I was bold and implemented it and in the announcement invited everybody to discuss whatever they wanted the standard format to be - but now I can't find it. Anyway boldly change it, vote on it - whatever you feel is best. Thanks for the reply! — Hippietrail 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Boldly re-added. I'll try and find those, after the next XML dump. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's the matter with the template? It used to work, I remember setting these indention prefs in my CSS. {{xsee}} still works, though. Could you (Hippietrail) please look again at the two things, because there's something that bugs in either one. — Vildricianus 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There must be something I don't understand about this method, then. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can't understand what you're asking Vildricianus - could you re-word it and try again? I've just reverted the colon out of the template because it indents by an undeterministic amount of ems so it is not possible to make a CSS rule to unindent a colon. Has it been decided that people want it indented? At the time I did the template I invited comments and only a few said anything but I decided the defaults based on what those few said. Indentation was one of the points discussed. I did not make my own personal preferences the default although it is true I don't like the indented version. The discussion must be buried in the Beer parlour archives which I'm not adept at searching. — Hippietrail 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, poor wording. I was confused by the two codings and only tested .disambig-see-also { text-indent: 2em }. With .disambig-see-also-2 it does indeed work, which I thought it didn't yesterday. Connel, you need this into your CSS if you want the things indented. — Vildricianus 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel, I dug and dug and found the old discussion/vote. You'll see I did try to be as democratic as possible. Anyway I have absolutely no objection to another discussion or vote on the topic but it is important to use CSS for indentation and not the wikitext colon. — Hippietrail 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Changed topic title to correctly link) It's better to keep the CSS stead of the hard-coded colon, but perhaps we should make it indented by default? — Vildricianus 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is what I ineptly was trying to do. Apparently being bold with anything pertaining to CSS customizations is not advisable. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've looked into MediaWiki templates. They are macros which are expanded at page view time, which effectively makes them wiki subroutines. But subst: makes them really work like macros. So I edited m:Help:Template and m:Help:Substitution, right at the top. It seemed better to do this than to try to put a proper noun for Template into the Wiktionary. I would have if templates were a more general wiki facility, but as far as I can tell they're specific to MediaWiki.

I hope this clears up any confustion with macro name. --kop 22:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not quite true. It makes the substitution on page save without using "subst:". The "subst:" directive simply transcludes it so that the next time you edit, you have the replacement text, instead. Without the "subst:" they function like macros. I'm not too worried about the terminology that we use for them though. I'm more concerned that the definition be general enough for all cases, not just Wiktionary uses. Sorry if that wasn't clear sooner. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I was just worried that maybe there was a wiki-usage, larger-than-wikitionary, that needed a sense defined. I think maybe so, but only in the meta-wiki help pages. See below....

Vis macros/subroutines, FWIW: I consider wiki execution to occur when pages are viewed, therefore the template transclusion that occurs at that time is, for all intents and purposes, a subroutine in the programming language that wiki markup comprises. The transclusion that occurs at page save time, subst:, is straight up alteration of the textual wiki markup source code -- hence it is macro substitution. It does not matter that the wiki macro language is also the wiki programming language, it just makes it a little harder to think about. All this assumes I'm correct in my understanding the semantics of templates.

This is perspective that I believe is straight out of programming language design. Computer languages are abstractions, often implimented in other languages, that address the needs of the problem domain. Wiki markup seems no different, although surely more limited (how much control structure is available when constructing templates?) than any other programming langauge. From Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, Chaper 4, 1st few paragraphs:

In our study of program design, we have seen that expert programmers control the complexity of their designs with the same general techniques used by designers of all complex systems. They combine primitive elements to form compound objects, they abstract compound objects to form higher-level building blocks, and they preserve modularity by adopting appropriate large-scale views of system structure. ... as we confront increasingly complex problems, we will find that ... any fixed programming language, is not sufficient for our needs. We must constantly turn to new languages in order to express our ideas more effectively. Establishing new languages is a powerful strategy for controlling complexity in engineering design; we can often enhance our ability to deal with a complex problem by adopting a new language that enables us to describe (and hence to think about) the problem in a different way, using primitives, means of combination, and means of abstraction that are particularly well suited to the problem at hand. ...

Metalinguistic abstraction -- establishing new languages -- plays an important role in all branches of engineering design. It is particularly important to computer programming, because in programming not only can we formulate new languages but we can also implement these languages...

To appreciate this point is to change our images of ourselves as programmers. We come to see ourselves as designers of languages, rather than only users of languages designed by others.

(Perhaps this will give a new charge to your template writing.  :-)

Anyhow, it is clearly a matter of taste as to whether or not you wish to view wiki markup as a programming language, hobbled or not, but I do feel that the dicipline of programming language design has developed a useful vocabularly, one which sheds some light on the subject, for describing what goes on when things like wiki templates are designed and used. By adopting the vocabulary used by designers of computer languages phrases like "automatic conversion of wikitext into the referring text" (m:Help:Substitution) can be made shorter, clearer, and more exact. (I'd say "wikitext macro expansion", but I left the original phrase alone for fear of disturbing some communal venacular.) Because wiki markup manipulates text containing wiki markup there's a certain degree of recursion involved, which makes it all the more important to be able to think and write precisely and concisely on the matter.

In one sense the important transformation that occurs at page view time is the conversion from wiki markup to HTML. But this is an implimentation detail, unimportant to Wiki contributors and something that occurs at a lower level of abstraction than that which they need concern themselves.

Blah blah blah.  ;-) I guess I feel this perspective would be useful if imbued into the wiki community.... --kop 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, no one has written a book on Wiki template programming. Before now that is.  :-) Perhaps with a bit of work, it could be the start one one (seriously) on Wikisource.

Well, thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately my Wiki-template-foo is practically non-existant! It would be cool to move this whole thread somewhere for more exposure, but I don't know the right place. --kop 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This marks the first time that I recall, anyone saying I should strive to make full fledged programs out of wiki templates. Normally, I get numerous complaints if I churn out something complicated that I think would be beneficial. Template "programming" {shudder} is merely a means to an end - more efficient Wiki data entry. With the very recent addition of #IF, #IFEXISTS, #SWITCH et al., a couple weeks ago, templates can now be used to fill out functionality oversights from the developers - at least until they features are properly implemented. To me, any complicated templating, is a temporary measure, at best. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh my goodness. You've got control structure and recursion. Looks like you've a real programming language on your hands.  ;-)--kop 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am one of those people who bristles at the mention of "HTML programming" still, to this day. But then again, I've never masochistically delved into that CSS nonsense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uk. Me too. --kop 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lastly, again; templates are "transcluded" whenever a page containing it, or the template itself, is saved. The optimization features are mind-boggling. Using "subst:" is something different, where the edit text itself is modified. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The transclusion that occurs when a page is saved is a wiki markup implimentation detail, like the subroutine in-lineing that occurs during compliation it is invisible to the programmer. I hear you telling me only that wiki markup is compiled before execution. Were it otherwise, the transclusion would be visible in the wiki markup source when the page was next edited, and it's not. It's all a question of what level of abstraction you've got your brain around. At the present moment I guess you can think of templates either way: "subst:" is definately a macro expansion and regular template use can be thought of as a macro expansion step in a compliation process. But it looks to me, with the introduction of control structure and your comments about developers enhancing WikiMedia -- I think of two word nouns thare are automatically inflected based on the Wiktionary inflection of each word, that you're going toward a template language that's fully executable, if you're not there already. I think you are there, because transclusion also happens when templates are saved there's the illusion of dynamic template expansion -- and the model of templates as mere macros expanded at wiki markup save time is broken. If it walks like a duck ..., then it is a duck. Templates may as well be subroutines executed at page view time, so they are!  ;-) That's the nature of abstractions, they're just useful illusions.

Ok. My brain is full now. --kop 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a note: much of the magic that happens on Wiktionary when entering a new entry is the result of JavaScript, which is considered to be a true programming language.  :-) The templates make it convenient to edit/correct individual work-type's layouts.

I guess the semantic difference I was trying to impress on you, was the difference between saving and previewing an entry. That, and the very significant difference that "subst:" makes at that point. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel MacKenzie, you (probably you) has sent me email about IP blocks. Please send me email at [email protected] so that I can confirm what your email address should look like. Thank you in advance. -Curtis

Yes, the correspondance you have previously recieved was from me, as is my message to you "RE: Email verification 1:47PM MDT 6/12/2006" sent at 1:48PM.

The confirmation I just received (with your forwarded e-mail address blanked) is as follows:

The original message was received at Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:47:33 -0600 from ward.acns.colostate.edu 

  ----- The following addresses had successful delivery notifications ----- <>  (successfully delivered to mailbox)

  ----- Transcript of session follows ----- <>... Successfully delivered

--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

After your note in the tea room, I went to the short pages and fixed. I then found that I couldn't delete what had been reverted from the special short page. Is there any way to do this? Regards Andrew massyn 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean. Special:Shortpages (and others) are updated only twice a week - entries there are not removed until the next time the maintenance script is run. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Classical Nahuatl" is in ISO 639-3: . --Ptcamn 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my user subpages, the ones that I saved when their deletions were imminent on the main article space? I thought they were ok as long as they stayed in userspace, so what userspace-related criteria did they break? Can you restore them? I'd like to at least be able to save them to my hard drive.

About the deletion of frippant, the deletion tag stayed on the article for over 15 hours so I thought people decided not to delete it after all. Therefore I removed it. Is removing a deletion tag a taboo thing to do on WT?

PS: Some users wanted me to get a username (at least the one who sent me the Welcome template did), so I'll be signing one up. --68.102.193.78 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure that IP's are not permitted to have user subpages (maybe there are some rare exceptions, I don't know). bd2412 T 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes, please do register a username. It gives you a watchlist, the ability to recieve e-mail, the opportunity to set preferences, clearer more coherent "Welcome" messages and many other benefits. It also assists the regulars here, to know whether it is a new user who needs assistance learning the ropes, or a vandal submitting nonsense from an anonymous IP. (The sad fact, is that most contributions from anonymous IPs are simply nonsense. Therefore, anonymous IP submissions are scrutinized more vigilantly.)
2. IP accounts are not supposed to have subpages, due to the dynamic nature of most IP addresses. Some ISPs allocate dynamic IP addresses for months at a time - but even then, they are still able to be reallocated to a different customer at any time with no warning.
3. The "backup" pages concept is a known vandalism tactic. Your definitions were of two invented neologisms which do not come close to meeting our CFI, as has been said before. It does not represent a good faith effort, to be stuffing those entries in random inappropriate sub-pages so that they can be picked up by search engines.
4. Removing any of the various cleanup tags is not a good idea. Once an entry has been tagged, say with "rfd", the community becomes involved in determining what should be done with the entry. If you break the link from/to the main WT:RFD page, it is clearly an attempt to "protect" your contribution through obfuscasion, rather than defending the term on its merits. The only exception I know of, is the "rfc" tag - but that is only safe to remove when there is no linked conversation, nor any other explanation as to why the tag is there. Note too, that there are several contributors who seek out entries that need help; they might have found obscure citations to avert your entries demise. But once the "rfd" tag had been removed, that became a much smaller possibility.

Yes, please create an account. Please don't do anything to immediately link your (tainted?) IP address to that account, such as trying to reenter previously deleted terms. Genuine help writing a dictionary is apreciated. Time wasting run-arounds are not. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm an internet-based open proxy. --216.22.26.46 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me too! --66.79.164.106 07:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me too! --72.232.86.58 07:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Gosh! How come none of the three addresses above appear as proxys when I use a proxy checker then?
  • Because they're internet-based, meaning that their ports aren't actually open, but you can use them by going to a website and typing in an URL. --Rory096 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah. Thanks - blocked. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, http://www.msnvip.com/proxy-list/ (yikes!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I received your message, but you failed to sign your user name. If you want to speak against that header you have to speak to at least User:A-cai as well as (s)he also uses Mandarin header. Wiktionary:Entry layout explained says: 'While the information below may represent some kind of "standard" form, it is not a set of rigid rules.' If you want to speak aganist Mandarin header, I have to remind that I have seen Cantonese header as well and this matter should be addressed at Wiktionary:About Chinese.--Jusjih 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you're fiddling with JS and cookies. Keep me posted with what you find out - I'm very interested. And don't forget my wontfix'd feature request on bugzilla. — Hippietrail 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's that bugzilla: number again? I've glomed the cookie helper stuff (no one had quite what I wanted, but I smushed it together anyhow) and I plan to attack Edittools with it/them. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bug 6134: The possibility of creating and manipulated cookies via JavaScript — Hippietrail 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

bugzilla:6134 - thanks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Any progress yet? — Hippietrail 17:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. But feel free to play with it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can see the code you've added to the global JS but on this box running MSIE 6 and Opera 9 I see the same old behaviour - what should I see? (I haven't been able to try FireFox yet) — Hippietrail 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Select a non-zero set of characters under the edit box. . Edit again. Selected set is still selected (label may appear wrong, perhaps.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. No it doesn't do this for me. It just shows Latin/Roman every time. This time I am testing with FireFox on Windows XP by the way )-: — Hippietrail 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update: works now. Awesome. — Vildricianus 10:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• It works for me now on IE on Windows XP. Before I logged off yesterday it was also working on Firefox on Windows XP. In both cases the subset is correct but the label is wrong. I assume this is the case even for Connel and it's just that no JS has yet been written to change the value of the control. I'll take a look at it. — Hippietrail 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Woohoo - fixed it first time with no bugs. Great work team! Please check if it works for you. Has this feature been announced yet by the way? Also we should tell Commons or whoever put it on the other wikis about this important update. — Hippietrail 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, yeah. What? I guess. Do you know who/where this is being used by? I'd guess de.wikt:, sv.wikt:, es.wikt:, and commons, offhand. But um, I barely speak CommonsEnglish well enough to communicate it there...de, sv, es, etc. are in need of TowerOfBabel help to get the word out... --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please check out the Main Page. Does the audio stuff display properly? — Vildricianus 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh, yes. Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

what is it with you and deleting shrazy? It's a real word, used commonly throughout Maryland. --Liambf 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but that seems astronomically dubious. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Though highly based in youth, shrazy is a word used by many people in south/mid-east, most commonly around south Maryland. Believe it or not, this is the truth. It may seem dubious to just add "sh" to crazy and claim it as a real word, yet it is the unvarnished truth. --Liambf 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the interest of not biting newcomers, even if they are fucking assholes, I'll tag it "rfv" for you. However, it still does not meet our CFI, and will be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for not deleting the article, and calling me a "fucking asshole". I know all administrators show great professionality through the use of profanity and rudeness. --Liambf 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, tit for tat. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your friendly welcome. I'm actually trying currently to interwiki my VandalProof application to Wiktionary and am quite a novice when it comes to any wiki other than Wikipedia. So, rather than dig around for hours, I thought I might as well ask what kind of vandlism warning system is in place over here, hopefully something similar to w:WP:TT. (The Germans only have one test template! =O). So anyway, not a big deal, but I'd be very greatful if you could offer me a bit of assistance with that. Thanks. AmiDaniel 02:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category:User warning templates has them, but we have not gotten into the habit of using them extensively yet. (The shrazy craziness above is quite an exception to the rule: only two vandals to date have cajolled profanity out of me...but it seems this may be the same individual after all.) Anyway, take a look at WT:WT for finding your way around. Hopefully we have enough comparable shortcuts, that you can use "WT:" where normally you'd use "WP:". --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks for your help. I'll poke around a bit and see if I can figure everything out. AmiDaniel 03:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, WT:ID is a good place for general questions, WT:GP is a good place for technical questions. WT:BP is for policy, WT:RFV is for deletion, WT:RFC is for cleanup. You'll probably want to set VP to tag with these: {{rfv}}, {{rfc}}, {{wikify}}, {{checktrans}}, {{rfc-trans}}, {{rfd}} / {{delete}} / {{db}} or some others I can't think of right now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, it was WT:CDE that I wanted to point you to. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK interesting- that is a much more powerful way of doing it. Very bold of you guys- that kind of mapping would be quite helpful for assisted or machine translations which some of you have no doubt thought about. I'm afraid I am not much of a linguist or fluent enough in other languages to explain nuances so I can't really help out with that sort of info. I am a commoner for the most part and that sucks up most of my bandwidth- I don't know I suppose I am around 8K edits over the last 4 months. It really is addictive.

Kind Regards,

-Mak Thorpe 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why do we sometimes get a second message "created account for" for new users? We just got one for Alvin5neutron. SemperBlotto 07:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't look at recent changes, look at Special:Log/newusers - there is

• 01:24, June 16, 2006 Alvin5neutron (talk • contribs) created account for User:Alvin5heisenberg (Talk | contribs | block)

which tells me the dude created "neutron" and clicked "remember me." Then decided they wanted a better username and created "heisenberg". Um, waitasecond, how'd they do that? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Whoa. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&group=&username=User+contributions

• OK, as Brion explained...brand new user went to //en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup and created the "heisenberg" while still logged in as "neutron." --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please consider taking a break for a couple of minutes when you find yourself posting such things. You know what I'm talking about, and I'm glad you quickly rolled back. But it sours the atmosphere and doesn't really promote cooperation and such. I'm quite sure Widsith didn't have any ad hominem intentions in his statement, and even if he did, he put them in a very civil manner. I guess he was just expressing his opinion, which at all times people should be able to do freely, without having to expect rude replies. Now the reason why I'm saying this is because I've seen you commenting likewise a couple of days ago here, so perhaps I'd better remind you of the internet's incompetence as a medium to convey unambiguous messages. Sorry if that sounds way too pedantic :-). Cheers. — Vildricianus 10:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right. I shouldn't equate dealing with a vandal, to dealing with pointed, rude, inflammatory criticism (as opposed to constructive criticism.) I'd like to point out that Primetime was as equally "polite" as he was, for well over a year. You are absolutely right that my response was improper. I'd have deleted those revisions, but decided against drawing additional attention to the matter. If I find myself thinking someone is starting out with a pompous tone, I'll try to avoid any response, rather than take the bait again.

I'm a little surprised to be taking such good advice from someone less than half my age. But you are absolutely correct. Whether it is a vandal or a rude critic, my responses need to be better, without sinking to their level. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's a great start, but it loses lots of the diacritics and vowel signs which are both very important. And thanks for the nudge, I'll try to get the rest fixed up so we can actually have entries for these. - Taxman 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to contribute to this discussion: User_talk:Kappa#.27dreadful.27_railway_slang . Also you should note that clag has been recreated. Kappa 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clag and claggy do exist in some UK dialects, referring to smog, so the usage mentioned is merely a restricted sense of the word. I've added it to my things-to-do to improve and cite it, but RFV it if you wish as a reminder. Enginear 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of more than slight technical interest, how are you accomplishing the partial and/or section additions your bot is doing? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nothing too remarkable. I have an infrastructure that lets me feed a page's editbox textarea to an arbitrary shell script for editing. For adding these rhymes, that script is an ad-hoc one that looks for the ===Pronunciation=== line and adds the rhyme at the end of that section, or if there is no Pronunciation section it looks for the ===Etymology=== line and adds a new Pronunciation section after it, or if there is no Etymology section it backs up to the ===English=== line and adds a Pronunciation section after that.

Anyway, as I say, nothing magical. The script is basically mucking around with the editbox text the same way you or I would. I'll post the code shortly. —scs 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, did you update {{new en noun}}, {{new en verb}} and the other dozen or so "new en *" templates?

I just realized how much reworking of my monobook this will force me to do. That is a good thing, though, as that reworking is long overdue anyhow.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. Rod (A. Smith) 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel, you win. I'm out of here. Your approach to jack-boot administration of Wiktionary, and wilful misreadings of my policy documents, just makes me sick.

As I said before, you can do some god work. but you seem to prefer to be in control of everything instead. Think again about whatt you are doing to other people trying to contribute.

And stop stalking my work!--Richardb 08:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I assure you, (again) that I've never stalked your entries.

It is too bad you didn't read the detailed analysis in the Spellings vote. The items laid out were all the possible situations where entering a spelling redirect for English entries is acceptable...plus a few extras. Each scenario had strong reasons for not entering that redirect. All of these situations were discussed last year, with the same conclusion.

I do wish you had been true to your closing comments - that you would have made a simple correction...if. Indeed, if I had a penchant for diplomacy, things probably would be much different now. (But the offensive line is still top-center in your proposed policy. I thought I explained many of those same points, in those e-mails.)

The jack-boot thing, I honestly don't get. If we had a policy, it would iterate that items previously deleted are to be deleted on-sight. That is the practice, for the last year and a half (plus.) The RFV process makes that even clearer: previously deleted entries can be reentered, but only with citations.

Or were you referring to the revision-restore-move thing? That was mentioned in WP, and I brought it to WT:GP. The intent wasn't to hide it from you in a manner that you couldn't get to it. The idea to is prevent spurrious, inadvertent restorations. The bottom line in history links the exact location it was moved to (and the exact time.) From there, you most certainly do still have the ability to restore that exact revision. At the time that the technique was discussed, I thought it was to be used for vandalism in general; I've since been corrected on that point!

--Connel MacKenzie T C 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in, but what is that Wiktionary:Deleted nonsense technique? I must have missed out on that discussion. Could you explain it? — Vildricianus 09:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is the technique you told me should be used only for cases of personal information vandalism removal. The discussion is somewhere (this week) on WT:GP. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. But there wasn't any PI in this case, right? As it's pretty confusing for people (as evidenced), it should only be used in that instance I believe. — Vildricianus 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No PI. "At the time that the technique was discussed, I thought it was to be used for vandalism in general; I've since been corrected on that point!" Yes, exactly. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome! I have, of course, been contributing to Wiktionary off and on for well over a year, but better late than never, I suppose! Angr 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, yours is a recognizable username. I had hoped that you'd find the links in {{pediawelcome}} helpful (if nothing more than reminders.) I am very well aware that going back and forth from Wiktionary to Wikipedia is sometimes unnerving. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I recently added an infobox that summarizes many facts on w:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. Could you please fill in any facts that I missed? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful. Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, at first glance, the IP listed is his older comcast.net address, not his addresses used at CSU. But thanks again - I'll devote some time to clarifying it in a little bit. Where is the best place to correct/comment on it? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The best place to talk to me is on my Wikipedia talk page at . There is also a talk page for Primetime's long term abuse page at w:Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Primetime if you are interested. Jesse Viviano 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you tried to use XHTML in that infobox. Wikipedia uses HTML and not XHTML, so I will need to fix it. Jesse Viviano 16:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my last comment, I forgot to mention the XHTML broke the infobox. Jesse Viviano 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I found out what broke the infobox. Changing the name of field names like ISP to ISPs broke the infobox. XHTML did not break it. Jesse Viviano 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Silly me. I thought you had subst:'d the template (please don't) for some reason. So, is this talk page the best place to discuss it? Also, can the logo be resized to 200px or smaller? Or is that sidebar widely used already? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That sidebar is that wide already. The logo could be resized in the manner it is resized in w:Template:Copyvio, though. In fact, I took the SVG logo from that template. Since the logo was in the SVG format, it was expanded to fill up the width of the sidebar. Jesse Viviano 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been around much recently (and won't be for the next few weeks either), and in catching up, noticed comments by you on citing (wanting 15 or so books.google hits) and dialects. You said you'd lost the item you wanted to comment on (??2 WTs), cos' it had been moved, and now I can't easily find your comments either. When I'm back, I'll find them both and add a more considered version of what follows: I think local/dialectal usage, less common words, technical words, and informal usage should all be included provided they are appropriately glossed/tagged/maybe in the future set in user preferences. So personally, I think the present CFI (ie 3 cites over 1 yr minimum) is about right.

On one of the Help pages it says that google permanently archives blogs. Is that true? I agree we should preferentially use durable sources (anything else means a regular (possibly bottable) check of all refs to see they are still current) but much real everyday usage is rarely written in books (ie only in quoted/invented conversations). I think such words are valid dictionary material, in spite of the difficulty in discovering the spelling. After all, we are a dictionary, not an inscriptionary. Is there any reasonably reliable description of what written materials are durably archived?

An unresolved difficulty (cf user preferences discussion) is how to write accessible defs for words used in both a general sense and an exact technical sense by different populations. What I wrote at boiler is perhaps OK, but I don't really like it.

Finally, I noticed you changed Alternative spelling of to See main entry at in one of my entries. I like that. I haven't had time to re-read the spelling variants page yet, but if you haven't added that as a proposal, perhaps I will (me doing it might save RB exploding if he's still around). I've been mulling it over for a few days and it seems less POV than alternative (though as variant sounded OK to me too, perhaps I'm not subtle enough to tell). I still think that the most important NPOV asset is to list all spellings, including that of the "main entry" in the alternatives list, glossing those which are preferred/deprecated in particular regions. And the point someone made in a separate post about preferably noting in a main article all defs which relate only to one spelling is good for education too, though perhaps should not be raised until the color/colour temperature has dropped!) Enginear 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll only respond to your last point now, as I'd like to mull over the other issues at length.

"See main entry at" only works in certain situations, towhit: when the main entry actually is the preferred spelling/entry. Most cases are not so un-ambiguous. The "see main entry at" works only sometimes, and more often than not, causes POV accusations. It is perhaps the oldest method used to indicate other spellings, but not directly contested in and of itself - using that method is only rarely appropriate, unfortunately.

All that said, I am also capable of making in error here and there, such as using "see main entry at" when it is not appropriate.  :-)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aren't these logs better kept somwhere around WT:VIP? — Vildricianus 18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. Probably. Don't want to encourage them, of course. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was thinking about. I could keep them offline of course. — Vildricianus 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe on meta: then, where the stewards can find and check them more easily? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. — Vildricianus 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You may also wish to review my edits to Internet Protocol and Transmission Control Protocol. I wondered whether I was being too descriptive rather than definitive in the Internet Protocol definition. --kop 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm trying to keep an eye on them, but on the whole, they do look pretty good. The line between jargon and "proper" usage is pretty sketchy, so I'm trying to let them be, to mull them over a little first. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A note about Wiktionary though: Most of the terms listed as ===Related terms=== are really related concepts and therefore should be listed under ===See also===. Related terms are terms etymologically related, usually. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think my "email this user" link should work, if you want to talk that way. —scs 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sent. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, blocking for 1 sec and then re-blocking doesn't work. You have unblock to make a new one stick. — Vildricianus 09:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

e replication lag we currently see on the toolserver (it's more than a day behind). While I hope this will not happen again in the future, I have been working on improving CommonsTicker so it handles out-of-sync entries gracefully.

I plan to activate a new version of CommonsTicker tonight or tomorrow - so look out for any new problems. Here are the most relevant changes:

• fix handling of out-of-sync records (see above); added "latecomer" parameter to TickerEntry template (may be ignored)

id=377144 like this]. ikimedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADuesentrieb%2FCommonsTicker&diff=377180&oldid=377144 here] for an example that strikes out the entry if status is set to "done".

For the future, I'm planning to let CommonsTicker post warnings to the talk page of articles that use an image das is (about to be) deleted. I'll post another announcement when that feature is ready.

This message was posted automatically by the CommonsTicker bot. For feedback and discussion, please go to meta:User talk:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker -- CommonsTicker 14:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello - sorry, the privious message was a bit broken. Below is a full repost. Sorry again -- CommonsTicker 14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - you may have noticed some problems with CommonsTicker lately - namely, some entries about deletions went missing, and some entries arrived several days late (messing up the date headings for ticker pages using append mode). This is caused by the massive replication lag we currently see on the toolserver (it's more than a day behind). While I hope this will not happen again in the future, I have been working on improving CommonsTicker so it handles out-of-sync entries gracefully.

I plan to activate a new version of CommonsTicker tonight or tomorrow - so look out for any new problems. Here are the most relevant changes:

• fix handling of out-of-sync records (see above); added "latecomer" parameter to TickerEntry template (may be ignored)
• deleted images can be restored now. To reflect this, I have added a "restored" action to CommonsTicker. To use it, you need to change your templates and/or CSS like this.
• for pages in append-mode, there an empty "status" parameter is now handed to the TickerEntry template - this parameter can be set manually to trigger some type of marking or highliting, depending on how you set up your template and CSS. See here for an example that strikes out the entry if status is set to "done".

For the future, I'm planning to let CommonsTicker post warnings to the talk page of articles that use an image das is (about to be) deleted. I'll post another announcement when that feature is ready.

This message was posted automatically by the CommonsTicker bot. For feedback and discussion, please go to meta:User talk:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker -- CommonsTicker 14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you specify a reason other than "bye" when blocking IPs infinitely? :-) Is this static or OP or the like? — Vildricianus 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The corresponding deletion log entry had the hello/goodbye that matched it.  :-) I've unblocked it now, as it seems I overlooked the possibility that may be a dynamic address. I don't think that was a dialup IP, but it is a moot point now that it is unblocked. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Great excitement. We need an entry for Nix capitalised. I tried to put it in, but was redirected to the lower-case word. Would you be able to un-redirect it or give it a separate page? Many Thanks. Andrew massyn 05:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. For future reference, when you are redirected, there is a small line just below the headword that says, e.g. "Redirected from Nix". If you click on that small link, it adds the "&redirect=no" to the url, so you can edit it just like you would any other normal page. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Must be your client, since I'm logged into IRC right now. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Connel. I've been fiddling for a while with some JavaScript regexes that look for certain HTML in rendered pages and substitute other HTML. It's kind of like normalizing without editing the wiki markup.

Anyway, I have problems in preview mode because the regex also processes the article text in the edit box. The DOM of the page is a bit tangled for me to figure out with just Notepad and I can't see a clear HTML DIV that contains the rendered wiki HTML but not also the edit box. I was using the DIV with ID=contentSub but the edit box is within that. The edit box is within a FORM with the ID=editform but the js to process a regex over DIV contentSub but not FORM=editform is to fiddly for me to get right with just a cybercafe computer to work with. In preview mode the HTML I want is within a DIV with CLASS=previewnote so I could check for the FORM and if it's there process just CLASS=previewnote and if it's not then process all of ID=contentSub.

That all seems like a hack so I was about to file a feature request on Bugzilla to make it more sensible when I thought I might ask your opinion first. — Hippietrail 19:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - I guess my question is, what HTML are you trying to twiddle? That is, what are you trying to do? Blanket HTML modding might be simply made more specific to the parts in question, skipping certain edit pages. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right now when I click on the links I've been using for months since you made this feature, it almost always takes me to paregorics, no matter which language I pass. Did you change the URL required or is something else wrong? — Hippietrail 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes - I'm trying to recover from my (inadvertent) upgrade of Apache to Apache2. Most of the functionality is currently lost - only "Random English entry" is working right now - and only partially, at that. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Apache2's handling of cgi-bin has changed dramatically. 'exit 0' is no longer an indication that the script completed correctly. And the sandboxing it does to the scripts no longer seems to allow write access to /tmp. And symbolic links are not followed, no matter what. I'm slowly switching things back to CSP (alas, not on port 80.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The entire namespace needs to be cleaned up. I've already taken on the meta copies. Currently the whole set looks pretty empty but I want them filled with Wiktionary-specific content where possible. Users are being referred to the meta pages for the wikimedia-wide help. I'm posting this here so you know, as this is one point on your todo list. Time to start using this namespace. — Vildricianus 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, any pages in the Wiktionary: namespace that are help pages should be moved - like I did with Wiktionary:Special pages or the Wiktionary:FAQ. If you know of any more, please move them or let me know. — Vildricianus 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

All are welcome to tackle any item on my todo list!  :-)

The Meta pages should be re-sync'ed occasionally. Wiktionary-specific stuff belongs in separately named help pages, unfortunately. It is a large problem that I haven't wrapped my brain around yet. There is probably a good approach to the whole mess, but I haven't seen it yet. A dozen good minds looking at it (say, in WT:GP,) might do better. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why not? As a matter of fact, the resync'ed meta pages make little sense. It's way better to direct anyone to meta instead of offering them a page full of red links and non-existent templates. Either someone writes a good bot that does it automatically (importing any template transcluded in a page as well), or we keep it how it is now. That is, I'd prefer the former, but I doubt anyone would take the trouble. — Vildricianus 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We could also point Special:Import to meta and have all these pages imported directly... — Vildricianus 09:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I haven't changed my JavaScript yet, to start using your new {{en-noun}} as I still don't fully understand the usage conventions. For nouns ending in "y" what is the correct form? For countable and uncountable, what is the correct form? Or are these still being worked out? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Connel. A dash specifies that there are uncountable senses, e.g. "{{en-noun|-}}" or, if there are also countable senses, "{en-noun|geometr|ies|-}}". Rod (A. Smith) 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. And Irregulars? And multi word? Actually, these are described somewhere, right? WT:IT? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

For most irregulars, like "man"->"men", it's "{{en-noun|men}}". Note, though, that editors interested in expressing which part of certain plurals is the plural inflection suffix can state so, e.g. "{{en-noun|dat|a}}" (equivalent to "{{en-noun|data}}"). Such syntax allows us to choose later to have the template categorize such words into categories like "English nouns that form their plurals with -a" or some other such fun.

For irregulars with multiple forms, it's like "{{en-noun|es|pl2=octopi|pl3=octopodes}}" (equivalent to "{{en-noun|octopuses|pl2=octopi|pl3=octopodes}}") or like "{{en-noun|sg=] ]|Depending on meaning, either '''fuzzy die''' or ''']'''}}". That syntax also demonstrates linking the components of multiple-word singulars, using the sg parameter.

Documentation is at Template talk:en-noun, but feel free to ask me directly. Anything that we find not documented well is an opportunity for improvement. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh! I'll add a brief summary there, then. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ugh. What a mess. Can you help out on the overview wording? Also, I think only the quick summary should be transcluded. Actually, transcluding talk pages is a bad concept, I think. We may want to rethink it. Has this already been discussed elsewhere? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't pertain to transcluded subtopics, right? GP is using it experimentally as you may have noticed. — Vildricianus 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well. That is a project namespace discussion page, not its talk page. I did notice, BTW, and thank you! Great start. But I still think NS talk: transclusion is a problematic proposition. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My transcluding of the template talk pages should probably be dropped. I would hope to direct curious editors to template talk pages for documentation, but I'm not clear about the easiest or friendliest approach. Rod (A. Smith) 03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I overviewed the wording. If it's too wordy now, feel free to hack it back down. Rod (A. Smith) 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. I'm not happy with how it's coming out. The quick summary probably has missed one or two important things. And I think the WT:EIT page should probably have only the quick summary...the rest is both not example-oriented enough, and too long. Not too wordy, just too long to give people a quick understanding of the concept. In that regard, the Polyglot-designed/Ncik-implemented templates had a distinct advantage of simplicity.

I'm not sure we've gone in the correct direction overall. Template substitution/transclusion is considered something of a black art as it is; making complicated templates is, well, aggravating the situation.

I think a happy medium would be one template that does the magic for someone, in terms of determining what the inflected forms are. Then that either calls (or is subst'ed) to a more comprehensible template that lists all the forms, e.g. {{en-noun-long | singular=] | plural=]}} but does the layout/CSS magic under the covers, with no (or very, very little) validity checking. Such a mechanism is well-suited to the concept of Javascript + Preload templates auto-magically figuring out the correct inflection form(s) for people...then subst:ing them into the "simple" layout template thing.

I do wish to say, thank you. You've done some fantastic work with these templates so far. But I think we're only about halfway there, right now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you carefully-worded reply. My guidelines for the inflection templates are that they be easy for most people to learn, easy for most people to use, and easy for most people to read. Considering those guidelines, the latter of the two options seems better on the entry for "bed":

==English==
===Noun===
{{en-noun-long | singular=] | plural=]}}

==English==
===Noun===
{{en-noun}}

Requiring that the template invocation restate the singular, that it state the obvious plural, and that it embed the markup to the plural is, well, too demanding. In migrating from the old templates, I found errors where the editor accidentally omitted an inflection (e.g. here) or accidentally put arguments in the wrong order. It's not at all obvious from the wiki text using the old templates that anything is wrong.

I feel that it is easier to review "{{en-verb|factoris|ing}}" than it is to review "{{en-verb|factorise|factorising|factorised|factorised}}". Rod (A. Smith) 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm sorry if that sounded critical. I really intended my comments to be constructive, only. Last year's debates on templates have colored my views on them, leading me to surmise what the response from some quadrants may be like.

You and I know that {{en-noun}} is simpler than {{en-noun|bed|beds}} or {{en-noun|singular=bed|plural=beds}}. But not everyone agrees with that POV. Also, for XML searching, the term "beds" would be found in the latter examples.

All that aside, thank you again for 1) taking the initiative and 2) doing all this grunt-work. I know perfectly well that it is not easy...and I do think you've done very good work so far.

BTW, I made a mistake before. The "layout/css" template would be called {{en-infl}} spelling out all parts of speech as parameters: singular, plural, adjective, comparative, superlative, adverb, verb, thirdperson, participle, past, pastparticiple, interjection, propernoun, phrase, idiom, abbreviation, initialism and acronym. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I took your comments as constructive criticism, i.e. a good thing. :-) I'm trying to understand your suggestions regarding "en-infl". From my fuzzy understanding, you propose a single wiki template called "en-infl". It seems to be targeted for the first line of each English section instead of the first line of each English part of speech section. That template would list the inflections for multiple parts of speech. Expanding on that idea, I get something like this:

==English==
{{en-infl
|is noun = true
|singular noun = bed
|plural noun = beds
|is verb = true
|has avalent sense = false
|has intransitive sense = true
|has transitive sense = true
|third singular present indicative = beds
|active participle = bedding
|simple past = bedded
|passive participle = bedded
|is adjective = false
|positive adjective =
|comparative adjective =
|superlative adjective =
|is adverb = false
|positive adverb =
|comparative adverb =
|superlative adverb =}}
===Noun===
# ...
# ...
===Verb===
# ...
# ...

There of course are less verbose formulations but for the sake of this exploratory discussion, I've left it very verbose. Anyway, I like how it gives each entry dictionary-specific database-like properties. Is that the direction you have in mind or have I way overshot here? Rod (A. Smith) 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heh. Yes you overshot, but not by very much. I did mean for it to be repeated after each POS heading...but using the same structure you indicate above (well, something quite similar, anyhow.)

To take your layout one step further, there would no longer be POS headings, only ===Definitions===, with each line indicating what POSes they are...e.g. {{pos_n}}, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right. And if we do that, though, we'd need a way to associate each definition with its applicable inflections (since the way we repeat definitions for applicable pronunciations, usage notes, translation subpages, synonyms/antonyms, spelling variations, and derived terms is too verbose for inflections).

While we're at it, a step in a slightly skewed direction would add variations to the mix, allowing each inflection to be tagged with tags like informal, dated, obsolete, US, and UK. As this brainstorm grows, it looks more and more like it requires a proper database instead of just a wiki.

So, stepping back, I'll address your suggestion to create a verbose inflection template that would appear at the top of each part of speech section, replacing the new terse templates. The following is how I imagine such a verbose template:

==English==
===Noun===
{{en-noun
|has singular form = true
|demonstrative singular = '''bed'''
|has plural form = true
|demonstrative plural = ''']'''
|has multiple demonstrative plural forms = false
|possessive singular = ''']'''
|has multiple possessive singular forms = false
|possessive plural = ''']'''
|has multiple possessive plural forms = false}}
# ...
===Verb===
{{en-verb
|has avalent sense = false
|has intransitive sense = true
|has transitive sense = true
|has infinitive = true
|infinitive = '''bed'''
|base form = '''bed'''
|first person singular present indicative = '''bed'''
|modern second person present indicative = ''']'''
|archaic second person present indicative = ''']'''
|has multiple modern third singular present indicative forms = false
|modern third singular present indicative = ''']'''
|archaic third person present indicative = ''']'''
|has multiple plural present indicative forms = false
|plural present indicative = '''bed'''
|past subjunctive = ''']'''
|present subjunctive = '''bed'''
|has multiple active participle forms = false
|active participle = ''']'''
|has multiple simple past forms = false
|simple past = ''']'''
|has multiple passive participle forms = false
|passive participle = ''']'''}}
# ...

The above format is so long, editors would not be able to review such entries effectively. That is, they wouldn't know from the wikitext whether the bold marks are consistent and well balanced, whether the wikilinks are consistent with the rest of the site, whether all forms are specified, whether all of the parameter names are spelled correctly, or whether a typo was made in the one of the forms.

Verbosity is good in some places, but because we model inflection systems based on rules and exceptions, I think it's easiest for editors to review templates that are written in terms of those rules and exceptions. That's my explanation for why entries using the current templates are much easier to review for correctness than the above:

==English==
===Noun===
{{en-noun}}
# ...
===Verb===
{{en-verb|bed|d|ed}}
# ...

Rod (A. Smith) 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I really can't be expressing this concept that unclearly, can I? Well, I guess I can. I've been ambiguous in the hopes that a fresh view might trigger new ideas.

The Polyglot/Eclecticology camp was very adamant that the only way to make the inflection templates at all comprehensible for newcomers (and them) was to have the form where each term was spelled correctly, with no interfering "|" characters within each spelling.

It should be noted that certain people have, in the past, been adamant about replacing templates with text...either by "subst:"ing or by replacement. As a result of the CSS magic, this is no longer plausible - but I do expect a flare-up regarding this eventually.

Ultimately, yes, a proper dictionary database would be one ultimate goal. But with the existing data in such a wild range of variety (currently) it will be a long time before specification for what the data should look like, will exist. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This redirects to a strange "foreign" spelling. Is that correct? SemperBlotto 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. It looked like a sincere change at first glance. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

All of this chap's entries are somehow reminiscent of of a previous contributor (or am I being paranoid?). SemperBlotto 19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hrm. No stewards around to check, at the moment. I agree with your assessment. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

He's the one with the weird scenario plural case. Definitely CU-worthy. — Vildricianus 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

bugzilla:6476. Should be fixed pretty soon. — Vildricianus 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

RfD doesn't seem to work properly in the new Appendix namespace. SemperBlotto 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Vild is fixing that right now. It wasn't the new namespaces though; {{rfd}} was pooched when he added WT:RFDO. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. The wording probably has to change, and the linking. Which new namespace pages should continue to go to the standard RFD page? Or all to RFDO? — Vildricianus 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought the question of RFD vs. RFDO was two part: one of special handling and one of volume. Given the volume, I think RFD should be NS:0, and RFDO should be all others (including Talk:.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is that a digitising error, ie is it on the 177th page from the front of the book, whatever page number that is? --Enginear 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'll check. When I didn't find it, I read three pages backwards to make sure I wasn't missing it. But one page before, one after probably doesn't count for the 10 or so pages before the book actually starts. I'll grab the book from the other room in a few minutes. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, found it...I'll add it to the talk page and let you move it the the entry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Another books.google quirk, like the "dodgy" dates, which we should remember --Enginear 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Erm, no. They actually did have the page numbers correct - I somehow missed it the first three times I read that page. (It is a rather long caption for the cartoon.) I went back to google books, and looked at the first few pages of the book (which were not restricted) and verified that their page numbering matched the book's. Scratched my head, and re-read that page very slowly again, and it jumped out at me. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Caption of a picture on another page...I can see how you missed it. Just like people forget to check the addresses on letters when they proofread them. Easily done. Thanks for persevering. --Enginear 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Multilingual statistics would be nice here. Could you put this in a table and update it once in a while? — Vildricianus 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, what a clever idea. But perhaps we could get Patrick Stridvall to (if he hasn't already) give us the dynamic, real numbers? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

How dynamic can he get? AFAIK, his header counts also rely on database dumps. BTW, I've just discovered Wiktionary:Multilingual statistics. — Vildricianus 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Stats disabled. — Vildricianus 16:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Random pages no longer select transwiki, rhyme or index pages - so my regular random stats will need to be adjusted. I'll have a go tomorrow.

By the way, do you know if Google and the others only trawl through the main namespace? It would be good to see an end to transwiki pages being mirrored. SemperBlotto 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Google trawls everything unless we ask for the devs to set "nofollow" to everything but main namespace articles. — Vildricianus 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

 ? Linked to from Special:Categories. — Vildricianus 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Dvortygirl wanted a tool that would give a count of Category:Idioms, but alas, CatScan aborts after 1,000 entries. I guess it'll have to be a feature request on Bugzilla (or a vote for a similar request, or something.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

2243 pages. — Vildricianus 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could easily be counted on-wiki if we had the m:DynamicPageList extension installed (see n:User:Vildricianus for what it does). I'm thinking how this could be used for TTBC. — Vildricianus 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow! That seems incredibly useful! --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know if something has changed on my system, Wiktionary, or somewhere else, but for the past few days my Random search for Russian (ru) has not worked. Instead, it always takes me to an English page where Russian is not even mentioned. Then if I hit (ru) repeatedly, it takes me to that same page ... so it’s not working even like Random. At the same time this problem started, I also noticed that the "Special Characters" window at the bottom of the editing page no longer resets to "Latin/Roman" when I save. If I switch to a different symbol set, such as "Misc.", it stays that way until I change it to something else ... even if I turn my computer off and return to it the following day (I’m using Firefox in WinXP). This isn’t really a problem, but it seems to be related to the "Random ru" problem. Any idea where or what the problem is? —Stephen 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - yes, my Webserver broke during an updgrade, and I haven't repaired that functionality yet. When I do, the url will change (slightly.) I'll have the new link on my toolserver page. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update: one step forward, three or four steps backwards. Man, I hate Apache2.2. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, Fedora Core 5 was the culprit. Should be working much better now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply