User talk:Mare-Silverus

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary! It seems that you added a handful of synonyms to 神木, but I can't seem to find usage of the words "神の木" and "木の神" as synonyms of 神木 on Google, so I was interested in knowing the source of these (especially since "木の神" grammatically means "god/deity of trees"). —suzukaze (t・c) 03:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

As already mentioned to you over at ], definition lines for non-English terms should not use sentence-initial capitalization, nor sentence-final punctuation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, please stop removing blank lines that separate the different headers in the wikicode, as you did here. The whitespace is part of our editing conventions, and it is included to make the wikicode easier to read. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Monolingual Japanese references are consistent that the reading for 神札 is shinsatsu, not kamifuda. See the lack of any such かみふだ readings at Weblio, with their mirror of Daijirin and even the JA Wikipedia; see also Kotobank, with their mirror of Daijirin and the KDJ. Note too that the JA Wikipedia article only has one instance anywhere of the kana string かみふだ, and that's a transparent (and probably not entry-worthy) compound of 紙 (kami, “paper”) + 札 (fuda, “tag”). All description of the term 神札 anywhere I can find uses the reading shinsatsu.

Please stop referencing English-only references to try to justify the creation of a Japanese-language entry, as you did in citing https://www.wikihow.com/Set-up-a-Kamidana in your edit comment for re-adding the bogus kamifuda reading at 神札.

If you persist in adding nonsense, you will be blocked. I'm not being mean, that's just how things work here. The Wiktionary editor community is smaller than Wikipedia's. We don't have the time, energy, or patience to continuously clean up after repeat offenders -- it's easier for the admins, and healthier for the project, to block such users.

As such, please do more basic due diligence in choosing references. Wikis are user-generated content and are not usable as reference sources for purposes of our entries here. If you find something on a wiki site that you think you want to add here at Wiktionary, please first confirm somewhere reputable -- like Weblio or Kotobank -- that the word in question actually exists.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mare-Silverus,

Per past discussions on my Talk page (one such thread here), you'd stated that sometimes a family member uses your account to edit on Wiktionary. As such, I'm not entirely sure who might read this, or who was responsible for the recent spate of edits from this account. For purposes of this thread, I will use "you" to address whomever it was that was using this account.

The edits made by this account over the past few weeks have been almost uniformly suspect and problematic. Most recently, you added the entry 神符 in this edit. Too much about this entry is incorrect.

• Wrong Japanese Wikipedia link -- there is no article at w:ja:神符. That is only a redirect to the JA WP article at w:ja:神札.
• Wrong reading -- it's shinpu, not shinfu.
• Wrong pronunciation -- not only is it shinpu, you got the pitch accent wrong -- it's not 0, it's 1.
• Wrong source -- despite adding the "DJR" value to the acc_ref parameter to indicate that the pronunciation information you entered is from the DJR (i.e. Daijirin), the Daijirin entry visible here at Weblio clearly shows a pitch accent of 1, not 0.
• Excessive and partially incorrect gloss / definition -- sense lines should be kept short, something you consistently fail at. Moreover, shinpu are not "plaques", as you've described them: they don't look like either the commemorative plaque or the plaque medallion on the right. Instead, these are essentially a subset of omamori, slightly more specifically, the kind with visible text and no cloth container, as these are generally not attached to clothing, bags, cellphones, or other accessories.

A modicum of critical research could have avoided these issues. Look things up in reputable sources. "Reputable sources" does not include any other wiki. And, frankly, a lot of online English-language materials that talk about Japan and the Japanese language are rubbish. Do your due diligence to vet any site you read, and figure out who wrote that content and why. Consider the information critically, and research to find out 1) if other sites confirm that information, and 2) the provenance of those other sites as well -- are they just part of an ignorant echo chamber where the clueless all repeat each other's mistakes, or are they instead backed up by real-world knowledge of how things actually work?

If you cannot confirm the content you're adding from reputable sources, don't add it. An incomplete entry is much better than an incorrect entry.

That aside, when adding content, do not add a reference unless that reference actually backs up the information you're adding. In your creation of the 神符 entry, you entered an incorrect pitch accent and referenced the DJR. The DJR does not agree with you. You have effectively lied. This is inexcusable. I am therefore blocking you for a period of time.

Once your block expires and you can resume editing, I sincerely hope that you do so with greater care for the accuracy of your information. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Once again, you are adding incorrect entries and lying about attribution. This is wholly inexcusable. Most egregiously, of your recent edits that I have vetted, you added ステーブ (sutēbu) (since deleted), listing four references that do not include this term. The given sense "The main body of a bow" was also wrong -- consider that w:Bow_and_arrow#Parts_of_the_bow also does not include the term stave for any of the parts of the bow.

I have blocked you for another month, and I will be on the lookout for spurious edits to Japanese entries.

Consider this your second strike. If you persist in making similar edits, I will permanently block this account. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

...thanks for coming back within hours of the block expiration and immediately adding more incorrect content? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why, then, is the Japanese word for 'noodle' spelt-out in hiragana as むぎこ (mugiko; https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%E9%BA%BA#Readings )?

--P.S. I'm here using my cousin's account, again.-- Mare-Silverus (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstand. むぎこ (mugiko), regardless of spelling, is not the word for noodle. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why then is it there? I only created the page for むぎこ & mugiko because I looked-up the Japanese word for noodle, and the pages for 麺 in Hiragana and Romaji were blank.

Mare-Silverus (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The character 麺 has a reading めん (men) that refers to noodle, and a reading むぎこ (mugiko) that refers to flour. The confusion in meaning is probably why this character is only rarely used to spell the むぎこ (mugiko) reading, with the spelling 麦粉 preferred instead, as that spelling only has the reading むぎこ (mugiko) and is thus less ambiguous.

My suggestion here is to not create entries for words you don't know. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

RE:  : The character 麺 has a reading めん (men) that refers to noodle, and a reading むぎこ (mugiko) that refers to flour. The confusion in meaning is probably why this character is only rarely used to spell the むぎこ (mugiko) reading, with the spelling 麦粉 preferred instead, as that spelling only has the reading むぎこ (mugiko) and is thus less ambiguous.

Why isn't this mentioned in the article?

Mare-Silverus (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because this is a work in progress, and a volunteer project, and no one has added it yet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Added. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're done here.

Your latest block expired, and you resumed editing -- by adding tons of incorrect stuff that I've had to go through and vet, and ultimately delete because it was so bad.

You get the occasional thing correct, but your success rate is unacceptably low. Where other editors get things wrong by accident, you seemingly get things right by accident.

You appear to do no research.

You do not improve.

I am blocking this account permanently.

Goodbye.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mare-Silverus,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email [email protected].

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply