Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Irresponsible Sysop Actions[edit]

I had recently created an article in the Wikipedia. The entry was new and not yet expanded and at that point fit the context of a Wiktionary entry better than the context of a Wikipedia article.

Upon a cleanup/expansion visit to the article I discovered a "Move to Wiktionary" tag and since I had no immediate ideas for further expansion I decided to go to the Wiktionary and learn about creating an entry and linking to it from a Wikipedia article. The only objection I had to the move was if I could not find a way to reference the Wiktionary entry as easily as I could reference a Wikipedia article from another Wikipedia article.

After a brief visit to the Wiktionary I returned to the Wikipedia to try the Wiki markup tag I had used to reference Wikipedia articles from other Wikipedia articles I was editing. I tried linking to a random entry in the Wiktionary from a Wikipedia article in my sandbox. When this failed I went back to the Wiktionary to see what information the Wiktionary had about creating such a reference link before searching the Wiki markup article in the Wikipedia.

In searching through the Wiktionary to find the preferred method I came across a pair of Wiktionary Project Pages (looks like they were setup several years ago to collect Wiktionary user comments as to user likes and dislikes in the same fashion as a suggestion box having a negative and positive slot. One project page was obviously intended to receive positive comments and the other to receive negative ones.

After reading the positive comment page I clicked on the link to the negative page beneath the See Also subtitle and arrived at an open edit page for posting a negative comment. What came to mind was the failure of the method I had used to reference a Wiktionary entry from a Wikipedia article and the lack of a readily available and advertized alternative so I posted the following statement as a comment for later reference in support of my efforts to comply with the "Move to Wiktionary" tag: "You can't link to it from the Wikipedia which means you have to create a Wikipedia entry instead." I was also hoping that the comment if read would provide a helpful response from a sysop or other user. I returned to the Wikipedia and eventually found an external URL method of linking to the Wiktionary and returned there to erase the above entry on the negative comment page and post this information on the positive.

One problem I encountered, however, was that if you edit a page before opening a Wiktionary account your IP address is used for your ID and a "My contributions" page is not generated in conjuction with your IP address. Consequently if you return to make corrections or changes to any pages you have edited before opening a Wiktionary account there is no contributions list associated with your IP address from which you can reference where you have been and find the page where a correction or change is to be made.

This was all innocent enough but when the comment came to the attention of rooky sysop Wildrick Steele (alias Vildricianus) who was playing sentry at the gate of "recentchanges" using CDVF he intentionally and erroneously and maliciously interpreted the comment as a supposed vandalism attack against the integrity of the Wiktionary. (Don't laugh, he really did!) Instead of checking the situation out to pin down the truth by posting a question to me regarding the comment via my IP address or by following each step I had taken while connected to the site he simply blocked my access and deleted the project page and then abandoned all responsibility for what he had done. He abandoned his responsibility to monitor the consequences of his actions and stand ready to make a correction by unblocking my access and restoring the page just in case what he had done was wrong.

Had Vildricianus not failed to reply to my emails this might not have been such a big deal but by not replying to my emails Vildricianus caused me to spend the next 12 hours trying to contact him and other sysops until I finally had to place a call to Wikimedia Headquarters in St. Pete around 9:30 AM the next morning. He only responded after another sysop sent him a copy of my email. I got the distinct impression that his only purpose in being a sysop is to lock out other users so he can play all by himself like a spoiled child with a new toy.

I feel that his actions were not only unwarranted and malicious but the worst possible type of vandalism that Wikimedia can endure - sysop vandalism. Sysops who engage in these types of irresponsible actions should be immediately and forever terminated as sysops or made to pay a deposit, a fine and a very heavy sysop fee.

Both intellectual and financial donations are dependent upon user access. Whenever a sysop acts in such a ruthless and irresponsible manner for such a prolonged time they need to start reaching into their own pockets to pay the bills. A sysop deposit, misbehavior fine and monthly sysop fee would be a great solution in this case by making Vildricianus pay the bills. 12:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you need to repeat all that which I have already addressed by e-mail. Your accusations make absolutely no sense. The page in question was Wiktionary:Why Wiktionary is not so great, which at the time I found highly suspect and thought (give the deletion history) was merely another vandalist entry. I have not received a single e-mail from you, apart from the "People who act like Nazis" one. — Vildricianus 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Headquarters tells me you could have contacted my using my IP address before or after you did the block. I sent you at least three emails via the "E-mail this user" link in the "toolbox" window in the left hand margin on your user page. When I clicked the link a web mail type "special page" form was displayed which says that if the user (you) has entered a valid e-mail address in his or her user preferences then the form will send a message. Since my user name is my real e-mail address I don't have an e-mail validation problem and I check every incoming e-mail whether is be spam or not. 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the misinterpretations don't stop when you get a user account, even a name that's recognized. It's always assumed that I'm trying to push my way through like every other stubborn and annoying contributor. Not that I'm much of a contributor as compared to a chatter. And not that I'm not stubborn or annoying at times, especially when "chatting", a.k.a. arguing, such as now. But something like yourself, I've baulked at a couple of misinterpretations as well. Probably siding a few times with the boat rockers like yourself, objectively of course, hasn't helped my credibility. And I have made mistakes, not knowing better. But sysops, they don't give you the benefit of the doubt. They deal with too many anonymous users and sockpuppets on top of everything else. I don't blame them for being the way they are. I would never want to do it. I wish nobody had to. When I don't log in I'm reminded that I forgot. What use is anonymous IP's? It just causes problems. But that's the cornerstone here. Davilla 14:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretations and even blocking access are not the issues here. The issue is standing ready to correct a mistake when you do anything based on assumption. If you do not stand ready then you can not be trusted to ever do anything based on assumption again. 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't think of anything but support for Vild in this matter. The essence of Wiki is cooperation. Working within community boundaries is what distinguishes good members from outsiders. As our head bureaucrat is fond of saying, "the pay is the same" whether you are an anonymous IP, a registered user, a sysop or a vandal. The volunteer effort keeps the Wiki community alive. Please note that volunteer's hours are their own. On Wikipedia, there are a few more sysops, (!) covering slightly more timezones. Here on Wiktionary, the only way you'll get rapid response is if the sysop in question has a sleep disorder.
Knowing this the Wiktionary should allow sysops to block article edits during the time of assumption but not discussion edits as well. Once a case of vandalism is proven then discussion edits can be blocked along with article edits. 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Vild did unblock you. To call that "ruthless" (as you did in e-mail) seems to be an overreaction. You are free to withhold financial donations, whether it be for perceived injustice or because someone cut you off on the way to work. Again, the volunteer sysops, bureaucrats, checkusers, tool authors, vandals, anonymous contributors, bots and registered users are all paid the same.
Vildricianus claims he did not receive any of the e-mails I sent him via the toolbox "E-mail the User" link in the lefthand margin on his user page. Note that to avoid this problem I have used my real e-mail address for my user name. Sure I get alot of spam but I also do not remain incommunicade as much as if I used a pseudonym. He only unblocked me 12 hours later after receiving my e-mail via another sysop whose e-mail link was working. Perhaps you prefer I use "dereliction of duty" as a more proper discriptive term. 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Vild's outstanding contributions and outstanding vandal fighting have not gone unnoticed. His sysop nomination was followed by a record-breaking approval. If our very best sysop merits your disdain, there is either something wrong with your conduct, or something very wrong with your perception of how a wiki functions.
A well known disclaimer in the securities industry is that "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." How many times do we see on the news people with no criminal record ending up committing a horrendous crime? I know an electronics chain that has learned the hard way that even though many customers want tech savy salesmen in the store that only sales type salesmen help the chain to pay its bills. Makes sense that when sysops run the store only sysop types will be allowed through the door. 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand that learning your way around is frustrating. It is easy to forget that I had the same difficulty when I first found Wiktionary. Wiktionary entries can be directly word-linked from Wikpedia using the "wikt:" prefix inside the wikilink. But apparently Wikipedia prefers to use the {{wiktionarypar|...}} template. Wikipedia articles can be directly word-linked from Wiktionary using the "w:" prefix.
This information was all that I needed and all that I was looking for. A nice post from Vildricianus in a message to my IP address would have served to mitigate some of my trauma. 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI I had the same problem when I started here, or at least a similar one. Of course it turns out that I shouldn't have been looking for this information in the first place, as Wiktionary links are preferred and Wikipedia links are primarily from the page of the same title. But it might be useful to review the pathways to such help information.
Another thing that's frustrating is not being able to do the same from the search field. Could these be standardized across all MediaWiki projects? Davilla 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope you are able to join our efforts here. We're building a free dictionary. Our big sister is building an encyclopedia. Please remember that human considerations are important here and there.
Apparently sysop consideration for innocent users is important only on a voluntary and part time basis here and there. If the contrary were true then perhaps adoption of the Golden Rule would find a welcome place here. 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (a trauma victim possessing a complete new reality of what the term "vandalism" means.)


A pseudo wiki dictionary created of, by and for sysops rather than of, by and for general wiki users as the result of sysops blocking user access inappropriately on the pretense of vandalism to prevent entries being posted with which any sysop might disagree.

You can post this as often as you like and in as many places as you like, but, despite your protestations to the contrary, it is not a word. Feeling that it describes the way you claim you have been treated is not grounds for its inclusion. It will be deleted each time you add it. Read WT:CFI to find out why. — Paul G 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Conceivably any set of characters with the appropriate placement of consonants and vowels between two spaces so as to embody one or more morphemes and phonemes is a word. Just because it has been assigned a definition by a single individual does not mean it will not likewise hold the same meaning for other individuals in the same or another place or time. 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The constant influx of questionable terms is why we have a criteria for inclusion that community members here mostly agree to. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What you do not have is a page intended for that purpose where new words can be submitted and reviewed. Such a page is a necessary part of any legitimate dictionary. 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WT:RFV Kipmaster 16:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
also WT:LOP. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

After checking my e-mail for a response I discovered I had received the following message from Merriam Webster online:

"Thank you very much for writing about "sysoptionary." You might want to consider entering "sysoptionary" in Merriam-Webster's Open Dictionary, which is our own user-created online dictionary. You can submit your word, a definition, an example sentence, and even your name, if you choose, at " 07:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Still doesn't meet CFI here though. You can enter your invented term in WT:LOP. It will be removed anywhere else it is found. Note that such disruptive behavior is easily lumped together with that of routine vandalism. If you persist with readding the removed term anywhere (except WT:LOP,) you should expect to be re-blocked (first for one day, then two days, a week, etc.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your actions and threats are well noted. 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the Wiktionary have a coinage page where neologisms like "sysoptionary" can live without riling the ants in sysop pants? 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. We do have exactly such an area here, called Appendix:List of protologisms, It is often referenced by its shortcut WT:LOP as it is a bit much to type. It is an area originally created for "Sniglets" that got entered, but gradually has expanded. If you look closely, you may see WT:LOP referenced in the preceding paragraphs. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What is unclear is how the term "protologism" became accepted as a Wiktionary word when catchword, coinage and neologism were in common use prior to its creation and have been in use in the world at large for many, many years without characterizing the Wiktionary policy which you tell me I must conform as hypocritical? Where did such users post their neologisms prior to your protologism page? 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should try Urbandictionary (in a way, it is our rival, in a way it is useful for us because it is like a neologisms honeypot), which excels in coined words, or neologisms or protologisms, or whatever you wish to call them. You can add sysoptionary to their dictionary if you wish.
--Dangherous 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. Actually since I am told by Connel that the Wiktionary community has decided not to allow neologisms, coinage, catchwords, nonces, etc. except on the "protologism" project page it has by default eliminated the Urban site as a competitor and embraced it as a friend which may indeed help to take the burden of maintaining new words off Wiktionary community member’s minds. 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll drink to that! --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Anyone who deletes an entry they beleive to be a catchword, coinage, neologism or (Wiktionary word) protologism that fails to transfer same to the Protologism Project Page is guilty of vandalism in the first degree. 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's all very nice, but could you please stop polluting this serious page with your remarks? This is the place to discuss words, not to spout one's discontent. You can do that in the Beer parlour if you really need to. — Vildricianus 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't drink beer or converse with those who do. 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Good. Then for your sake, I'll pretend I drink beer. Now stop being such a maverick and accept that the issues you're bringing up have already been decided on. Just because there's a precedent doesn't mean the decisions were made by sysops behind closed doors.
You've barged in here ordering changes without trying to comprehend why things are done as they are, or in some cases even figuring out how they operate in the first place. I'm sorry to say you're making a complete fool out of yourself. And don't doubt that there may be nobody on your side. Exactly who have you pursuaded to your opinion, do you suppose? When I had given you some leniency and support, you wrote me a rebuttal.
Oh, and I'm not a sysop, so I don't be offended if I don't respond to whatever you have to say. I'm only writing because I'm tired of seeing this unproductive behavior, not because I want to immitate it. Davilla 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll pretend like you don't drink beer either and converse with you this one time. Here is the problem. Most organizations that consider themselves to be a "community" do not include or claim to include the general public. The reason is that once you do include the general public the rules have to change. Why? A special interest group or “community” can not demand that the general public comply with its rules especially when it is the general public, in this case the citizens of the State of Florida, who have issued a charter to allow the Wikimedia Foundation to operate. Consequently the reverse is actually the case. The Wikimedia community is obligated to conform to the rules which the citizens of the State of Florida do not proscribe but do prescribe. Periodically therefore the State of Florida must review the operation of the special interest group to determine if it is in compliance with those rules and prior to a review of the charter may ask certain individuals to visit the community and determine what exactly is going on. Ultimately if the State of Florida declines to renew the Wikimedia Foundation charter then the Wikimedia Foundation can find another place in which to locate its headquarters and move on. What this means is that if the general public is determined to be mistreated by the members of the Wiktionary community that the general public can deny renewal of the Wikimedia Foundation charter and require that it move on. 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your constant disruption here marks you as an insincere internet troll, not a public servant or representative. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in the minds of the members of the Wiktionary community you speak of and I've not made any claim to be a public servant or representative. What you and others seem to fail to understand is that law enforcement operates on the basis of record review not on my personal opinion. My only task is to be sure that the record is accurate and reflective of the truth and nothing more or less. 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

neologism - special case[edit]

There is a special case of a neologism where it represents one of the senses of an existing word for the purpose of distinguishing that sense from the other senses. What is this special case of neologism called? 16:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A nonce. Hence, not acceptable for Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Correct. But why is this not acceptable in a wiki, especially the Wiktionary wiki? 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Because the community memebers here agreed to that, as the most reasonable approach. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Reasonable for what purpose - to have a dictionary that conforms to the rules of Scrabble? 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


It must be acknowledged that in many cases the fact that a word has more than one sense (the problem) there is sometimes a need for clarification as to which sense is being used.

Under normal usage and in many cases context alone may be sufficient to distinguish one sense from the other.

Occasionally however under certain special circumstances context alone is insufficient to convey a distinction between senses.

In the translation of a word to another language often times each sense must be translated independently such that the translation results in two or more foreign language words so that all senses of the word in the originating language may be represented.

In the situation which involves the use of proper names the method for indicating the sense of the word as a proper name in writing is by capitalization of the first letter. Since the first letter can not be capitalized when it is spoken the method of adding a title or inflection may be used.

In the case of using a telegram or semaphore to communicate only a title will suffice.

Is there a word to describe the above situation?

In any event acceptance of the above methods to clarify the proper name sense of a word serves as legitimate grounds for use of a nonce to clarify other senses. Therefore exclusion of a nonce, especially from a dictionary intended for the purpose of serving as the official dictionary of Scrabble (or whatever the real purpose of the Wiktionary is), will indeed suffice for simple minds but not for minds dedicated to clarity.

The word vandal for instance has two senses.

The first sense of the word vandal refers to a person from a particular ancient Germanic tribe as distinguished from the second sense that refers to a person who needlessly damages or destroys other people's property.

(You may know better than I whether more than one foreign word is required to represent the word vandal when it is translated to any particular foreign language.)

Because the first sense indicates that the word vandal may be used as a proper name which will require special treatment (capitalization, title or inflection) it is not unreasonable to allow special treatment for its other sense for the purpose of clarification.

Suppose I ask you if your DNA proves that you are a vandal? I’m I asking whether or not you are a descendent of the Vandal tribe or am I asking if your DNA matches the DNA found at the scene of a crime?

If on the other hand I ask you whether your DNA proves that you are a vandalizer then my meaning is clear.

Consequently the exclusion of the nonce “vandalizer” from a dictionary because it is a nonce falls into the same category as a dictionary that excludes words because they are nouns.

Because the Wiktionary is a dictionary which excludes nonces it qualifies as a special purpose dictionary rather than as a comprehensive one. 10:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal 5,730,000 google hits - vandalizer 43,000 google hits. That 43,000 isn't so low except when it is compared with over 5 million. Not sure it is worth defining. RJFJR 03:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I did say usage under "special" circumstances. The problem is not volume of usage, however. The problem is that when a nonce is not defined its usage can be pointless or equally confusing. 05:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Are you referring to the use of the escape character, CHR$(27)? 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC) edited link to no longer point to malicious spam site. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Connel: The site where this link pointed: is not a malicious spam site. Your false statements are consequently deemed to be issued with malicious intent. 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are well aware, you specifically did not use the correct syntax you were taught, but instead linked the spam site "wikpedia" (missing the second "i".) That is a malicious site. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
My appologies. The spelling error, however, leads to a dead end and not to the wikpedia site. You may want to update the Wikpedia article on the Wikipedia site with a warning message since it is now populated with a REDIRECT to the article on the Wikipedia on the Wikipedia site. 03:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Everyone looking at the history of this page can see that what you say, is simply not true. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the history page and this is the link you corrected: It leads to a dead end despite the spelling error. (Actually it may not depending upon how your browser is setup and whether or not the Wiktionary site provides an automatic redirect.) In the warning you post on the Wikipedia site in the wikpedia article you may wish to also note that the wikpedia site does in fact create an automatic redirect to its home page when it receives a hit on a non-existent page. Since the Wiktionary site also defines Wikipedia and populates the definition of wikpedia with a REDIRECT you may also want to update the wikpedia definition with a warning or at least use it to provide the facts about the wikpedia site in the interest of sincerity and truth. 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
A malicious spam site is not a "dead end." No internet browser in existence can do what you suggest. A malicious link is a malicious link. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you and your new sysop appointee, Wildrick Steele, have decided that the Wikimedia Foundation supports your opinion that a link to the wikpedia site is malicious and without need of a determination being made here although the link may be accidentally accomplished by simply a spelling error. Have a great day. 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well actually it was not how the browser was setup but rather that when I first clicked on the wikpedia link (next time and hereafter I will test every link on the preview page first) the link was a dead end. My Goggle toolbar search engine then automatically tried to find the page because it had failed and its own try failed as well. After going to the history page and clicking on the link, however, I was taken directly to the wikpedia home page. Consequently it is apparent that the wikpedia site collects hits on non-existent pages and then creates a redirect to its home page for future hits on that page. If the Wiktionary community feels that the wikpedia site is a malicious Spam site then all it has to do is (Wikimedia policy allowing) correct the link automatically whenever it is submitted via a user's browser back to the Wiktionary site. Whether or not Wikimedia policy will permit this it would still be a great idea to update both the Wiktionary and the Wikipedia articles about the wikpedia site instead of just using the articles as a REDIRECT to the Wikipedia article to both inform and warn users of the malicious nature of the site in the interest of helping all users avoid making innocent and easy, if not common, spelling mistakes. And besides if I am not mistaken there is method called client side script or something of that nature which can in fact filter the contents of user browser submissions. I am pretty sure I’ve seen this done in terms of filtering or formatting browser textboxes. I’m sure there must be a way. 06:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Word Characteristics[edit]

I am beginning a project intended to optimize the order in which the various characteristics of words are organized. This project requires a comprehensive list of such characteristics and their values. For instance: using the characteristic “Parts of Speech” the characteristic values would be noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc. Although a good list of characteristics can be obtained from almost any dictionary entry I would prefer to develop an exhaustive and comprehensive list here. Any ideas as to the best way that this might be done? 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

The motto of the AIW is Salva veritate, which translates to, "with truth preserved." This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
Characteristics also include: number of double letters (Mississippi has 3), number of capitalized letters (McDonald has 2), number of vowels (twyndyllyngs has none), type of symmetry if any, and value considered as a number in base 36. Davilla 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
By symmetry I assume you mean words like Abba. What do you mean by "type" of symmetry? Can you list the "types"? Also what do you mean by "value" in base 36? Thanks. -- 19:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you might get more help and response over in the Beer Parlour, so I'm copying this section to there, and suggest the converdsation continues there, not here in the tea room, which is more about specific words, rather than methods.--Richardb 13:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)