User talk:Chuffable

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:etyl[edit]

Hi there. In the etymology sections, you need to add the |vo parameter to the {{etyl}} template - otherwise it looks like they are English words. See sap as an example. SemperBlotto 08:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Derived terms[edit]

The "Derived terms" section is for listing words (in the same language) derived from the present word, not words from which the present word is derived. (The latter go in the "Etymology" section.)​—msh210 22:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

you're right, my bad Chuffable 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

{{etyl}}[edit]

Please make sure to add |vo as the second parameter, or the word will end up in a category only for English terms (see [1]) Nadando 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Volapuk entries[edit]

Your new Volapük entries (e.g., zugön, but really all of them) seem to be copied straight out of http://personal.southern.edu/~caviness/Volapuk/Misc/vol-eng.htm and therefore be violations of the copyright on that page. Do you want to work on fixing them all (quickly, as copyright violations are not allowed), or shall I just delete them?​—msh210 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only so many ways of saying that a word in another language means an English one... How am I supposed to say zunik means angry without saying "zunik means angry," which are Ralph Midgley's words? Chuffable 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
For zugön you copied the entire example sentences. Obviously, it's possible to use other example sentences, and not just straight copy them from other dictionaries. All the other entries are also obvious copies. -- Prince Kassad 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Nearly every other entry has no example sentences of any kind. Do you intend to delete everything I've contributed? Chuffable 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If you continue with that behavior, then yes.
I don't think you really speak Volapük, I mean you're not even able to write simple example sentences. -- Prince Kassad 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You still can't copy stuff wholesale. (Diff, for the record.) I'm awaiting an answer to my original question, if you please.​—msh210 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. It's great that you're adding entries. Wiktionary needs more foreign-language entries, big time. But copying from another dictionary is not the way to do it.​—msh210 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, go for it. Fahrenheit 451 all that I've done. You won't see me here again. But just for the record, a.) Fluency in a language is not required to aid the Wiktionary project and b.) There is absolutely no way to say urs means bear in Romanian without copying SOME dictionary. Where's the line? Example sentences were thefts, fine. But that doesn't warrant a full-scale galactic delete of all the entries I added. Chuffable 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Think about it. If I were to start all over again and add the same words (which are all Volapük words) to Wiktionary, how would you even know where I got them from, aside from the two or three with example sentences? Chuffable 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain this to you in very clear and straightforward terms. Right now, you are on the hook for one-hundred and fifty thousand dollars. You see, under the copyright law in effect in the United States, the creator of a work such as this list of Volapuk definitions automatically owns the copyright in that work. This is not our rule, it's just the law. It even applies to lists of dictionary definitions, because the author selects which words to include and how to present them. If you copy this work without permission, you can be sued by the owner of the work. Please be aware that Wiktionary will not be held liable, because we are merely a host and are covered by the DMCA safe harbor. No one here will be liable for you, but you can be sued by the author of this list, who can easily prove willful copying on your part, for which there is an automatic statutory penalty of up to one-hundred and fifty thousand dollars. bd2412 T 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See e-mail to the author of the list below as pertains to permission. The man's permission (and subsequent confusion about why he is being asked for it) should be clear and straightforward enough. Chuffable 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. He would still be within his rights to sue you for infringement, because you appropriated the work before permission was given, and you are not the recipient of that permission. I'm not saying that he will sue you (if he's in the UK, it would ultimately not be worth his time to file a suit in the U.S. and hire local counsel), but if you're in the habit of copying from dictionaries that have not entered the public domain, you're putting yourself on the hook. bd2412 T 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I'm sorry. Upon re-reading I understand now what you're saying. Chuffable 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This user clearly doesn't give two shits about copyright violations. Ich denke, dass wir ihm ausrotten müssen. Etes-vous d'accord, mes amis? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas d'accord, mon ennemi. Explain the reasoning behind Wiktionary's simultaneous expectation sources and citations from dictionary entries coupled with their policy of deleting all of a user's contributions because they were taken from a set of dictionaries.
How can I use a source without using a source? Copyrighting a dictionary is very foolish in the first place.
'Orso' means 'Bear' is the only way you can say that. Chuffable 03:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There are some not-so-subtle differences between looking up words and copying entire examples. Also, adding words here isn't copying some dictionary if you already know the words in question. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any ©'s either here or here. Quite obviously I care about it enough to credit the man's name. Chuffable 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, why don't we simply ask Midgley for permission? If he gives us permission, there's no problem. I'll write him an email today and let you know about the outcome. Raekmannen 10:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how he should indicate his greenlighting this? E-mail to info-en, perhaps? Or are editors trusted in saying that they have such an e-mail from him? In any event, his permission actually has to be a release: AFAICT he has to release his dictionary under the licenses that all edits to enwikt are licensed under: cc by-sa 3 and GFDL.​—msh210 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how the right to short quotations affects this sort of thing. Obviously as pointed out, you can't copyright very short definitions like Dieu = God. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Which was what the bulk of my work on this website consisted of, mind you. (züan = bystander, zunülik = sarcastic, zunik = angry, as well as plenty more examples).
If I were to start over doing things the 'right way,' there would be no difference between almost all that I posted and the new things I would be posting. It would just not be in the same order.
In essence, any person who learns another language on his own (i.e., through a dictionary or a phrasebook or any copyrighted language learning text) is taking his "own knowledge" precisely from that dictionary. Anytime he is correct in saying Dieu = God, he is only correct thanks to the dictionary he got that from. The only time he truly uses his "own knowledge" of the language, in that sense, is when he posts a wrong translation or makes a mistake (as those mistakes weren't found in the dictionary).
It looks to me as though Wiktionary editors would rather have no entries at all or have wrong (guessed) entries than correct, verified entries (the kind they ask for, with source attributions). I was perfectly willing all along to attribute whatever credit I needed to to Ralph Midgley, at one point doing the best I could to do so here.
At the very least, you should re-include my post züflimön. In Midgley's dictionary that word is wrongly entered as züflumön, and I corrected it as I posted it on Wiktionary. So I do know a little something about it, thanks. Chuffable 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have restored that page. It is verification by someone knowledgeable in the language that we require. Too often mistakes have been blindly copied from other dictionaries, which leads to a somewhat confusing state of disapproval towards them. To make matters worse, a large number of internet sources will copy each other in semi-automatic fashion, which lends credibility to mistakes. Giving credit to other dictionaries is all very well, but relying on them to be right is not good enough (as you've demonstrated out with züflimön). This is why we (for English at least) require quotations of the word that demonstrate how it is used. (We technically require this for all languages, but for some there is not enough published literature to hope for this to work). On the copyright issue, copying the wording of a large number of definitions (even if they were only one word) would, I presume, become copyrightable given that there are many ways of expressing even the most basic concepts in most languages, and I suspect the author could claim credit for choosing the particular set of correspondences. I hope that has clarified things. Conrad.Irwin 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha, a little embarrassing: I had these two words backwards in my previous post: the corrected entry was züflumön, the misspelled one was züflimön. All apologies, the two words are very similar. Chuffable 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Good news, everyone! I have corresponded with Ralph Midgley and he has given us his permission. It was the way suspected: Midgley doesn't mind us using it, but he hasn't given us any formal (read: legally usable) written consent. I will write to him again and explain what we need (a formal release, in English, under a compatible license). The conversation is avaiable at User:Raekmannen/Conversation_with_Ralph_Midgley. Raekmannen 23:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That's great! If you could get the email forwarded to info-en@wiktionary.org too, then it can be kept accessible in case of future queries. Conrad.Irwin 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Certainly! I will make sure it will. Raekmannen 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)