User talk:Dan Polansky

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


Making simplified Chinese soft-redirect to traditional Chinese[edit]

Hi Dan. You have a vote running [1] but the outcome of it will be of no importance since it has already been implemented in many entries [2]. I will therefore suggest that you close the vote. Kinamand (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As for Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-12/Making simplified Chinese soft-redirect to traditional Chinese, I have no intention to prematurely close the vote. It is possible to undo non-consensual changes made before and during the vote if the vote fails. If you support the proposal of the vote, you can vote support now to bolster the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
As for "There is no point for a vote when no Chinese-language editor opposes the proposal. The vote is a means for a bunch of utter standers-by to dictate what chores others should do." diff: I do not subscribe to the thesis that the only editors who can have a say about Chinese-language entries are those who contribute to them. And I do not see anyone in the vote "dictating" others to do something, chores or otherwise; the opposers in the vote require that status quo is not changed, and therefore that no action is taken in certain regards. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I have now cast my vote. Kinamand (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Sorry fot the revert (Wiktionary:Votes/2014-09/Renaming rhyme pages). I wasn't aware of it. I don't know what happened. Lmaltier (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. When I saw it, I thought it was just an unintentional mistake, so no hard feelings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

German[edit]

Do you know how to code a German noun as uncountable? I'm at sea. Purplebackpack89 21:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Category:German uncountable nouns has examples, e.g. Schnee. However, I don't like how every sense in Schnee is marked uncountable on every definition line; that should not be done, IMHO, and it was not there in this revision, which had this:

{{de-noun|m|Schnees|-}}

# {{weather|lang=de}} [[snow]]

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. It is different for a proper noun? TBH, the German proper noun template should make ALL German proper nouns uncountable. The word I'm working on is Sezessionskrieg. It should not have a genetive or plural; I believe its gender to be male because the root word Krieg is also male. Purplebackpack89 15:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For gender, you can check Duden, which I added to Sezessionskrieg. Proper nouns do have genitives. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess I don't know what a genitive is. What's a genitive? Purplebackpack89 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
W:Genitive case#German. Duden shows genitive ("Genitiv"). google books:"Sezessionskrieges" and google books:"Sezessionskriegs" shows examples of use of the two possible genitives. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I have updated the entry; I hope you all don't mind. According to the Duden and German Wiktionary, it also means any war of secession and is countable in that form. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool beans. Purplebackpack89 05:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Czech iteratives or frequentatives[edit]

I have entered stávat tentatively as "iterative". User:Diligent also mentioned the term "frequentative" in connection with "iterative", on my talk page. fr:stávat says "Itératif ou duratif de stát"; en.wikt durative says "(linguistics) Of or pertaining to the aspect of a verb that expresses continuing action; continuative"; thus, continuative is another candidate term. de:stávat says "iteratives Verb".

Another use of "stávat" other than iterative ("to se stává") is the "used to" use, meaning "it did, but does not more". "stával tam dům" => it does not stand there any more. It may be that past forms of iteratives are generally used as used-to-forms when in the past form.

Some Czech sources use the Czech word iterativum:

  • "Ale ne kazdé sloveso -iti má k sobě iterativum -ívati, ..." -- Jan Gebauer, 1896
  • "Sloveso nosit jako iterativum ke slovesu nést (a dokonavému zanést) je v tomto pojetí jiné sloveso (má jiny s-glyf) nez členité sloveso nosit, ..." -- Jarmila Panevová, ‎Eva Benešová, 1971
  • "Když tedy se užívá termínu iterativum v jazycích, které de facto nemají príznaková iterativa, nevadí to tak velice jako u nás, kde tuto kategorii máme, ale termínu pro ni vhodného uzíváme pro slovesa zcela jiná, pro jisty morfologicky druh ..." -- František Kopečný, 1962

One feature of "stávat" is that both the iterative and the base form "stát" are imperfective. Iteratives can probably be also formed from perfectives, so "kupovat" is probably also an iterative, while "koupit" is perfective.

Similar cases:

  • být --> bývat
  • mít --> mívat
  • stát --> stávat
  • brát --> brávat
  • dělat --> dělávat
  • spát --> spávat
  • znát --> znávat: attested in the form "znával"
  • bydlet or bydlit --> bydlívat
  • snít --> snívat
  • koupit --> kupovat: but koupit is perfective
  • mluvit --> mluvívat

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:fool[edit]

Why did you undo my edit here? Fool can mean "jester", and the synonyms for "fool" associated with that definition are different than the ones for the definition that applies to low mental capacity. Purplebackpack89 02:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Each Wikisaurus page is for a sense or a synonym cluster, not for a word. The word chosen to represent the sense is an accident. The cluster for jester can be hosted on Wikisaurus:jester; it does not need to occupy the same page as Wikisaurus:fool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Náprava Wikislovníka[edit]

Ahoj,

založil jsem iniciativu k nápravě českého Wikislovníka. Uvědomil jsem si, že je třeba to změnit. Správci tam nerespektují pravidla a pronásledují nepohodlné editory. To na wikiprojekt nepatří. Pokud budeš mít chuť, jsi vítán. Každá ruka dobrá.Juandev (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria[edit]

In order to avoid the occasional misrepresentation of bizarre foreign terms that require multi-word English translations, I think we should draft a vote that would specify limitations on when arguably SOP terms should be allowed for the purpose of collecting targets for multiple foreign single-word translations. I agree with the standards you have generally suggested in discussions. bd2412 T 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking of something like this:
A translation target is an English multi-word term that is useful for hosting translations. Some attested non-idiomatic translation targets should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. Therefore, the following is tentative. A translation that is a closed compound such as German Autoschlüssel should not support inclusion of an English term as a translation target, in this case "car key". By contrast, a single-word non-compound such as German Anglistik should be considered to support inclusion of its most usually used English translation, in this case English studies. The existence of a rare English term such as Anglistics should not detract from its synonym such as English studies being included as a translation target. Diminutives should not support inclusion of an English term as a translation target. Sentence-like terms such as xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓ ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") should not support a term as a translation terget. How many qualifying translations are needed to justify the inclusion of a translation target is left undecided.
I want to emphasize that I do not feel confident about drafting a rigid code. I want the discussion to be rather open, and people encouraged to think about what is inclusion-worthy and why. I was also thinking about an entirely minimalist version, but that would not meet your interest in having closed compounds explicitly discarded:
A translation target is an English multi-word term that is useful for hosting translations. Some attested non-idiomatic translation targets should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rather have some narrow language permitting the inclusion of arguably non-idiomatic terms as translation targets than no language at all, and routine CFI-based arguments for the exclusion of such terms. bd2412 T 18:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So what is the wording that you propose? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I would require that there be at least two languages using space-delineated writing systems where the term exists as a single word (which would make the translation table for cross-referencing from one language to another), and that the proposed English term or phrase must itself be verifiable as being used as a common collocation independently of translations of the non-English terms. bd2412 T 03:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a next version, intending to address your concerns. It is rather long, but it probably has to be given it contains actual substance.

A translation target is a common English multi-word term or collocation that is useful for hosting translations. Some attested non-idiomatic translation targets should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. Therefore, the following criteria for inclusion of attested non-idiomatic translation targets are tentative:

  • The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify.
  • The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term. For instance, the existence of Anglistics, which is rare, does not disqualify English studies.
  • A translation that is a closed compound does not qualify to support the English term. For instance, German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key".
  • A translation that consists of multiple words and is a word-for-word translation of the English term does not qualify to support the English term.
  • A translation into a language that does not use spaces to separate words does not qualify to support the English term.
  • A sentence-like translation such as xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓ ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") does not qualify to support the English term.
  • A translation that is a diminutive does not qualify to support the English term.
  • At the very least, two qualifying translations must support the English term. Editor judgment can require a higher number, on a case-by-case basis.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's even necessary to mention the "sentence-like translation". I would instead say that a phrase or sentence that only ever appears as a translation of the term does not qualify. Or, the first term could be qualified by such a condition. bd2412 T 01:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's an excellent point: google books:"he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant" is probably not even attested in use as an English term (mentions can be found), let alone being common English term, and the 1st bullet already requires the English phrase to be common. So it appears that the "sentence-like translation" bullet point may be omitted without replacement, unless there is a real risk that there are common sentence-like English phrases that would be includable because of languages like Bella Coola (xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓ ). Even if and after such risk becomes tangible, voters can knock off such putative translation targets on one-off basis, because of the tentativeness built into the regulation; and if that becomes too onerous, CFI can be later amended with the bullet point or the alternative you proposed. I have inserted the word "attested" into the 1st bullet point to drive the attestation-required point home more strongly, although attestation is already mentioned before the list of bullet points. I have striken the discussed bullet point to indicate what the current draft is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I generally agree, although I would still like some language indicating that the phrase has to exist in English independent of efforts to translate the foreign phrase. For example, most instances of "Celtic studies" in English are not explaining some foreign-language term. bd2412 T 13:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        • What would be an example of an English term that is attested in use, and at the same time relates to or depends on efforts to translate a foreign phrase? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Actually, I can't think of one offhand. This is really directed at the "had in his possession a bunchberry plant" thing. The only time that phrase ever comes up in English is when translating the other phrase. I imagine some things in Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English might have comparable translation-only counterpart phrases. bd2412 T 19:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
            • In the absence of an actual example, I would keep the text as simple as possible and therefore as is. I would only add complexity based on actuals, not on hypotheticals. Again, we can still vote down one-off troubling examples after they get discovered, and we can amend the text later after the real trouble gets discovered.

              I have a general note on the prospective vote. Votes are tricky. The longer we keep on explaining why this is a good thing in RFD, the more people get exposed to that explanation, become familiar with it, and will be more likely to support the proposal. Therefore, I feel there should really be no hurry with having a vote. The vote can easily end up in no consensus for a variety of reasons, one being that votes usually last only a month while RFDs sit in RFD page longer, and that multiple people have their mind so set against translation targets that they are ready to bring forward the fallacious example of xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓. I probably won't convince you, since the point of your present effort is to have a vote and have RFD follow CFI rather than making exceptions. Nonetheless, I present the previous for your consideration.

              On one another note, we should probably carefully draft a rationale, in the same careful way in which we draft the proposal itself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

              • I'm actually not in a terrible rush. bd2412 T 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:BD2412: I have inserted a new item above: A translation that consists of multiple words and is a word-for-word translation of the English term does not qualify to support the English term. What do you think? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I support that. I thought there was already something to that effect in the draft, but I see there is not. At this point, I would group the "does not qualify" statements like this:
  • A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is:
    • a closed compound or a diminutive; for instance, German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key", and Spanish mecedorcito does not qualify to support the English "small rocking chair";
    • a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term; or
    • a phrase in a language that does not use spaces to separate words.
  • How about that? bd2412 T 13:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:BD2412: Looks like an improvement, but I would like to keep closed compound and diminutive separate, since these really are quite different cases to me. Yeah, I also thought we had this covered, but it somehow was not there. Next draft based on the above with diminutives separated out; I have also moved the "rare single-word English synonym" item to the very bottom since the newly resulting 2nd item seems more central, and I replaced "for instance" with a colon (that should do):

A translation target is a common English multi-word term or collocation that is useful for hosting translations. Some attested non-idiomatic translation targets should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. Therefore, the following criteria for inclusion of attested non-idiomatic translation targets are tentative:

  • The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify.
  • A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is:
    • a closed compound: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key"; or
    • a diminutive: Spanish mecedorcito does not qualify to support the English "small rocking chair"; or
    • a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term; or
    • a phrase in a language that does not use spaces to separate words.
  • At the very least, two qualifying translations must support the English term. Editor judgment can require a higher number, on a case-by-case basis.
  • The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term: the existence of Anglistics, which is rare, does not disqualify English studies.

Any comments? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would remove the first "non-idiomatic" from "Some attested non-idiomatic translation targets should be included despite being non-idiomatic"; otherwise, I think that it is very good as it is. bd2412 T 15:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, removed by striking it out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the point? CFI isn't binding anyway. It's optional. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:BD2412: What about a rationale, to be posted on the talk page of the vote? Here is a draft:

Rationale

Translation target entries have the following benefits, shown on the examples of German and Czech but pertaining to non-English languages in general:

  • Make English-to-German translation convenient: if you want to know how to translate English studies to German, it is most convenient to go to an ordinary entry and find your translation where you expect it to be. It is much less convenient to have to use the search function for "English studies"[3], which finds the following list of items as per the search result page: English studies, Anglicist, studies, anglistika, Anglistik, haplography, English, англистика, Holodomor, anglistica, computative, omnisexual, ...
  • Enable Czech-to-German traversal via the English hub or the middleman: anglistikaEnglish studiesAnglistik; ditto for any two non-English languages. This naturally works for kočkacatKatze.
  • Answer the following question via a page with a familiar format: what are all single-word translations into various languages of the term "English studies"?

As for the choice of languages above, that can change; Czech is a minor language, and it could be of value to use Spanish instead, for its widespread use in the U.S. -Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the rationale would be to make translation convenient for any English phrase that tends to be a single word in other languages, no matter what those languages are. bd2412 T 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@User:BD2412: That's correct, but we have to show some examples. I am not explicit about these being mere examples, also examples of languages, but we still need to show and exemplify, not merely describe. I made an insertion at the beginning ("shown on the examples of German and Czech ..."); does it help a bit? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes - before it looked like the rationale was focused on specific languages. This makes it clear that these are only examples. bd2412 T 17:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hlasování na cs[edit]

Upozorňuji na hlasování na cs.Juandev (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, requested by me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts of sophy[edit]

Please read what I actually did (diff) that you reverted. In my opinion, you only looked at the sophy page.

  • The revert with your summary "keep only one reference section or else the page becomes even more untidy or harder to overview" is not inline with the WT:MOS and, more importantly, you replaced my corrected live links to the OED entries with the previously broken links. Why? How can your broken links be better than my live links...
  • The revert with your summary "Restore 17 December 2014‎: the removal of quotations was unjustified since it left some senses without quotations" did not take into account any of changes done in the entry Sophy.
I changed Etymology 2 to an alternate of Sophy, which is the lemma (that had its own OED entry referenced on the sophy page) and listed Soffi, Sofi, Sophi, Sophie as alternate forms on that page. I moved the shared content to that page, i.e. Sophy, which is well referenced and cited on a citation page.
  • You stripped {{senseid}}s for no apparent reason – I added them for a reason.
  • You reverted the pronuciation in Etymology 2 which I removed – as it is an alternate capitalization of Sophy
  • You reverted the definition I wrote for Etymology 2 – do you really think that:
Alternative spelling of Sophy (in the senses of “a Persian monarch” and “a personage”).
is a better and more accurate definition than:
Alternative letter-case form of Sophy (title of a Safavid dynasty shah):
which I changed it to?

BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple of your edits in sophy may need to be reinstated, including addition of sense id and correction of the references, and also some others. Above all, quotations that use capitalization "sophy" should stay at sophy and not be moved to another page; they attest the use of lowercase. As for placement of references, again, the page is hard to overlook already as is; you are right that WT:ELE seems to stipulate placement of external links and references as you made it but it is not the most common practice AFAIK, and it is a poor practice, IMHO. One problem is that your edits looks suspect; in diff, the edit summary is "Nested updated OED online references" but the edit also changed Etymology 5. Or diff says "added senseids to link from Middle English sophie; moved some quotes to citations page" but does more, including changing "alternative spelling of" definition. Reviewing these sorts of edits is hard. It is easier to revert and then see what can be salvaged, even if the revert goes overboard.
What I now see at Sophy having been added by you (this revision, I did not revert it) makes me rather uneasy, especially the long list of references immediately below the etymology in Etymology 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. " [] your edits in sophy may need to be reinstated, [] "
    —They should be, I will manually revert all your reverts on that page.
  2. " [] quotations that use capitalization "sophy" should stay at sophy and not be moved to another page; they attest the use of lowercase."
    —So, in other words, all that I forgot to place in sophy was {{seeCites}}Citations:sophy, where I moved some of the lower case quotes, which BTW were nicked along with all the quotes from OED in the first place.
  3. "As for placement of references, [] IMHO.
    —I agree with you, I think the references for etymologies should be collapsed beneath the etymology even if there is only a single reference. But, standards in place do not describe using a collapsable wrapper.
  4. One problem is that your edits looks suspect; []
    —But you never checked or contacted me to defend my actions. My summaries seemed acceptable to me.
  5. "Reviewing [] is hard. It is easier to revert and then see what can be salvaged, [] "
    —You didn't know what the contribution was. That type of revert is realistically going to chase new contributors away from wiktionary, yours is not the first time that happened to me although I had taken the time to read and understand the documentation. I have a gut feeling it's a system wide problem. Other new editors will, seeing a revert that replaces their updated live links with dead links, will certainly mumble WTF. A post on my user talk page would clarify all of your confusion with little effort on your part.
  6. "What I now see at Sophy having been added by you [] makes me rather uneasy, especially the long list of references [] "
    —Why do references make you "rather uneasy"? They provide attestation, they are not about usage. My very first contribution was reverted because an administrator also did not like the way I document what I did, I am experienced enough to see that it was also more about how my edit looked rather than about the content, in other words, conflating the style with the content, although I followed the available documentation. Lack of references make me feel uneasy because I have no way to verify what is correct but may look questionable to me, after all, not knowing about something would be the reason for looking up an entry.
BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Your placement of References section in Sophy is uncustumary (important); it does not meet WT:ELE either (less important). --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"Etymologies should be referenced if possible, ideally by footnotes within the “Etymology” section" Wiktionary:Etymology#ReferencesBoBoMisiu (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC), modified 03:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
See apology on User talk:BoBoMisiu for placing references in etymology section. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood Wiktionary:Etymology#References; the footnotes technique that the section mentioned before I removed the section is one of <ref></ref> and <references/>, where <ref></ref> is placed directly after the sourced etymological statement while the references themselves are placed at the end of the entry; see e.g. klokan#Czech. Nonetheless, I removed the section References from Wiktionary:Etymology to prevent further misunderstanding. While referencing etymologies is not wrong, it is not very customary in the English Wiktionary and is not necessary IMHO, especially if the edit that changes etymology indicates the sources on which the change is based in the edit summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought it was odd to do that way. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts of Nosema[edit]

You wrote in the edit summary, "remove references from the definition: we do not reference definitions, instead seeking attestation of actual use per WT:ATTEST". Please note that these are taxonomic categories, it is inappropriate not to reference these kinds of categories since they are authoritative groupings. To show usage of an authoritative taxonomic category is like showing the usage of any other type of authority file. I can't believe referencing where the authority defines the organizing system, the standard of relationships between things, is incorrect — usage does not define this type of thing. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you don't believe me that we do not reference definitions, you can ask e.g. DCDuring, or check our Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, whose content is perfectly referenced albeit not really in use and therefore absent from the mainspace. Or you can look around to see how many referenced definitions you find in the English Wiktionary. Let me point out the idea of common practice to you: if you look around, you will find how we actually do things here. Looking around is much safer than reading draft policies written by all sorts of would-be editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand what is being referenced. A citations page provides the quotes for wiktionary attestation, the references provide real world attestation about the structure of the knowledge not the use of the term. For example, if I find a quote, about something which is authoritatively categorized as a beaver, that describes a beaver as a kind of palm tree, that quote is about how the term is used — it would be nonsensical to claim that such a quote has anything to do with the categorization of the actual beaver. I did not use the references for definitions but for structure. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My position is clear: we don't reference definitions. Consider asking someone else, e.g. DCDuring. Note that, in Nosema, I have been reverted by ‎Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, a user noted for unexplained reverts (such as this one, check the edit summary) and for harassing me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Here’s the explanation:
  • Your edit caused a load of error messages to appear in the entry;
  • Your claim that we don’t reference definitions is absolute bullshit.
Ungoliant (falai) 21:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is, again, that I am not referencing the definition that the references point to. I am providing the user with the context to decide which definition to use. There are two senses, each with different authority, by removing the references the user has much less information about which definition to chose. The references are not to definitions but to authority files in the same way that an ISBN or a Dewey number or a VIAF number, they are identifications within particular structures not about usage. I can, of course, place two or three words from each of those sources into quote marks... but that would be terms without context and therefore nonsensical. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The explanation was directed at Dan Polansky. Your edits are appreciated, BoBoMisiu. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As for "Your claim that we don’t reference definitions is absolute bullshit", the kind reader will easily verify that it is the absolutely overwhelming practice of the English Wiktionary not to reference definitions; the practice is to provide attesting quotations. Provision of attesting quotations is not referencing; adding a <ref> tag after a definition that leads to a dictionary is referencing, and something the English Wiktionary verifiably in general does not do. I direct the reader to WT:RFV page, and see how requests for verification are handled there; the reader will see that such requests are handled by provision of attesting quotations, and that references to dictionaries or other authoritative sources making claims about definitions are not provided there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts of Sophy[edit]

You wrote in the edit summary, "remove references from the definition: we do not reference definitions, instead seeking attestation of actual use per WT:ATTEST". Please note that Citations:Sophy exists for attestation. There are two senses to the word, the references proved a link to which definition is found in which source. There are also other senses to the word which have not yet been added. The references are not for WT:ATTEST which is clearly made on Citations:Sophy. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your block cs.wikt[edit]

Hi, I saw you were blocked on Czech Wiktionary for two weeks (!!). This is the biggest bullshit I've seen there so far. (Note to passers-by: Dan Polansky reverted an important policy change that was performed without any discussions about it whatsoever.) Well, is there something we can do about it? --Auvajs (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There is plentiful evidence in the Czech Wiktionary that is damning for the blocking admin and the small oligarchy ruling the place with a very unwiki iron fist. Their non-consensual wholesale removal of all images from the Czech Wiktionary is on record. Let us see for how long these people can escape just consequences of their unjust actions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is one thing you can do. As many people as possible need to restore my changes at cs:Wikislovník:Formát hesla. If you don't do that, the oligarchy will use the fact that you did not edit the page as "evidence of consensus", disregarding the disagreement in the discussion; this is what they are doing right now in reference to that non-consensual edit from 2012. Ideally, your edits should have a meaningful English edit summary so that the whole thing is easy to understand and follow for admins across the world. As a community, you must produce verifiable evidence of resistance to the oligarchy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if I reverted it back they'd probably block me too. I was already blocked for using the expression "chroničtí mazači" (chronic deleters) - despite the fact there is a user who routinely uses much harsher expressions - but she's a part of this oligarchy so she can do anything, you know. But back to the images - yes there was absolutely no consensus of removing them and they repeatedly stated that a consensus is needed to remove a consensus. But even if we are obviously right, we can't do anything. From what I've heard stewards don't remove admin rights if there is no consensus on the site for it. So if an admin blocks out all his opponents or makes them leave he can stay there literally for ever. It's sad but this is how Wikimedia projects run. There is no other solution how to change cs.wikt except bring more supporting people and vote them out. Leaving the project as a sign of protest leads nowhere - admins from other sites can't interfere. Only stewards could interfere but in this situation they'd probably say this is a inner wiki conflict and the wiki must solve it on its own. They have some policy to not interfere in inner wiki conflicts. --Auvajs (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You must revert back at least once at cs:Wikislovník:Formát hesla to my revision and thereby risk being blocked for it. There is no other way. You must not be intimidated. These admins now claim that because no one reverted the non-consensual 2012 edit, there actually was consensus. That is outrageous: because people were nice and civil and limited their actions to discussion pages, their opposition is now being disregarded. You must not repeat the error that the opposers made in 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not intimidated but I can guess that it will lead nowhere. --Auvajs (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You have to take risks. Political actions have very uncertain outcomes. Nonetheless, the more opposers produce objectively verifiable evidence of opposition directly in cs:Wikislovník:Formát hesla, the more difficult it is going to be for the junta to claim that there was actually consensus for wholesale removal of images. Thus, other opposers of the wholesale removal of images from the Czech Wiktionary must follow my example and your example, and edit cs:Wikislovník:Formát hesla to restore my revision. You can think of it as an analogue of a vote: no endless discussions which are too long to read and contain volumes of irrelevant arguments why images are actually harmful in a dictionary. Each editor who edits cs:Wikislovník:Formát hesla to restore my revision is in effect casting a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ref Trolling (cs.wikt)[edit]

Just out of curiosity: how would en.wikt community react to this kind of trolling? --Auvajs (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding "doplňte zdroj" (citation needed, RFV) to what is, per WT:CFI, attested by "clearly widespread use" should be reverted. Ideally, the reverting should be done not by a single person but rather, each additional revert should be done by another person. The reverts should not be mere reverts but should have clear, civil edit summaries; the word "troll" should not appear in the edit summaries. Given the suspicion of systematic improper administration of the project, the reverting edit summary could be in English but it is more polite to the community for it to be in Czech; I used English since I am confident the project is improperly administered. The use of the word "trolling" should better be limited: while it is true that user Dubicko/Lenka64 engages in disruptive behavior, not each disruptive behavior is trolling.
Prospective edit summaries:
  • "Odstranit požadavek na ověření zřejmého"
  • "Remove request for verification of obvious meaning that is in widespread use"
  • "cs: Odstranit požadavek na ověření zřejmého; en: remove request for verification of obvious meaning that is in widespread use"
    This is both in Czech and English, so should be polite enough to the local community.
If user Dubicko/Lenka64 continues to revert, the next step is to post to their talk page. The user probably won't respond in a helpful way, but it does not matter: it is of advantage to produce objective verifiable evidence that you have tried to resolve the issue by talking to the user. Each person who supports the request to the user should add their post to the thread in the talk page, to produce objective verifiable evidence that the originator of the thread on the talk page is not a lone voice. During all that, it is essential, even if hard, to remain civil. It is of great value to avoid speculation about motives of user Dubicko/Lenka64. When referring to the user, it is of value to always use the combination Dubicko/Lenka64 rather than using Dubicko alone, to provide cross-reference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

desysop @ cs.wikt[edit]

Hi, have a look at this: cs:Wikislovník:Hlasování/Zbavení práv správce uživatele Milda. Since there are other inactive users voting I invite you to cast a vote as well (after your block expires). User:Milda is one of the reasons cs.wikt has such a bad community. --Auvajs (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lemming heuristic[edit]

The lemming heuristic (AKA lemming test, lemming principle and lemmings heuristic) states that a putative sum-of-parts entry nominated to RFD can be kept for the reason that it is present in certain kind of dictionaries. The heuristic was, AFAIR, proposed by DCDuring years ago and used in RFD over the years on an informal basis by multiple people. It was discussed in Beer parlour in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs, where it received a broad support with some opposition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)