I have added yours as well as 24's (and my own) formatting ideas to Wiktionary:Formatting_Policy_Proposal for consideration and debate, yours is Layout 2, please ammend it in any way you see fit so that it best represents what you feel is the best formatting for us to use as a group. Thanks, TheDaveRoss 21:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you ask to be blocked for 10 minutes? Kevin Rector 18:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but by IP (this one). Jun-Dai
Ok, you were blocked and then you wer unblocked... was it everything that you hoped it would be? Kevin Rector 18:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The argument about spurrious blocking is actually bogus. There is no "nightmare" for any university that is blocked...they can still access pages in read mode to their heart's content. They cannot upload content during the time they are blocked.
The addition of new content is not significantly affected by one (or several) institutions being blocked for a week at a time.
If, for some strange reason, a univerity finds a "need" to be unblocked, they can request an unublock, and within an hour will be back in business. If subsequent vandalism occurs, they will have to identify the troublemaker within their own network, then request another unblocking. This can happily go on indefinately, until they catch the troublemaker red-handed. Then, punitive actions will be for them to pursue.
Even the above scenario is a bit far fetched though. We've never had significant contributions from the targetted university that was mentioned, right? It is my guess that we've never had any contributions from there...that the vandal just compromised a box somewhere, did a traceroute on it, and posted nonsense here about it.
In reality though, a typical 24 hour block won't be noticed by anyone but the vandal. Anyone else encountering a block might shrug and try it from home that evening. A less typical ten-day block has a possibility of being noticed, but again, not likely. I am beginning to think that all blocks should be permanent...that until a network admin requests unblocking, an IP (that inherently is known to have been compromised) should stay blocked.
I think better auto-blocking tools might do better to save the day. E.g. anytime an image is deleted with a comment "goatse" the CRC of the image is saved off on a prohibition list. Whenever someone tries to re-upload that image, (or any image of the same size, with the same CRC) they are automatically blocked for 24 hours (or permenantly...as above.)
I am no fan of bowdlerizing, but these particular images are readily available from thousands of places on the internet if anyone would actually like to see what all the hubbub is about. --Connel MacKenzie 21:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- on the one hand, you are right. For all practical purposes, it isn't especially meaningful, for now. But, should a vandal somehow manage to access the Wiktionary from inside a large proxy, say of a large company, or of a university, that one of our contributors uses, it would prohibit any contributions of that user, logged in or otherwise, until the block was undone. There are certainly IP addresses that affect tens of thousands of people (I'm on one), and the main reason that this isn't a problem right now is the mere fact that we don't really have more than a dozen and a half contributors anyhow, most of which have their own IP, or share it will a small number of people. But the number of contributors will increase over time. If it doesn't, Wiktionary won't reach any real state of usefulness this side of the 22nd century.
- I am a little concerned about the idea of the "if the university wants to contribute, let them chase down the vandal first" attitude - that's the sort of approach that would ultimately limit our expandability. If there is a vandal using a university IP, and it effectively blocks the whole university, and members of that university want to contribute, then we would making a big mistake to simply tell them they can have their IP unblocked once they find the vandal--instead, we would have to find alternative solutions to the problem, either living with the vandalism from that IP, or getting better tools built into the MediaWiki. I hope that the software will someday allow the banning of only anonymous contributions from a particular IP address, instead of only having the option to block all contributios from an IP.
- Jun-Dai, there is another reason I'm not concerned. Wikipedia has to deal with this problem long before we do. I will happily bet $1.00 (US) that the Wiki* software will allow registered users to be exempt from blocks long before we have even one such (verified) occurance on Wiktionary. I will also guess that Wiki* software will eventually allow blocked IP's to register new users, and that the new user accounts will be limited to only one or two or three new entries per account (until that edit is "patrolled") or something to that effect. Right now, that is not even an issue for Wikipedia, let alone the order-of-magnitude-less-popular Wiktionary. (BTW, I am quite happy we are under the radar for now.)
- Honestly, I'm a little surprised that Mr. Ass Pus hasn't started creating accounts that have a half-dozen legitimate contributions first (to throw us off a little) before blasting away. When it gets to that point, I'm sure something else will be done to slow him down. (5 second delays for all new users, patrolled edits, that sort of thing.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey! Please follow the procedure of moving removed text to the talk page, with justification as to why you think it does not belong.
I disagree that it is a vandalous entry. POV, yes. But it is a meaning the word seems to have...
--Connel MacKenzie 04:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Done. If you really think it belongs, let's argue about it, but I'll warn you that I'm pretty strongly of the mind that it does not qualify as a definition. Jun-Dai 04:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. It really is hard to guess which direction the objection is coming from when you just remove text. (And no, I generally do not check talk page spelling as closely as main article text.) :-) Responding on talk:vegetarian... --Connel MacKenzie 10:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to sysophood. I was concerned when you first arrived that you might be too argumentative, but in the long run this has not always been the case. Thank you for your recent patience. Eclecticology 08:29, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
- Congrats and welcome to the wonderful world of extra buttons/responsibility. Oh, and thanks for helping drive all this policy stuff. It's not my favorite part, so if you want my attention for something, please speak up. --Dvortygirl 21:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at Wiktionary talk:Categories. I basically agree with what you say about the nature of dictionaries. Normally I would have commented on that page, but i find the comments of the anonymous poster so far into an electronic other world that anything that I might have said there would only have added to the confusion. Eclecticology 04:30, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
- Don't feed the troll. Eclecticology 18:26, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
You are technically right about abbreviations not being a part of speech. For that matter neither is "Romaji". But then Romaji by itself is not a language either. The practical question then becomes what do we do with these concepts? The important thing becomes defining just what these things are.
I have no problem accepting contractions as an additional category in the same group as abbreviations and the others.
In my discussion with Connel about including things in two levels of category I'm arguing the same point as you. Eclecticology 21:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
You are quite correct; I should not have called that vandalism. I find it very frustrating to be in the midst of a delicate debate and having such in interruption thrown in from left field. Not only was I mostly incorrect in calling it vandalism, the reversion itself may have been an overreaction (due to the frustration of having other valid points ignored during the interim.)
I think it is wise to revisit this side issue when the other is resolved, no? --Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK. Words I must not use: oriental, vandalism (err, except for AP). OK. I'm with you! --Connel MacKenzie 22:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An observation about current usage. There is a prominently placed (opposite the second half of the Table of Contents) ad by Singapore Airlines in the July issue of Scientific American. In the ad they refer to the "Enchanting ORIENT". (Capitalization theirs) - Eclecticology July 6, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
I've been looking at our titles like Wiktionary:Language considerations (Japaneses) and have begun to feel that these titles are a little too wordy, and they could become even more so if we need to subdivide them later. I am thinking of changing that title to Wiktionary:About Japanese. This would help with later subdivision into such things as Wiktionary:About Japanese romanization or Wiktionary:About Japanese grammar or whatever else we may need at some later stage. If we were to adopt such a standard it would be better to do so before too many articles need such a change.
What brought this on was looking at what we currently have in the "Appendix/appendix" pseudonamespace so that we can more clearly define what goes in there on the way to its some day becoming a full status namespace. It currently includes a variety of articles about several scripts that should be moved out to "Language consideration" pages such as Appendix:Arabic script. Since we have discussed such issues before I thought it best to give you a heads up on what I'm doing. Eclecticology July 6, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
- That's a fair question about "About". My thinking was that this format could keep all these articles together on the list, and therefore browsable. Eclecticology July 7, 2005 02:06 (UTC)
Sorry about the conflict over Greek. It seems that we were trying two different things at the same time. I've merged the two, but for now all I'm trying to do is bring these various pages about language into one place.
EDIT WAR WARNING
Gerard Foley 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Location of main entry for Japanese words
Hi Jun-Dai. It looks like you may no longer be active on Wiktionary, but if you still are interested in the Wiktionary policy for Japanese entries, please see Wiktionary talk:About Japanese#Hiragana and romaji in entries, proposing a modification to your kana/kanji proposal. The new proposal suggests to define 漢語 (kango) terms fully on their kanji page and 和語 (wago) terms on their kana page. Rodasmith 06:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Or rather the other way 'round -- wago (和語) terms on the kana page and kango (漢語) terms on the kanji page. :) Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Clicking on your "E-mail this user" link, I get:
- No e-mail address
- This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.
Could you fix this please?
By the way, welcome back. I welcome the opportunity to butt heads with someone in a civil manner. It has been a while! :-) Are you going to continue with the duplicitous arguments on "resume"? :-)
- "Duplicitous," eh? Damn. I thought I was being fair. Ah well, we'll have to keep working on it. I feel it's better than where we were before, anyhow. Not sure what the e-mail issue is, but I'll stick one in. Jun-Dai 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Another of your gems is lined up for the chopping block, on WT:RFC#racism...erm, and with good reason. Can you take a stab at reducing that to three sentences instead of three pages? TIA.
--Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Your e-mail link is still borked. Try fixing it in Special:Preferences.