|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Talk:Czechia||0||22:43, 4 October 2014|
|Buffer||3||10:45, 29 September 2014|
|phobia definitions||0||04:55, 10 September 2014|
|Blocking the crackpot||5||14:51, 23 August 2014|
I understand that many people erroneously use "data" as a singular, uncountable noun synonymous to "information"; but it is in fact a plural noun. Using it thereas is not archaic, wrong, nor overly pedantic. Even if "often before it is sent to an external device . . ." sounds wrong, it isn't. I believe that Wiktionary should use correct grammar and other conventions in its definitions and examples, as it is my primary source of all wordly data. I don't mean to pontificate, but I am very passionate about grammar and I like to see things done properly. Dylanvt (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"Data" in a computer context is not the same thing as "data" in some other contexts. Just as it's quite proper to say indexes when you're referring to data structures, you shouldn't refer to computer data as plural. After all, what is a computer datum? is it a bit? A byte? The contents of one field in one record of a database? Has anyone since the early days of computing even referred to a computer datum in English?
I concede that like noöne has ever referred to a singular computer datum, but I think of the word "datum" as simply meaning 'a single piece of information (of any type)'. I am certainly not an expert on programming or computing, so I wouldn't know about their argots. But generally speaking, "data" is always plural and "datum" always singular. And the definition for "buffer" is: "A portion of memory set aside to store data, often before it is sent to an external device . . .", which refers to multiple "data" or "pieces of information" beïng sent to somewhere. If it were just one piece of information beïng sent, then "it is" would be accurate. But since it is referring to multiple (general) data, I think it should be treated as a plural noun. I will conclude by saying that it isn't of supreme importance to me that the definition be fixed; I just personally think it should say "they are".
Hi PalkiaX50, I'm writing concerning the rollbacks of changes on gynophobia, androphobia and androphobe. The reason I removed "hatred" from the definition is that the term refers to a phobia/fear disorder which doesn't necessarily have to have hatred attached to it (someone can be afraid of something but not hate it). Oxford online does not mention it  either, but I do think that the fear disorders are largely tied to misandry/misogyny though. My concern is that the definition is about the phobia, not the hatred of the gender, which might be different (Idk though, what do you think?). However I feel that "hatred" refers more to misogyny/misandry. Merriam-webster does not use the word "hatred" in describing androphobia  but it does use words related to aversion so that's ok.
I see you have blocked the WT:FEED crackpot. I don't think that is good. People should not have been responding to the crackpot; if multiple people were repeatedly responding, they are themselves at fault and not the crackpot.
Yeah, trolling that troll was keeping me out of trouble. What am I supposed to do now?
*sigh*, Well I just felt like it was time to put an end to it since his comments were truly getting beyond ridiculous...but I guess you also have a point. Perhaps I'll collapse that discussion there and we can leave a notice on it too saying pretty much "do not continue discussion".
I disagree. If someone's contributions constitute little more than wasting other people's time and trolling, we should not hesitate to use all means to eject them.
Also, wikis work because of the "someone is wrong on the Internet" phenomenon. But the flip side of that is that there will always be someone "at fault" of feeding trolls and generating endless drama that someone will have to keep in check. Conveniently, that person is not you.
If you want an "open environment" for discussions, go visit 4chan. This is ostensibly a dictionary-building project. Let us keep it focused on that task.
Indeed, if people are going to feed the troll then that is a problem too but a ban to the troll themselves easily stops it all because then the troll cannot leave another reply for those who misassume good intentions, be it due to wishy-washy AGF junk or any reasons, to in turn reply to.