User talk:Equinox

why

haven't you reapplied for adminship? -- Liliana • 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone else e-mailed me about this just now. Have you been conferring? Anyway, I haven't reapplied because (i) unnominated self-application seems pushy; (ii) I have an inkling that my strong opinions on certain things (deletionism, fake archaic spellings, etc.) have made me unpopular with much of the voting user base; (iii) deleting the main page has probably made at least a few other people decide I cannot be trusted. (That was mainly motivated by alcohol, combined with frustration that nobody else was calling out Luciferwildcat for his repeated creation of rubbish. Still, the root cause of my annoyance was the harm being done to Wiktionary.) And of course (iv) most of what I do, i.e. entries for missing words, does not require admin rights. I was probably second to Blotto in zapping spammers, however, and would be perfectly willing to do that again. Executive summary: it is probably too soon! Equinox ◑ 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I can kind of understand the frustration. Please keep in mind that if you ever decide to try a nomination, you have my support. -- Liliana • 20:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right not to re-apply. You may be drafted at some time, which is a better scenario. In the meantime, it is even more valuable to create good entries, correct erroneous ones, and improve mediocre ones than to revert vandals. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, (i) is null if I nominate you, and (iv) is confusing cause and effect. As for (ii) and (iii), I can't say if that would cause a nomination to fail, but I think that there's no way to tell without trying. All your arguments aside, what it really comes down to is that if you want adminship, say so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be an admin, I will support you, unless I forget to monitor votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I’ll also support you if you run for admin. It’s not too soon. Within hours of the incident LWC messed up bad, causing everyone to realise you were right all along. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. Tell ya what, I'll try running for admin six months from now (that is, Sep 2013) unless anything devastating happens, like alienating the entire community, or getting an offline life. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support your adminship. Pass a Method (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you strenuously object, or someone beats me to it, I'll nominate you myself next month. You pretty much have the support to pass in this talk page discussion. bd2412 T 12:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Boom, go accept

• • "Tell ya what, I'll try running for admin six months from now (that is, Sep 2013)"

    tick-tock. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Eq: Take a look at the vote. Ready to accept? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:WikiProject Medicine

I added your links to List of diseases and List of viruses to the "to do" list for Wiktionary:WikiProject Medicine, which I thought you might be interested in joining (although we have no real procedure for "joining" wikiprojects or listing their members). What I would really like to do is induce some Wikipedians in Wikipedia's corresponding wikiproject to come over and work on medical terms here for a bit. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I don't know when I'll take a serious look at it. I expect to be finished with Webster 1913 in one or two months. Equinox ◑ 01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

hey

Christcentric and Christcentrism have been tampered with. They are not the same thing as Christocentrism. Would it be fine if i restored the old definition? Pass a Method (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The recent discussion on these has been closed: see Talk:Christcentrism. You should have got involved there, probably. If you mean to re-add deleted senses then you need to find the 3 suitable citations. Equinox ◑ 17:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The old definition was "focused on Christianity, a strong Chrstian point of view". It is a variation of the way the suffix in Eurocentrism is used. The first two citations in Christcentric support the old definition, not the new one. Pass a Method (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Could be so. I've asked BD to come here and comment, since he closed the discussion. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The citations do not unambiguously deviate from the meaning as presented in Christocentric. The Church being "too much a Christcentric concept to be projected onto other religions" could just as easily relate to its focus on "Christ" as to Christianity, and that changing abbreviations "does not make the dating any less Christcentric" can just as easily mean that the dating is focused on Christ. I would suggest that the far more prevalent Christocentric probably has both meanings, that Christcentric is an alternative spelling of any meaning of Christocentric, and that the solution is to find citations supporting this meaning as to Christocentric. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It might not unambiguously deviate from the meaning in Christocentric, but the definition is closer to tthe old one. In fact that is a perfect citation for the old definition.Pass a Method (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

BD, Would you mind if I changed it back? Pass a Method (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

executable code

I don't know a great deal about coding but, the definition basically says it's code that's executable. Is this a term worth including? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly, IMO. Executable is also seen with program, binary, image, etc. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Rubygate

Check again, nerdlinger. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:BOLD Equinox ◑ 01:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K., so why not mark your entry with a request for expansion? --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are saying that the definition is inaccurate (maybe he wasn't legally convicted for exactly those things?); I did create it in good faith, but I am fallible. Your corrections are welcome! Equinox ◑ 01:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you re‐added the entry back into the request section even though 1. it’s blue‐linked and 2. it’s English, so I can only guess that there is some sense missing that you are only somewhat aware of, otherwise your revert looks pretty pointless. Just because I’m more awesome than you doesn’t mean that you need to be awesomer than me. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah I see, I'm not sure why I did that. Clicked on the wrong thing I think. I've reverted myself. Equinox ◑ 02:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:en-noun

This template is currently undergoing some changes, and I noticed you hadn't picked up on it so I'm letting you know. When a word is both countable and uncountable, you specify ~ as the first parameter, rather than - as the second. You also can no longer split up the word; the first parameter must be the whole plural form, not just the stem. You can still give just s or es though, like before; the template will treat those specially. The named parameters pl2= and pl3= will also be removed, and converted to positional parameters (so that {{en-noun|first|pl2=second|pl3=third}} becomes just {{en-noun|first|second|third}}). That hasn't been done yet, because first all remaining instances of entries with a second positional parameter (which would happen in either of the above cases) must be fixed. —CodeCat 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I've kind of noticed it but I don't always remember. You will have seen my recent mini-rant about wanting (much) more time to transition to new things when old things become deprecated. However, I'll try to use the new way. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop!

Stop using the accelerator to create inflected verbs! You are creating broken entries.

(Oh, and one more thing: NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't break the accelerator. Whoever broke it ought to fix it. Equinox ◑ 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is fixed now. But AE&OE is right... you should check the entries before saving them. —CodeCat 18:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

tosser

Yo, I think that your rollback is in error. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)