User talk:80.133.101.126

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

80.133.101.126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

unjustified block.

1. There first should be a warning, so one can change his behavior, and not a block. This is common standard in serious internet boards etc. - though maybe not on 4chan and other unserious sites, where wiktionary might be part of.
2. It's no "Edit warring", when once undoing an unjustified and unreasoned edit, which obviously was no improvment, cf. en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim&diff=30723196&oldid=30702399 . Why should synonyms be mentioned, but antonyms not? That simple makes no sense.
3. That user:Kephir also undid an edit - and furthermore gave no reason for it, en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim&diff=30702399&oldid=30698229 . So he did that "Edit warring" too and thus should be blocked, too. (Though it's not unlikely that this is site with an two-tier fascist-like regime.)

When your edit is reverted by multiple people, it means it is clearly not obviously an "improvment". Instead of reverting again, you should have tried talking to the person doing the reversion. A list of hyponyms containing "Al-Kaida-Anführer, Al-Kaida-Anhänger, Al-Kaida-Kämpfer, Al-Kaida-Mitglied, Al-Kaida-Terrorist; Boko-Haram-Anhänger, Boko-Haram-Kämpfer; IS-Angehöriger, IS-Anhänger, IS-Anführer, IS-Attentäter, IS-Dschihadist, IS-Führer, IS-Kämpfer, IS-Kommandeur, IS-Mitglied, IS-Selbstmordattentäter, IS-Terrorist; ISIS-Anhänger, ISIS-Kämpfer, ISIS-Kommandeur, ISIS-Mitglied, ISIS-Terrorist; Taliban-Kämpfer, Talibankommandeur/Taliban-Kommandeur" is of questionable value, and adding it smells badly of POV-pushing. — Keφr 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1. They're hyponyms, whether you like it or not.
2. It's not just about those words, but also about antonyms and others, so you missed the point.
3. Deleting words, because one simply doesn't like them, should not be tolerated in a dictionary - even though removing words might be practised at the OED, too.
4. It would be annoying to always tell some rollback/admin guy, why he is wrong. So why shouldn't they give reasons, when removing something from an edit, which obviously was no vandalism (like simply writting "fuck" any- or everywhere etc.)?
5. "Multiple people". It were two: Chuck Entz and Kephir. Both gave no reasons. I can understand Chuck: When one undoes vandalism and always would have to give a reason, it's annoying. But that Kephir gave no reason either and at least he should have given one, when undoing it again. As he did the same what he claims I did: "Edit warring".
6. Also I'd like to add, that "unidiomatic and in some cases nonexistent or almost nonexistent terms" is not true. All those words do exist and are used. I did not include nonexistent and almost nonexistent terms. E.g. "Kulturmohammedaner" (which wouldn't belong to the entry Muslim for other reasons) wasn't added, as it was made up at de.WT. E.g. "Al-Kaida-Angehöriger" was not added, as there are only 5 google results, i.e. it's "(almost) nonexistent".

-80.133.101.126 21:19 & 21:25 & 21:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Some time ago we had a user who kept adding obscure and overly specific/broad hypo-/hypernyms like "Usonian" or "Western Hemisphere" to every entry he could think of. The discussion that ensued determined that such terms are not appropriate for hyponyms lists.

Surely, it would be nice to post explanations every time, but being quite busy, we often fail to give the benefit of the doubt to questionable edits. And we do expect people to use talk pages and discussion rooms instead of reverting each other.

Anyway, I think the block was not really necessary, so I am going to lift it. You may discuss the entry itself in the WT:Tea room. — Keφr 22:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

About wiktionary and tea room: I doubt that (new) users read all those old tea room discussions. Are there summaries or rules created from those discussions? If not, how should one know about them? (As said, reading all those old discussions is something one wouldn't do.)

About "Muslim" and hyper-/hyponyms: If I get that tea room discussion right, it means the following:

• Hypernym "Abrahamit" for Muslim is okay, hypernyms "Monotheist", "Gläubiger" etc. not. Problems: 1. even though "Abrahamit" is a hypernym, it is ambiguous (it has multiple meanings) and not all meanings are hypernyms. 2. "Abrahamit" is less common than "Monotheist". More people know what "Monotheist" means, but fewer know what "Abrahamit" means. Also: In this case I don't see any problem in adding those few hypernyms. Well, aside from labeling hyper...hypernyms as what they are. Maybe at least "Monotheist" could be added, too (as it is more common and not ambiguous)?
• It doesn't say much about hyponyms. When doing it like with the pizza hypernyms, then those compounds like "IS-Mitglied" might be put in "Islamist". Problem: "IS-Mitglied" etc. could all be placed in "Islamist", "Dschihadist", "Mudschahed"/"Mudschahid" (postscriptum: and in "IS" and "Mitglied" etc. as derived terms). Instead of mentioning all those words at many places, it seems better to mention them just once in "Muslim". Also to make it shorter: One could simply tell how those compounds are formed in general (name of a Muslim organisation resp. an abbreviation of it + a word like "Mitglied"). When using this shorter form, one could simple link to e.g. "Mitglied" which pretty much explains the meaning "IS-Mitglied". Problem: Some possible combinations are uncommon, e.g. "Al-Kaida-Angehöriger", but those words would be easy to understand.

So, where (and maybe how) should the hyper- and hyponyms be mentioned? (By wiktionary's aim "to describe all words of all languages" they have to be mentioned somewhere.)

---80.133.101.126, 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)