The "instructions" of this page say, in essence, "copy the OED." I don't know how long the wording has been that way. The original list was compiled from five different dictionaries (IIRC) but the current version outrageously suggests wholesale copying from the OED, using only the OED as a reference, under the guise of the auto-generated list being from possibly two dictionaries.
The original list was tolerated (in user namespace) foolishly, but the most recent iteration seems to be far beyond excusable. Once the original list was done, the intent was to eliminate this eyesore and potential Wiktionary-killer from even there. While we collectively may have been negligent about cleaning it up, the new "take-it-to-a-new-level" of copyright disregard is too much to ignore.
Case in point: "As an example, glittous, (-is means that there are at least two different spellings, glittous and glittis. It is easiest to simply check the OED entry for these to determine what the different spellings are (by reading the historical examples)." First of all, that identifies
"glittious" as the alternate spelling, not the misspelling "glittis." But more importantly, it directs newcomers (to that list) to conspire criminally.
A bit dramatic that, don't you think? directs newcomers (to that list) to conspire criminally. lol. It's still a useful list to have, so we can see the gaps that need filling. It's only going to be deleted when we've all agreed that we've got in Wiktionary all the terms from that list that are Wiktionary-worthy. --Keene17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the problem with the list or with the "instructions"? Different remedies apply according to the answer. It seems to me that the "instructions" might merit a speedy delete. I find the list itself useful as a source of possible new entries that has a lower ratio of false leads than some of our other frequency lists. I believe that it also automatically removes blue links, which is somewhat satisfying. If it would cause trouble to WMF, by all means it too should be removed. If the "instructions" have, by their association with the list, poisoned the list or, worse the idea of such lists here, then we have more of a problem. DCDuring18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lists themselves and ask Brian0918 to rewrite (or delete portions of) instructions : I do not think that the lists raise copyright concerns (and believe this has been discussed and agreed in the past); however I agree that the current instructions suggest too strongly (although do not unequivocally assert) that OED text should be used as base for definitions. This is quite fixable. Brian0918 should be asked to modify the instructions. The whole "Guidelines" section could simply be deleted or, at a minimum, the following statements should be removed from that section:
Only remove blue links from the list after all possible definitions (from OED and AHD) are present in the Wiktionary entry. A given word on this list may have several separate entries in OED, each of which has several different definitions.
As an example, glittous, (-is means that there are at least two different spellings, glittous and glittis. It is easiest to simply check the OED entry for these to determine what the different spellings are (by reading the historical examples).
I too find the lists to be a valuable resource and think that Brian0918 deserves thanks for the service he has provided here. -- WikiPedant18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note quite accurate: what was discussed in the past was a combination of six other dictionaries - their intersection. Reducing that to two, with plain notices that it isn't really two - just one - the OED for the newer, recently regenerated lists most positively was not discussed previously. It is only with a preposterous amount of "assuming good faith" that I can conceive of a way where the newcomer who updated the lists might somehow have possibly, maybe just maybe, thought what they were doing, while technically illegal, might de defensible in court. Maybe. --Connel MacKenzie10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are referring to. Whatever these other projects were that you mention, I was not involved in them. I came to Wiktionary, saw that people were trying to create a good working list of possible terms to include, and having already created several such lists for the highly successfully Missing Encyclopedia Articles Project, I applied my skills to creating a thorough list of terms that we can potentially include in Wiktionary. Just as with Wikipedia, not every term in this list will be included in wiktionary. Anyone can decide what words should and should not be included. On Wikipedia, we make separate subsections for "entries for non-inclusion" listing terms that should not be included, along with rationale for each. The same can and should be done on Wiktionary. I do not have as much free time to devote to Wiki* as I used to, but should these lists be deleted simply because of my inactivity? Anyone is open and free to modify them, as I say right on the first page - that is the entire point of the list. It is a collaborative effort first and foremost. If you have any further questions, please leave me a note on wikipedia:user talk:brian0918 as I do still check that almost daily. --Brian091814:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix instructions - obviously a claim that the list comes from the OED combined with an implied instruction to copy OED entries is problematic and must go. In any event, checking OED would not demonstrate that a suspect word meets our CFI. By the way, there are tons of blue links on those pages, so I don't think they're self scrubbing (can someone perhaps send a bot to pluck those blues away?). Cheers! bd2412T20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's rather useless, isn't it? When was the last time he was here? The red-flag is that it was a newcomer who updated all the lists in someone else's userspace, just as they were about to be deleted. The fact that he repopulated them from the OED is of very great concern here. Is there any guarantee that these are the intersection of them, rather than being from either/or one? This doesn't look like an intersection list; it looks more like a logical OR. The fact that it was all done surreptitiously without discussion should be grounds for an indef-block, messing around with this magnitude. --Connel MacKenzie10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I don't know what you are referring to. Am I the newcomer - a current/former admin on Wikipedia/Commons/Meta? Repopulating lists in someone else's userspace? I'm not understanding where this hostility is coming from. "indef-block"? "this magnitude"? If you can just clarify what you are talking about, I think we can make progress in this discussion. --Brian091814:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled by this -- I checked a few subpages and didn't see any activity since 2006 (Brian followed by BD doing cleanup). -- Visviva15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and please feel free to rewrite the instructions. They in no way were meant to imply copying content from the OED or anywhere else that's copyrighted. I was simply trying to make sure a user didn't clear an entry from the list without first checking to make sure every possible meaning was covered in Wiktionary. Of course we should use our own words, but we shouldn't leave out any definitions. If you have any additional questions, please leave a message at wikipedia:user talk:brian0918. Thanks! --Brian091814:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've attempted to clarify the guidelines to make certain nobody is left with the belief that they should copy content from anywhere copyrighted (as it was never my intent to imply). Please suggest any alternative improvements to the wording, or make the changes yourself. Thanks! --Brian091815:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian0918, my hostility was not directed at you. You've been absent so long, I incorrectly assumed you would not comment, particularly in regard to someone else's activities in your user-space.
AFAIK, the en.wiktionary.org completed all entries (that we want) from your original lists. Recently, many more sub-pages have been added at Special:Prefixindex/User:Brian0918/Hotlist/. Those additions are the source of my ire. I am not convinced they are an intersection from multiple sources, rather, those additions seem to be single-source. If true, that is what would constitute criminal behavior. Do you have any means handy to verify or refute them (and do you even care to?) --Connel MacKenzie22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the only sources I used were OED and AHD. Microsimulation is in OED still - it's recategorized under "micro-". The other two were not in my original OED or AHD index, and definitely must have been added by User:Lexicografer from some unknown additional source. It's also possible they were briefly in OED and then removed, as OED is continually being updated and modified. --Brian091815:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lexigografer has changed his contribution pattern, he obviously thought that he had done enough there and has reverted to adding the information to the main namespace, so I feel we can let him be unless he returns to doing stuff that we don't want. That said there is now an IP address 201.30.91.2 (talk) that seems to have taken over from the task that he was doing. Conrad.Irwin17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that the UBrian0918's hotlist should be clean up, and and instructions should rewrite. In addtion, some souces like text tools in Wikipedia's featured articles, and also wordlists can be used to improve it. I've been unfair blocked.
Looking at L's deleted contribs, I only see one and a half pages, both from a week ago. Is the problem that these are suspected to be copyvio (which doesn't seem to be the case), or that they are in another user's userspace? If these lists were subpages of User:Lexicografer, would there be any problem? -- Visviva07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
