User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2007-5

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
back to

Template:new en noun

Note that {{substub}} means absolutely nothing at all to new users, and they have no clue at all that they should replace it with the definition. Even when they know it should go there, they very often leave the {'s in place.

I just watched a user try to enter a word in Mandarin, he/she still can't tell where the definition goes.

Do what you like, but the way they are, these templates are worse than unhelpful! Robert Ullmann 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Say WHAT? Did you try entering a new term using the noun preload template? Did you happen to notice the screenful of HELP text that goes in the introduction, clearly explaining who/what/when/where/why/how? --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Users NEVER, EVER read the instructions. As evidenced by the number of times you see the substub left, or the definition put inside the braces. Look at Labonte in its first version as entered by an IP user. This is typical. And I've just user tested the instructions with a fairly smart fluent English speaker who knows nothing of wikis and he couldn't make head or tail of them. "(put definition here)" will work much better. "{{substub}} looks like something that should clearly be left alone! As I said do what you like. (You might consider fixing other meaningless phrases like "preloaded entry templates", just say choose from: ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly why it needs to be a template, with a cleanup category, so they can be found sooner and more easily. Would it help to move {{substub}} to {{put definition here}}? --Connel MacKenzie 05:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, what wording do you suggest for "preload entry templates"? --Connel MacKenzie 05:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Split Ticket/Straight Ticket

I am getting very frustrated with how you are dealing with this issue. I have made entries into Wiktionary, and intend to keep them maintained. I added my references, because that is where I got the information from. If you have an issue with something that I have added, please bring it up in the talk page. After I added my references back, you gave me a temporary block(reason: nonsense)Which is not a reason, you have made no attempt to contact me at all. Every valid change that I have made has been reverted, with no reason given.

If you wish to undo my additions, please leave a talk with why you have done it.

I am getting sick of the abuse of admin power(or lack of explanation of actions), because you are an admin, I feel that you need to use your power wisely.

Your response is much appreciated, Bballoakie 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Connel's blatant abuse of his admin powers is why there are so many ex editors who had planned on making working on wictionary a long term activity. Unfortunately the other admins are either unwilling or incapable of controlling him and when criticized he either becomes offensive or (as in this case) just sticks his head in the sand and ignores the critisism. I was here just over a year ago but left because of his bombastic attitude. I add the odd word now and can't even be bothered to log in. 09:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Primetime update


Cheers, -Will Beback 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry I did not know that we mustn't welcome the new accounts. I thought that it could help new commers to find the basic help pages. Julien1311 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear you are doing so in an attempt to be helpful - thank you. But the majority of new accounts (still) are vandalism sockpuppets; just slightly over 50% of new accounts are from our top three vandals alone. While I'm sure they are amused by the welcome page, the cumulative effect of welcoming them all would be more than slightly noticable. So, after the first non-vandalism contribution, go ahead and welcome (if you'd really like to take on that task.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Make whoopee

Hi, can you point me to the RFV for "make whoopee" please. Thanks. Kappa 08:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, did I mislabel that deletion? No matter; it still is a ridiculous nonce. --Connel MacKenzie 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing a cited entry like that is fairly close to vandalism imo. Kappa 13:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A single citation, of an obviously humorous use? <shrug> Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I assume you'll reinstate it, with a more formal RFV then? --Connel MacKenzie 14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A single citation or reference should be enough to prevent summary deletions. I don't think there's any point taking it to RFV as there's no real doubt as to this sense, but you are welcome to do so if you wish. Kappa 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. If it passes, I suppose I'll learn what region/context it has that meaning (if not a simple, puerile nonce.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, I guess I'd hardly call Beobach a tea-room troll. Perhaps he could have discussed the changes he made to Aryan a bit with some of the folks involved in the talk page conversation before he made them, but one of our standard policies is "Be bold," so I have a hard time holding that against him. And his tea room conversation seems pretty respectful and polite. And like I told you a month ago or so, I've only ever heard the term used in the way he's advocating. Finally, I agree with him that the quotes he removed did not illustrate the sense of "racist". Now, it is certainly possible that people are using the term Aryan to mean skinhead, but if so, some quotes illustrating said usage need to be produced. Sorry. Atelaes 05:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess sorry meant "sorry that we're on opposite sides of this arguemnt" or "sorry that I don't quite understand where you're coming from on this".....or something like that. And I still fail to see how any of this qualifies anyone as a Nazi supporter. Also, let me assure you that, at the very least, some people still conceive of the term Aryan as "of European descent". I asked my roommate what he thought it meant, and that's exactly what he said, and I assure you, he's no racist. So, I don't think it qualifies as obsolete etymological information. Atelaes 05:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments in the Tea Room

Connel, I object strongly. There is no justification for calling people "Nazi-loving fuckheads", or for assuming that one of our contributors would lie about being Jewish! Surely this isn't the kind of discussion we want in the Tea Room, least of all coming from an admin. Please try and accept the fact that people can disagree with you and still be normal and rational. Widsith 08:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, that in my reaction to absurd arguments, I allowed the tone to become offensive. Yes, I would be happier if I had addressed that more delicately. I don't, however, see how I could have done so.
Well then, how can I make this point more compelling? What would you suggest? Has my involvement with that entry been unsound, or it it perhaps just another term that I cleaned up along the way, knowing the Wiktionary entry to be false and misleading when I first saw it? Do you think I came across that term on Wiktionary out of the blue? Or was it, perhaps, directly a cleanup based on the Wikipedia trolls stating their intent to dilute all nazi-related terms?
I am obviously quite fed-up being the #1 target of Wiktionary. Eclecticology was the target for making technically unsound decisions against the community consensus. Vildricianus was briefly the target for his efficient vandal-fighting. But I don't see why every troll-topic that spills over from Wikipedia ends up with me as the "bad guy."
I agree the tone I took was wrong. On the other hand, seeing such duplicitous arguments put forth in support of the pro-nazi redefinition of the term is beyond baffling. Do people really not see how volitle that term, in and of itself, is? I recast the tone in the form of a direct insult, yet this community still refuses to see that the obsolete/archaic/historic information is only etymological, at this point? C'mon people, I know you aren't idiots! Please, people, stop being blind, for a moment, and look at the term in question. The last 100 times you heard it on TV, or read it in a newspaper, was it used to refer to a mythical Indo-European trait?
I'm sorry, but I cannot view (at this time) Ruakh's arguments as normal or rational. The arguments put forth do not reflect those of a mainstream Jew, nor a non-self hating Jew. Obviously he/she isn't daft, so what is it? What can I assume? That the claim of being Jewish is merely a lie, used as a clever debate technique? It is astoundingly clever, as it is so very unverifiable, while at the same time, garners additional support from those such as yourself, who think that my application of logic to the question is impolite! (Or worse.)
So, what to do now? I don't see how I can assume that arguments put forth on WT:TR about this term are being made in good faith. I can see they are well-written and eloquent and duplicitous, but not honest. I don't see how the tone can be remedied at this point in time. I don't think simply removing the inflammatory comments would be helpful, as that would require both sides views being stricken. A discussion like that can't simply be restarted politely, can it?
--Connel MacKenzie 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But it is only you that thinks the change in definition would be "pro-Nazi". No one is disputing that the word is volatile, as you call it. It's volatile because it is used by neo-Nazis and skinheads. No one disputes that. What they dispute is what such groups mean by the term. It seems clear to me from the quotes that they use it to mean something like "white European". If I called someone an Aryan it wouldn't imply (to me) that they were a neo-Nazi – on the contrary it would imply that I was one. Anyway, my opinion and yours are not relevant; the main thing, which we should agree on, is that the debate should be conducted politely. If you feel that emotional about it maybe you shouldn't get involved. And by the way I don't think anyone sees you as the number one bad guy. Widsith 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't a change in the definition, it is removal of the definition. And it isn't used only by neo-nazis. It is volitle because it is used to refer to neo-nazis, etc. As pointed out many times now, the GenAm use very obviously does not match the Commonwealth use.
Also note, that I am not that emotional about the term itself. I am emotional about using Wiktionary as a vehicle for a pro-nazi agenda.
If I'm not the #1 bad guy of the month, why then is there the recent trend of a pile-on opposition, seemingly out of the woodwork? It is sickening.
--Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've so far been uninvolved with this, and being British I naturally come from a Commonwealth English perspective. However I have never seen or heard "Aryan" used to mean "Nazi", "pro-Nazi", "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist", and this includes all the citations this debate has produced and those that were removed. An unscientific straw-poll of 20 people I talk to regularly, including an American (from Iowa iirc) currently studying in the UK, also have never heard of this usage. The closest anyone has come is seeing the term "Aryan-supremacist" (which would be tautological under your definition). Just because I have never heard a word used in a particular way doesn't mean it is never used in that way, however the difference between Wiktionary and the Urban Dictionary is that we require citations. If you are certain that the word "Aryan" is used, in American English, to mean what you believe it does then you should have no problem finding citations of this. As I mentioned earlier, the citations currently provided do not show its use in this way. Thryduulf 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is pointless, as you all seem set in your mindsets. Nevertheless, here are some (note the difficulty of filtering out "noise" in these; too many texts make colloquial searches quite difficult. And quite taxing.),M1

So which of these should I start citing formally? And what good will it do, when any citations provided are simply removed out of hand? --Connel MacKenzie 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I must come from a sheltered background as the uses for the word 'aryan' I have heard have been overwhelmingly in a technical sense. 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you just never noticed it in newspapers/tv, etc.? --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably not; such usages would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Maybe it's location sensitive 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if pointing out my Jewishness garnered me unjustified support — certainly that wasn't my intent — but when you call a Jew (among others) a Nazi-loving fuckhead, you're a moron if you don't expect him to point out why that's ridiculous.
If you'd like to start a new discussion, a polite one, I'd be in favor. I'll go out on a limb and say that I do see you as a bad guy at this point, but I gather from previous discussions that you weren't always a bad guy, and am perfectly willing to give you a fresh start if you're willing to be less of a dick than you are now.
Did you actually read those citations? There are a few that could be ambiguous, even one or two where, if I didn't already know the word I'd be more inclined to assume it meant "white supremacist" than "Template:italbrac white, especially Nordic, and not Jewish", but in most, it very clearly means "Template:italbrac white, especially Nordic, and not Jewish" or least "white, especially Nordic, and not Jewish". The only one where I think the author really did mean "white supremacist" is this one — but it's definitely a start. (Part of the problem seems to be your misunderstanding of the name of the group "Aryan Nations". Take a look at the Aryan Nations Web site and you'll see that they mean "Template:italbrac white, especially Nordic, and not Jewish", though they're actually also fairly pro-Arab for some reason.)
(Even so, the fact that most of even your citations clearly mean "Template:italbrac white, especially Nordic, and not Jewish" or "white, especially Nordic, and not Jewish" makes it quite clear that even if "white supremacist" is a sense of the term, it's certainly not the primary sense of the term, at least on Google Books.)
RuakhTALK 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be citing from Usenet?

I'll admit that the usenet searches tend to provide rather incomprehensible uses. --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps these (not durably archived?) better reflect the common use:

etc. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Only two of those cites are actually using "Aryan" in the sense of "white supremacist" (second use here and second use here), and even they might be a bit iffy, in that it seems like they're actually using it in the sense of "Template:italbrac having the word Aryan in its name (and therefore presumably being a white supremacist group)". (That's better than nothing, though.) The rest are using it in the normal sense that white supremacists use it, except one that seems to be using it in the sense of "Descended from the ancient Aryan invasion into the Indian subcontinent; contrasted with Dravidian." The thing is, you might have a valid point, but you're wrapping it in so much nonsense (not to mention ad hominem attacks) that it's hard to tell. —RuakhTALK 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, at this point, I'm focusing more on being less of a dick, than finding perfect citations. Those were the recent new news items from today, from GoogleNews. I'm quite sure there are quite a few more, but none of these (correct me if I'm wrong) qualify as "durably archived."
The main point of this last group of links, is to try to persuade you to avoid the phrase "the normal sense that white supremacists use it" since it really isn't white supremacists using it, but normal people like you and me, in reference to them. But doesn't seem to support that; only
--Connel MacKenzie 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, understood. :-) —RuakhTALK 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? Whew. I guess that leaves the next task for me, then, to provide enough evidence (for you) that it (the pejorative sense) truly is the primary meaning of the term. Or would it be better for me to lay off the topic for a while and see if someone can rewrite the whole thing better? --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Widsith, back to your original point in this thread; I agree. It was silly of me to have defended my outburst. On the face of it, there still is no excuse for my profanity, nor the outrageous insult of suggesting someone was lying about their religious beliefs. I do not think my offensive comments should be retained in that WT:TR conversation. If I were to remove or amend them in any way, that would start another round of sysop-abuse claims. On the other hand, I don't see how those comments can not be taken out of context. I think it would be best (for Wiktionary) if someone involved (not myself) simply removed those comments. --Connel MacKenzie 15:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Patrolling Instructions

Hey, I was going to update Help:Patrolled edits a bit, to reflect the new software settings (specifically that admin edits are always patrolled automatically, and that there is no preference to set). A quick question: Are folks on your whitelist automatically marked as patrolled as well, or how does that all work? Thanks. Atelaes 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In practice, yes. In reality, it is a bit messy. As long as I (or any sysop) has the WT:PREFS set for automatic patrolling, and leaves a tab open on Special:Recentchanges, then yes, every five minutes or so, whitelisted usernames (and IP addresses) are marked as patrolled. In practice, I think three of us often have a tab or two open - yourself included - so instead of every five minutes, it is more like once a minute.
It is my hope, that someone will devise an informal voting procedure/mechanism for adding newcomers to the whitelist and someone else will take over clearing out old IP addresses. (An IP address really shouldn't be whitelisted for more than a month?)
Note also, that any such list can be used as a feeder list for new sysop nominations a month or three later, if people ever decide that we need an order of magnitude more sysops. --Connel MacKenzie 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It is also my hope, that someone else will take over the task entirely. I really haven't spent any time on maintaining it, in quite some time now.
--Connel MacKenzie 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Also of note is that 'bot contributions are automarked by the MediaWiki software now, too. --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you. Out of curiosity, may I ask for some clarification on bot patrolling? I seem to recall having to patroll some of RobotGMwikt's contributions not that long ago. Is there some sort of delay on bot edits being patrolled by the software, or is this a recent thing? Atelaes 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought I noticed it happening automatically for the first time, the day before yesterday. Special:Contributions/Dvortybot. If I'm wrong (and there were simply several people patrolling with enhancements at the time) I'd believe that too. (Note that the majority of active 'bots on en.wiktionary today, do not have the 'bot flag set, e.g. AutoFormat, ConnelMacKenzieBot, etc.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also of note to sysops: you *must* visit the page User:Connel MacKenzie/patrolled.js and type "Ctrl-R" to reload that individual javascript file, after someone changes it. Or wait a few days for the cache to expire. --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And yes, that really should be moved to the Wiktionary: namespace, with WT:PREFS updated to retrieve it from its new location. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I think a scheme that might work is something like this:

  1. Set up Wiktionary:Whitelist / WT:WL (sysop edit only, since patrolling only applies to sysop functions?)
  2. Allow sysops to nominate new usernames there for whitelisting.
  3. On three votes for whitelisting, add that person to the whitelist. (No delay & no minimum vote time.) (Votes would be: #1 nomination, #2 seconded, #3 approved for WL.)
  4. If any "oppose" or if there are any objections, defer the nomination (for a minimum of one week.)
    Since people's names will be there, unsolicited, it might be bad to call them "oppose" votes - perhaps "defer" would be better?
  5. Use the two or three month archive to peruse names for sysop nominations.
  6. Un-whitelist all IP addresses after one month. (Re-whitelisting 5 times could add them to a permanent whitelist section? Or block the IP anon-only/allow account creation and demand they create a friggin' account? Oh wait, that didn't work last time...)

--Connel MacKenzie 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize this and move it to WT:BP. --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
One other thing about "patrolled.js"...I meant to restructure it to whave the whitelists at the very very top (or as close as possible) with one line per person, followed by "//" and the date the addition was made as a Javascript comment. A better, shorter variable name (instead of the confusing camelCaseVariableName currently used) would help a bit, too. It would be slower, but smarter, to use AJAX to load the whitelist from a separate page.
Waitasec. "Patrolled.js" should just be rewritten, adding a "mark all edits by this user" feature, and perhaps something to say that if a sysop has edited the entry after some random new user, the entry is "patrolled" (inherently.) (I.e. random IP adds an entry, and SemperBlotto cleans it up, but doesn't mark it.)
Waitanothersec, there should be a request for WM software changes for these features, not Javascript. <sigh> --Connel MacKenzie 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you make progress on this front, please keep User:Cynewulf informed, as he seems to be taking over the patrolling (in terms of keeping a browser open with auto-patrol turned on. Yay!) --Connel MacKenzie 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you waiting for me to move this to WT:BP? Please don't.  :-) Be bold, instead. --Connel MacKenzie 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I had completely forgotten about this topic. In honesty, it was never my intention to bring it to the BP, as my understanding of the whole system is (in my opinion) insufficient to draft any sort of proposal. All of the policy you've thus far mentioned (white list page, three votes, one month stay, etc.) all seems quite reasonable to me. But, I guess I am simply not familiar enough with the system overall. I was sort of hoping someone who has a better grasp of the nuts and bolts at play would put it up for discussion. Atelaes 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the important concept here is that the system doesn't really exist. This really is the essence of "Be Bold." No system exists, so you have the opportunity to dictate how it will start. I've presented some guesses at what I think might work better. --Connel MacKenzie 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I've been made me wait too long.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 19:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


I see you've automated the addition of some inflected noun forms. However, your result for agri is incorrect on the POS line. I mention this rather than correcting it because other entries you've done might have been affected. Also, please note that Rodasmith is working with Medellia, Atelaes, and myself to design an inflectional template that should make filling out these inflection forms even faster and cheaper. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the subject of Libyssa - I'd rather you held off doing any Latin adjectives. See my edit to see a hint of the reason why. Latin adjectives have variable gender, number, case, and degree. --EncycloPetey 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the heads-up. There are enough Latin experts around here, that I suppose I can safely mark them just with {{rfc}} if I see any more. I got quite a few when I cleared "/todo3". --Connel MacKenzie 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the heads-up.
Please note carefully: I have done no such thing.
I substed occurrences of a bad template, that previously had resulted in many entries appearing on my cleanup list(s). All I did was go through the list, and subst: them, changing nothing.
--Connel MacKenzie 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I shall invite Rdsmith4 to #wiktionary... --Connel MacKenzie 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A Quick Thanks

Thanks for pointing that out, but how did you come across a lowly user like me of all pages? :P Alakazam138 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole series of entries you made showed up on my cleanup lists, after yesterday's XML dump. I think they've all been fixed now, so no worries. --Connel MacKenzie 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's alright then, nice to know that my stuff is noticed. :D Those admins though... what they get up to behind the scenes no-one knows... :P Alakazam138 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I allow myself to enter into so much controversy, I often think that of all the sysop edits, mine are the most closely reviewed. (I made the mistake of entering a purely joke entry recently; within hours, Park City City Park was RFD'd.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • hahaha that was you exploring your 'bad-boy' side eh... dont let him out ;) Alakazam138 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)



Thanks for your edit to שטח; it was a much-needed reminder that this is still an issue to be dealt with. There seems to be some agreement at Wiktionary talk:About Hebrew to give Hebrew roots their own entries, using "Root" as the POS header; so, should I add it to the "Other headers in use" section at WT:POS? Or does it need to go through some non-Hebrew-specific discussion and/or voting process first? (My preference is to add it to the "Other headers in use" section now, and then have a general vote on Wiktionary:About Hebrew once it's more generally functional, but I'm open to alternatives).

Thanks again,
RuakhTALK 05:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd suggest putting the instructions about what to put in the /more page in the header in the /more page, not in the header in the main page. Can you create a template for that ?

But, I'm off to bed (2:30am), so, leave it with you, you old bastard (A uniquely Australian use of the expression, meaning a friend and adversary in one person)--Richardb 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to not be accused of doing anything rash, this time around. So I'll wait for ten to twelve hours before looking at WS again. (It has lasted like this for months - a few hours won't hurt.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW: "old bastard" is a jocular/friendly expression in colloquial GenAm, but doesn't work well in written communication, as it can be misinterpreted so easily. In spoken communication, visual cues (e.g. <wink>, smile) and context allow the same meaning. If you hadn't qualified your statement, I would probably have been offended at you calling me "old."  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Connel. If you're online now could you please log on to IRC. I want to discuss an issue with you. — Hippietrail 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js

Alright, I tried my hand at re-ordering and making other changes to User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js... in doing so, however, I have noticed that there doesn't actually seem to be any code for the Nav-open-er preference (which may explain why it hasn't worked, at least for me, after my edits — although I can't find the code in earlier revisions, either). See this revision outlining where I suspect the problem is. It's quite possible that it's all there and I'm just blind, of course, but could you take a look? — Beobach972 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it seems our messages passed in the night :-p.
Does the 'open all Nav boxes automatically' pref work for you? — Beobach972 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it did the last time I moment... --Connel MacKenzie 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it still works fine in Firefox. --Connel MacKenzie 00:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
IE is getting a syntax error on line 1...then crashing before the debugger opens.  :-( --Connel MacKenzie 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yipes, IE7 has disabled yet-another-layer of debugging info. <growl> No wonder I never remember to test with it... --Connel MacKenzie 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Now it won't turn back off (in FF.) Grrrr. --Connel MacKenzie 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Grrr...but it is working perfectly in IE. --Connel MacKenzie 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC) But they remain hidden in IE no matter what, now. --Connel MacKenzie 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll open up firebug later tonight. TTFN. --Connel MacKenzie 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Sigh* ... silly javascript. Well, hope you can figure out that the deal with FF is. Revert my edits if you need to. — Beobach972 02:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Silly, indeed. Coming back later (restarting Firefox) fixed it. --Connel MacKenzie 14:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2 answers and a Help!

Ping here // FrankB 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer parlour

Very strange things are happening here. I added a small comment and a large section was deleted. I think you did the same a little while ago.!! SemperBlotto 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I shall start a manual archive run. --Connel MacKenzie 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Right, I did not copy that later section, and overwrite a previous section...all I did was a "normal" section edit, and the software overwrote a previous section. How many sections have we lost, so far? --Connel MacKenzie 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Lost one on my edit, and duplicated the Japanese Han char index section. I see you're on that one. Robert Ullmann 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick question - since Werdna is offline and manual archiving can be difficult, have we tried asking w:User:Shadowbot3 to take over the archiving? — Beobach972 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Was going to get to that, I've asked now. This has been quite annoying. Robert Ullmann 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


No offense intended. Hope all is well. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whew. I was /away for almost a day; boy it was hard to figure out what you were talking about.
Thank you for rolling those back. Yes, it was an oversight to have gone outside of NS:0. I only noticed late in the run (and corrected it then.) I should have gone back myself, but was overcome by sleepiness, then forgot the next morning. --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Productive Internet prefixes

You may remember discussions of e- and suchlike in the past. If such discussions come around again, referring to Internet-related prefixes, which I've just made better, might be helpful. Uncle G 15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done (as usual!) I shall keep it in mind. Lately, the realization seem to agree with the assessment that they are classic "nonce words" most of which don't stand the test of time. As that also is my personal view, I am glad to see genuine linguists (amateur and professional) reaching that same conclusion. --Connel MacKenzie 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Connel, I just remembered to check back on a question I left there. I was hoping for Wiktionary language stats on the English Wiktionary. - Taxman 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Statistics. — Beobach972 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
WT:STATS#Detail <-- same page, better numbers. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. - Taxman 13:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

rotta#Rhymes with

Hi there,

I've replied to this on my page. — Paul G 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

24 & Childlove

While researchng some poorly-sourced terms on Wikipedia I came across the entries here for childlover, girllover, and boylover. I noticed that they didn't have any sources here either. I also noticed that they'd been added by user:24/user: This user has gone by many names on Wikipedia, including Paroxysm, JayW, and recently Jillium. The editor is prominent in the pedophile activist community and apparently has a POV to push. I also see that you've interacted with him here before. So I'm here to ask if you could review the status of those unsourced terms as well as check over the user's other contributions for similar problems. Will Beback 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That user was in the spotlight for a short time, but was overshadowed by more prominent and less-subtle disruption (Wonderfool, Primetime.) The full set of contributions should probably be reviewed at some point...I'll see if I can start plowing through them now. --Connel MacKenzie 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The interesting part, I suppose, it the number of sockpuppets used to promote the made-up term "lolicon." I guess it can be said, that Wiktionary didn't deal with that nonsense particularly effectively. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Overall, not too bad, for the most recent 500 contribs. The majority of the controversial ones had already been reviewed by the community. I'll try reviewing more later this weekend. --Connel MacKenzie 08:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking through those, there no rush on any of this. Yes, the user liked to change his username often, though contending that he never violated WP:SOCK. However the second element of that policy concerns changing names to avoid scrutiny, so I disagree. He's been a contributor since mid-2005. He got himself banned on EN:WP but I expect he'll be active again. Will Beback 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, no rush; but if I let it go too long, it will slip through the cracks (again.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. I read WT:REDIR carefully before writing the redirects, but from reading it I didn't get the impression that redirecting between LC and UC is prohibited. I apologize if I caused any problems. Shai 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I've replied on your talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to request a new term (anything else) for Wiktionary:Word of the day/June 17. The term there bears far too much similarity to the oft-vandalized entry. --Connel MacKenzie 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this would be a problem if we locked the entry and WOtD template to all but sysops for that date while the word is up? That is, are you concerned about potential vandals or potential offence? --EncycloPetey 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's similarity to an oft-vandalized entry makes it a poor candidate for the front page. No, I have no problem with the entry itself and no, it should not be protected. --Connel MacKenzie 06:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get at why you think the similarity is a problem. I've conferred with colleagues, and the word does not trip any automatic filter system we've checked. So, why would its presence on the main page be an issue? --EncycloPetey 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume you got my e-mail. Well, let me change perspective for a moment. On Commons:, they have a voting system in place for their picture of the day. On Wikipedia, there is some sort of "featured article" process. Here, on Wiktionary, we have only EncycloPetey. Now, that is, really, a good thing. I simply wish to vote against having that term on our front page. If you wish to ignore my 'vote'; no big deal - I really am not that worried about it. But I did wish to express my opinion on it. And no mechanism (other than a message on your talk page) currently exists. As I said earlier: that is a good thing. I do not want the WOTD feature to be overwhelmed by bureacracy. If we started a formal vote process for WOTD, I imagine you'd simply quit doing it. To be clear, allow me to repeat: do not start a formal vote process for WOTDs. --Connel MacKenzie 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't seen your e-mail. I was thinking along entirely different lines. No WOTD is ever set firmly in place until the day it goes on the Main Page. I've even made shifts after setting up a month, such as moving one word to a more "significant" day for that particular word. (e.g. I moved pootle to the birthday of the person from whom I had first learned the word; I hadn't realized that his birthday was that month until after selecting that month's entries). I'll give it some thought; I haven't put up all of June's entries yet anyway. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I haven't decided one way or the other, I have had a look at the "oft vandalized" word. While it seems to be often edited, I wouldn't say that many of the edits were actually vandalism; there was however a lot of speculative etymology... --EncycloPetey 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to go with nitpick instead. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is inappropriate to enter such a conversation which is already in play, but I would like to offer my opinion on the matter. First, I very strongly agree with Connel that EncycloPetey is a much, much better system than any of the other projects have. However, I disagree that niggle is a poor choice for a WotD. I think it important that people learn the distinction between words like this so that they are not confused for nigger or any related term. Perhaps we could include a usage note and a link to the excellent Wikipedia article on niggardly, as our niggardly entry does. Atelaes 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The page nigger is semi-protected, and is not the page I was suggesting is often vandalized. While I agree it is important to have an entry for niggle, I am simply stating that I do not want it on the front page. --Connel MacKenzie 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Not that it matters at all, but the point I failed to make was this:

  • In my mind, literal movement is a change in spatial position (typically over a duration).
    I moved the box (from one place to another).
    I moved out of the way.
  • Figurative "movement" then can obviously refer to changes in something besides position.
    The performance "moved" me.
    I "moved" up a rank.

In that (my) interpretation, approaching armies literally move toard the speaker, but an approaching summer only figuratively "moves" toward the speaker. (In a relativistic sense, it's the speaker who's really "moving", anyway.)

In the end, though, it doesn't matter to me, because this isn't a tea room either. ;-) Rod (A. Smith) 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the most amusing part of the discussion, was that you were discussing policy (how tightly or loosely to define adjectives) that accidentally was taking place in the correct place.
I understood your point perfectly well; you did describe it clearly the first time. My point is that the referent has nothing to do with the function of an adjective.
By the way, welcome back! --Connel MacKenzie 04:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Swedish interjections and Category:sv:Interjections

Your bot semi-recently moved stuff in Category:Swedish interjections into Category:sv:Interjections. Could you move them all back please? --Keene 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

July 15th, 2006 isn't exactly "recent", but I suppose "semi-recent" could be a term for it.
If I recall the history of this, it seems like a mollifying effort of that time. Yes, I can just as easily move them back. While I am happy to do so, I still believe that having a bot request page would be a much better method for this...just for an outside sanity check on category moves (particularly corrections of previous moves.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


It has been up for a while now and still no one has deleted it could you please delete it? XGustaX 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If I could find the page you mean, I would. But I don't see anything at Afro-Argentinians, nor in the deletion log for it. --Connel MacKenzie 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, It is at Afro-Argentinian, Sorry about that. The deletion request is here too [1]. XGustaX 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrected link. I don't think this is worth starting a wheel-war over, though, so I'll let this one follow the normal RFV process. Offhand, it looks like it is attested, so it probably will stick around. Is there some aspect of the term I am missing, that justifies the request for deletion? --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What would justify a deletion then? I only ask because it seems unclear to me now.XGustaX 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were a completely contrived fictional classification, that failed independent use tests, the RFD would be completely justified. If it is just a question as to whether the term is acutally used or not, then it belongs on RFV. If the term is used, but is some word I simply do not like, then too bad on me. If the term is proscribed against, by some formal Usage Guide, then the entry is still kept, with a "usage notes" section added, indicating that a better form exists. --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now, the term is used but then again i think if we keep it we would have to add Afro-every nation on earth. Do you get my point? XGustaX 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. No, we go by attestation. The two arguments against that type of deletion nomination are: 1) "Thin edge of the wedge" is never a valid argument (wiki is not paper, each word should be considered on its own merits) 2) Having all those entries is (mostly) harmless; automated lookups would fail without them, and items that fail attestation tests will be removed anyway. Given that the Afro- prefix exists, I agree it seems to be of little value to enter 200 or so entries (one for each country, a few more regions mixed in) but on the other hand, if the terms are attested, there is no reason not to have them. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
E.g. Afro-Africanian would merit a speedy delete.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
NB: Even Afro-African seems to be attested. --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. Yes, that is a good comparison. Thanks for the example. Yes that seems right. Could you help me then? Thats what it seems like to me. How would be move along with this attestation. Thank you. XGustaX 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you've lost me. What is it that you want, the citations from here, or the move to WT:RFV (by changing the tag and copying the section from WT:RFD to WT:RFV, leaving a pointer from WT:RFD) or something else? --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it should be deleted but apparently I am not too sure if it a RFV or something else. I just feel its like a Afro-African kind of thing where it does not need to be a part of Wikitionary I suppose. XGustaX 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it will be deleted outright. While Afro-Argentine seems more common than Afro-Argentinian, they both seem to be terms that are used. The best way to figure it out is to list it on WT:RFV and let the term's proponents provide verification for it. But, as I said, I don't think it will be zapped. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, Thank you. XGustaX 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, I've added this note, which I think encompasses what you are getting at. Am I out in left field, or is this approximately what you are looking for? --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was getting out, maybe this is why I was little confused on whether what to label it under. I just wish it could be deleted since I feel this is not Wikipedia. Also the term does come up but not in dictionaries, so to me it could just be combo of words that really has has a meaning only because its a combo of words. I just don't want to be racist with the whole Afro- thing. XGustaX 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give this some more thought this evening. The fact that the term is {{rare}} may warrant a usage note indicating that it should be used carefully, is it most often will be incorrect, or at least (pointlessly) divisive, to use it. --Connel MacKenzie 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, That is another very good point. Thank you Connel MacKenzie. I hope to hear from you later this evening. XGustaX 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, It seems we have have comment already and a good one indeed. He makes a very good point. Sorry I took so long to respond. XGustaX 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it from RFD to RFV, so we should get some interesting input from the community at large, now. --Connel MacKenzie 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So, apparently it does not meet the WT:CFI. So what should we do wait a few days or a week to delete it or what? I think you have a good point you should tag it as either absurd or something of the sort. XGustaX 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While it doesn't seem to now, it still has another three and a half weeks for the proponent of the term to add citations. A better approach (discuss the exact wording first on WT:RFV) would perhaps be to add a ===Usage notes=== section describing what it is about the term that makes native Argentinians laugh, in as neutral as possible a tone. --Connel MacKenzie 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok we will give three weeks,but what do you mean it doesnt seem to now, to me it still does. XGustaX 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant it doesn't seem to pass right now (but I suppose that is up to Ruakh - it seems pretty fuzzy.) --Connel MacKenzie 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it up to him? Dont we all get to decide? And what do you mean its fuzzy? XGustaX 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is up to all of us in theory, sure. But he is an established sysop, and our finest new contributor this year (I think he was around for a long time before, but mostly inactive before this year.) He also has been the primary person attending to WT:RFV, archiving and clearing out old entries, of late. So yes, it really does mostly come down to what he wants to do with it. I respect him too much to countermand him without a very good reason. This doesn't seem to have much of a reason at all, to go against him. To me, from what I've learned on Wiktionary, it is better to explicitly say what is wrong with the entry in a "usage notes" section. If the reasoning in the warning is plain enough for most readers, the term's use will decline (which really, is what you're after, right?) Simply removing it from the dictionary doesn't tell people not to use it, nor why. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest. I am not happy right now. See I think he blew this whole thing out of porportion with all these citations and stuff and I think its treating the subject to special when i really dont want to be racist. I think it should go back to a normal entiry but with the usage note there. Other wise to be honest I do not like this one bit. XGustaX 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make the situation worse by removing the discussion link. Ruakh is helping the process along. Attacking the process just marks you as disruptive and doesn't help anyone. Would you please tell me what the usage note should say? --Connel MacKenzie 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but really, I'd be quite happy to focus on clearing out words that clearly pass or clearly fail, and let other people handle words that involve making some sort of decision. :-) —RuakhTALK 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary'd Adventure education

Hi! I just noticed that your bot added a tag stating that wikipedia:Adventure education had been moved to Wiktionary, and it gave two links where it should be available, here and here. However, the second link doesn't exist. Is there a reason for that? A bug or something? -Bbik

Not a bug. The "purgatory" area is the Transwiki: namespace. Once an article has been "wikified" to Wiktionary formatting conventions, it is moved into the main namespace. The Wikipedia links have no direct way of knowing whether the page is still in purgatory, or in the main namespace, so both links are given. --Connel MacKenzie 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)