User talk:Conrad.Irwin/α'

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

I archive my talk page when it gets to ~75 topics by moving the first 50 to a new subpage. Please do not edit the archive pages, if you want to talk about something again - copy it back to my current talk page or just start a new topic there and link back.



mKR[edit]

I just saved my quotations in Citations:mKR. Rhmccullough 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations:mKR[edit]

I think the [edit] button caused errors on User talk:rhmccullough. The page claims it was last updated at 0:41 (your last entry). But my last entry was at 1:06. Rhmccullough 01:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations:mKR[edit]

I think the [edit] button caused errors on User talk:rhmccullough. The page claims it was last updated at 0:41 (your last entry). But my last entry was at 1:06. Rhmccullough 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary tries to change my user name[edit]

I find it annoying that Wiktionary wants to change my user name from "rhmccullough" to "Rhmccullough". When I login, Wiktionary forwards me from "User:Rhmccullough" to "User:rhmccullough". But every time I create a new file in "User:rhmccullough", Wiktionary complains that "rhmccullough" is not a valid user name. Is there something simple that I can do to retain my real user name "rhmccullough"? Rhmccullough 09:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help[edit]

I got around to getting through all the user name changes in the queue this morning. Thanks for running the pre-check for me. It helped immensely not to have to spend time along the way figuring out who's who and dropping the "why your name isn't where you left it" messages onto talk pages. You've no doubt noted by now that this is, of course, my favorite job. --Dvortygirl 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

salvific et al[edit]

Contributor didn't give you much to work with. I think salvifying is barely attestable. Don't know about other forms of salvify. It sure seems to have slowed down over the last month. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit to checking in another dictionary, as I didn't have the patience to squeeze the meaning from the cites alone. I have to agree with you that while salvifying seems to exist, there's little other use of a hypothetical salvify. I don't know how we treat cases like this, but it seems that we could define salvifying as === Adjective === giving salvation, though this is the same for that form of most verbs - so maybe as a === Verb === (participle only). Dunno. I'm going to bed now, so unless you've come up with a plan I'll have a re-think in the morning. Conrad.Irwin 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Your plan seems good. You are vastly more patient than some others on patrol. I try to take the low-quality entries as requests for entries or long-shot possibilities rather than vandalism. When it's busy, it's much harder to take that view. BTW, I am still interested in a readability tool, but didn't find any obvious answer yet. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at salvifying, but I'm still much of a newbie at writing entries (having wasted all my time here out of mainspace or patrolling) so I'm not sure if it's ideal. I've told myself I need to learn ruby and have started on a tool to rank definitions (though I've not even started on the actual ranking algorithm, just all the tedious reading word lists which I copied from simple.wikt) - Current plan is (for definitions)
  • Words in the top 1000,2000, or 3000 by frequency -> 1,2 or 3 points.
  • Other words longer than 8 letters -> 5 points, or shorter than 8 letters -> 4 points.
  • Minus one point for each wikilink up to a maximum of three and then plus one for each wikilink more than 6 (as only relevant terms should be linked).
  • Maybe have a quick look at the punctuation to try and penalize short fragmented definitions, or overly long sentences.
  • Divide by number of words greater than four letters (or some other such function that seems to work).
Any ideas would be much appreciated. Conrad.Irwin 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume that your idea is not to evaluate an entry in total, just each individual definition. As you know I would add points for unconventional or Latin linguistics and grammar terms, but that's a separable issue. The very idea of readability may get us into a dumbing-down debate. Were you thinking initially of a bot implementation or the real-time Javascript-like idea? Both have advantages. I would do whichever came easiest just so that there was feedback. It would be interesting to hear what others had to say before too much energy was expended. It would be useful to calibrate the score so that it yielded results comparable to the years-of-schooling interpretation given to Flesch-Kincaid and similar readability.
Looking at the specifics, the one-word and list-of-synonyms approach to definition needs to be penalized strongly. That has come up in some discussions. To some extent that problem is with average word length and use of low frequency words. Long sentences are bad, but lists of synonyms can be worse. I personally like the use of "especially" phrases and clauses, but don't know how they affect our users.
What about the idea of a defining vocabulary, simply highlighting any use of terms outside of that defining vocabulary? Longman's has a 2000-word defining vocabulary for DCE, but we could make our own. There are subtleties like PoS restrictions and allowed use of prefixes and suffixes with the base vocabulary that would require parsing, but we would get benefit from the simplest implementation. Terms outside the defining vocabulary as well as the lowest frequency word from the defining vocabulary would be prime candidates for wikilinks.
Another approach to this whole topic would be to collect folks' thoughts about indicators they use for problem entries or definitions. An example is something SB (I think) mentioned about his suspicions being raised by any definition with the word "where" in it. I'm sure that, while on patrol, you have seen definitions that begin "A word meaning ...." or similar. The one-word and list-of-synonyms definitions may also be problematic. Any of these could be run until they generated 20 candidates for improvement. If the yield of truly bad definitions or entries was not high, then it could be dropped or used only in combination with other problem-finding tools.
I'm sorry that I'm talking about divergent ideas, but I am wondering whether something incremental and narrow directed toward entry improvement rather than toward readability per se would be less controversial and easier to implement. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

changing Jon Hanna citation to Richard H. McCullough citation[edit]

Would you please tell ju66l3r and Proxy User the story of how you & I changed the Jon Hanna reference to a Richard H. McCullough reference? I think that would convince them that I'm one of those "totally honest" guys who is not trying to take advantage of Wikipedia. We can review the facts first, if you like. My memory is not 100%, but I'm pretty sure I remember the gist of the situation correctly. Of course, you're not responsible for the fact that I carried that same citation over to my mKR page on Wikipedia. Rhmccullough 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had too much of the mindless backstabbing and in-fighting on Wikipedia, which is why I mainly stick over here (where although we're just as vicious we're all friends). I've said what I think on that page, and don't intend to comment further. You can of course link to the pages here if you want to show them how you work, however the best thing to do is probably expand the article (particularly the History and Definition) to demonstrate the "notability" of mKR. Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
okay. I really appreciate what you said at Wikipedia, but even more I appreciate your honesty & helpful attitude in our dealings. Despite your objections re: mKR in Wiktionary, I feel like you're my friend. Keep up the good work! Rhmccullough 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
One worry re: expanding my article to demonstrate "notability" of mKR. Wikipedia started out with the attitude that I was shamelessly promoting myself. Although they suggested changing my write-up (which I have done), my current impression is that they want to delete, and they have no interest in an improved write-up.Rhmccullough 01:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I can't help more, I'll have to add mKR to the list of things to learn ;). Providing that you demonstrate neutrality, perhaps by including a section on the criticism that you have received, then it should be fine. The current article doesn't look perfectly neutral, so perhaps as you expand it keep in mind both sides of the debate. Conrad.Irwin 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

utility to copy article source code?[edit]

I'm getting by with copy/paste operations, but I worry that I will mess up & lose everything. Do you have a utility that I can use to copy article source to & from my Sandbox? Rhmccullough 10:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what the exact criteria at some point you'll become "autoconfirmed", at which point you'll get a move button - but copy and paste is probably easiest even with that. Conrad.Irwin 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
ok - I did see a move button in my Sandbox area on Wikipedia.

The guy who was looking at my mKR yesterday kept pointing me at the Python article and raving about how good Infoboxes were. Are those enclosures you added in the Examples Infoboxes? Rhmccullough 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, The infobox is the box that floats to the right of the python article, with the python logo and "paradigm", "Appeared in", etc. down the site. See w:Template:Infobox_programming_language. Conrad.Irwin 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I know what to study. Rhmccullough 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

hyperinflation[edit]

Is this worth a block, in your opinion? I don't have time at the moment to round out the entry with additional quotes and other material. Anon has confused the usual debate about inflation with discussion of hyperinflation, as well as confusing a dictionary with an encyclopedia. I am beginning to get upset about this. If I had this kind of encounter too often, I'd get like our other patrolers I'm sure. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've pasted the {{notwikipedia}} template into the anon's user page. The user may simply be unaware of the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd tried reasoning with the anon, but it doesn't always work well one on one. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well glad I could be of help :p. I'll watchlist the pages and try and keep an eye out. If either of you feel like doing me a similar (but larger) favor, could you please cast your experienced eyes over cosmocrat and its talk page. Conrad.Irwin 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like someone new who doesn't understand about citations / dates/ translations. --EncycloPetey 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Beer parlour facetiousness/sarcasm.[edit]

Don't worry, my comment/apology was directed at DCDuring, who as it turns out had not been offended, so all is well. :-)   —RuakhTALK 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK :). Conrad.Irwin 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have caused any ruckus. Irony is not readily communicated with text alone. I'll have to re-evaluate my position on emoticons. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Readability implementaton[edit]

The current weights impose too large a penalty on definitions that do not have wikilinks and are not selective as to which words ought to have wikilinks. Penalizing wikilinks that go directly to the lemma because of the inflection fragment (morpheme, I think) is clearly wrong. Longmans DCE defining vocabulary includes suffixes and prefixes that can be added to their 2000-word lemma defining vocabulary.

I think that a single comprehensive measure may not turn out to be right for us and may not be the advantage of the process we are commencing. As I think about how I have worked on entries, I find that my attention is drawn to a list (provided by Ullman, CM, or someone else, such as uncategorized pages, no inflection template) of readily fixable entries or of more ambiguous problems such as rfcs. I then do the corrections designed to remove the item from the list. I may do other easy edits at the same time. I may be lead to another entry. Or I may do something more fundamental to improve a definition given or add a sense to the original entry. I probably spend at least twice as much time doing things not related to what put the entry on the list as correcting the original problem. This makes me wonder whether the basic value added in the readability process is to draw attention (for the first time (?)) to problems at the definition level rather than the entry or PoS level. Perhaps the first thing to do is to have an adequate general-purpose procedure for handling definition-line entry analysis in general.

Would the idea be to have a printable analysis sheet to put next to one's computer screen to refer to while making corrections? I like that approach because it makes it easier to consult and compare with print sources and to think about entries away from the computer or away from an internet connection. Such an approach might mean that the user interface could be simplified. Would it make sense to run a bot to produce a dated analysis of our entries and deposit it at some protected entry-specific location. "We" could start with entries already on some rfc or other lists or with high frequency-of-use or high frequency-of-hits at Wiktionary (or elsewhere)? Updates could be run for edited entries on some regular frequency.

I continue to like the idea of an analysis that is focused on the usage frequency of the words used in definitions. I do not have a good intuition about frequency so a machine's assistance is welcome. I would be happy to commence working on compiling the elements of such a list. I'm not sure what the right copyright-free starting point is. The TV list, perhaps ? Deleting name words, typos, and certain non-words would be a start.

If you can, please let me know what of my feedback is useful to you, what you already know, what you need to ignore, and what might be counterproductive. I don't want to waste your time. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

72.139.25.242[edit]

His/her edits look more like test edits than vandalism to me. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I saw the diff, and it looked like an attack page on someone called Ray. I've already unblocked. Conrad.Irwin 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian index[edit]

Thanks for refreshing the index using the latest XML dump. The main index page still says "The 3359 terms on this page were extracted from the 2008-05-25 database dump" while the others say 2008-06-13. Would you refresh that too? Thanks. --Panda10 14:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Conrad.Irwin 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Message on Ruakh's talk page[edit]

Yeah, the reason I continued posting on Connel's talk page after being warned was due to a misunderstanding. I thought you specifically meant commenting on that section. Sorry for the misinterpretation, I have stopped editing it altogether. Teh Rote 15:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Conrad.Irwin 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conrad.Irwin:[edit]

I'm sad that you have been ruthlessly obliterating my small and timid pages I've been trying so hard to get into this world. I feel that with your presence constantly covoring over my work, I'll never achieve my dream of being a skillful and great Wiktionarian.

PS: don't make fun of me for my poor spelling

PPS: if I improve on my spelling skills, will you let my pages that I've worked so hard on live and see the light of day?

Any pages in particular? I try to be reasonable with pages that are clearly good-faith attempts - but I am aware I am too quick with the delete button too often. Conrad.Irwin 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage[edit]

Thanks for retaining my talkpage - I've restored the rest of my subpages and userpages - although I'm active on Wikipedia - I'm hoping to be active on other wikimedia sites, which I hope I can help out. Terra 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. we're glad of all the help we can get. If you're looking for something simple (if dull) to get started here try User:Robert Ullmann/Mismatched wikisyntax. Conrad.Irwin 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the cleanup. As i reward, i offer to make your userpage look really nice (to your specifications). Will you let me? Reply on my talk page. If not, whatever, im all right with that. But if so, that will make me happy.

The2DeadlySinsPrideEnvy14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I believe they are. I saw lay low on the requested entries, so i added it. But yes, lay low and lie low are both used the same, with the same meaning.


Look, i am so sorry[edit]

Sorry. I am doing my best to create pages properly, its just i am so used to Wikipedia, and this is new, and im just sorry. I have read the ELE and i am trying to make "perfect" entries. I am not intentionaly screwing up, i am trying my best. What is so wrong with the pages i creat? I am new here, unlike wikipedia where i make REALLY GOOD articles, this place sort of confuses me. I am here because of the multiple languages i know as well as the thousands of words stored in my head that ar enot stored in the Wiktionary. Please, if you can, show me what i missed. Show me a "perfect page" so i know exactly what to do. I just need a little more experience is all. Not a block. Never a block. I am so sorry, please forgive my edits and help me out.

The2DeadlySinsPrideEnvy22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at any of the pages you've made now, they've been touched up. Try to make pages look more like them, I'm sure you're capable of it, you just need to slow down a bit. Conrad.Irwin 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Block[edit]

You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reason:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by SemperBlotto. The reason given is this: exceeded crap limit You may contact SemperBlotto or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. If you have an account, you can still edit your preferences when you are blocked.

Your IP address is 71.254.107.195. Please include this address in any queries you make.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Conrad.Irwin (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

--Lone.guner 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

this is my ip. --Lone.guner 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) i corrected my enteries and read up on ele

i couldnt get a hold of semperblotto i dont think he wants me unblocked --Lone.guner 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can unblock you if you want, but why don't you just keep using your account? Conrad.Irwin 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to be unblocked having a ip is good for now thank you conrad --Lone.guner 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i won't conrad[edit]

--Lone.guner 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC) idk why his message was with mine were not the same people if your suspicious. --Lone.guner 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC) thanks again ci

Don't worry, I know what he's talking about. Conrad.Irwin 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: PLurals[edit]

Mmmk. Thanks. The2DeadlySinsPrideEnvy

P.S. would you mind playing with your signature and seeing if you can make the code shorter? I think it should be possible to move the font-family into a wrapper span so that you only need to declare it once. Yours Conrad.Irwin 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

whats a good dictionary on web?[edit]

where i can find definitions and put them into my own words on here? thanks --71.254.107.195 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Urm, that's generally a bad idea, but Merriam Webster is widely renowned, and I believe Dictionary.com is also good. If you are caught violating copyright though you will be blocked. Conrad.Irwin 22:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i understand thanks --71.254.107.195 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

hard thinking up english words they seem to all have been taken lol[edit]

whats the best why to come up with a new english entry? i'am clueless. --71.254.107.195 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the ones that people have asked for are in WT:RAE, but they're generally there because they are hard to define. Sometimes you can find an entry in Appendix:English idioms, but be slow creating those, because there are too many rules that people will want to tell you off about :), though I'll try and help. Conrad.Irwin 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i'am taking a break from idioms because for me its hard to do so just defs from now on. also i'am getting tired so i might not post for a litle while but you never know i'am always around. --71.254.107.195 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought. Adding example sentences is quite relaxing and easy, maybe you should try that next time. Conrad.Irwin 23:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There.[edit]

Fixed them up, just for you. Note: There was no Dutch, Deutch, or Deustche lang templates, so i had to use Portugese instead.

The2DeadlySinsPrideEnvy