User talk:Dan Polansky

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

Pronunciation of 'w' in Czech[edit]

Hi Dan, How would you pronunce 'w' when written in Czech? (e.g. Wikipedie, Winchester) – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 12:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: It is pronounced like v. Thus, Wikipedie would be /vɪkɪpɛdɪjɛ/. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You can hear the Czech pronunciation of v at váza. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Czech lemmatizer[edit]

A Czech lemmatizer is at

My favorite setting for the lemmatizer is as follows:

  • Task: Lemmatize
  • Tag set: Raw lemmas
  • Output: Plain

Example input: Komu není shůry dáno, v apatyce nekoupí. Komu se nelení, tomu se zelení.

Example output: kdo být shůry dát, v apatyka koupit. kdo se lenit, ten se zelený.

One use of this lemmatizer is that you pick a piece of Czech text, run it through the lemmatizer, wikify words and fill redlinks by creating Wiktionary entries. This redlink-filling activity was suggested by SemperBlotto some time ago, without the lemmatization part. Since I am interested in creating lemmas rather than inflected forms, I need a lemmatizer.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The following Python script grabs clipboard content, wikifies words and puts the result back to clip:

import re
from Tkinter import Tk
newContent = re.sub(r"([^ ,\.:;]+)", r"[[\1]]", Tk().clipboard_get())

The regex may need finetuning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

CFI vote[edit]

I made the CFI vote start at 19:00 today (my local time is 18:49). I put back the end date as well. I removed the 'premature' tag.I hope that was the right thing to do.

John Cross (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What you did in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 was fine, thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Czech words for females[edit]

I hesitate how to mark up definition lines for Czech words for females such as učitelka, lékařka, ředitelka and prezidentka. The problem obviously applies to other languages as well, e.g. German Professorin.

One option that I have often used and that is quite possibly prevalent in the Czech entries is like this:

  1. female teacher

A disadvantage of that is that the word "female" does not usually appear in translation; you do not say "she is a female teacher" but rather "she is a teacher".

Another option that I must have used at least once is this:

  1. teacher (female)

What I do not like about this is that the disambiguator "female" appears only in the gloss, but maybe it's okay. Furthermore, I like the gloss to be an abbreviated definition, which "female" isn't; it would be "female teacher", which would lead to a repetition of "teacher" in:

  1. teacher (female teacher)

Another option that I must have seen somewhere is the use of a context label:

  1. (female) teacher

That actualy looks okay since, in an English sentence like "she is a teacher", the subject of the sentence (she) is in the context of the predicate (be teacher).

Based on the above, I may stay with "female teacher", or I may switch to "(female) teacher".

--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It would be good if {{cs-noun}} allowed you to put "m=učitel" of "f=učitelka" in the headword. But, anyway, I think "teacher (female)" or "teacher (male)" is the way to go. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see "female teacher" (or indeed "male teacher") being a problematic definition: they don't have to be an exact word-for-word phrase that you can insert into a translation without thinking. There are plenty of English entries of the same kind, like usherette. Equinox 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Someone likes to use {{feminine noun of}}, it seems, seen in Catalan psicòloga or French masseuse. Lehrerin uses that as well, but used to use {{feminine of}}:

{{feminine of|lang=de|Lehrer|nodot=y}}, a female [[teacher]] {{gloss|person who teaches}}.

The above was converted to {{feminine noun of}} in July 2015 by MewBot. In more distant past, Lehrerin used to have the following plain markup:

(female) [[teacher]] (a person who teaches)

--Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No Babel/Language Categories[edit]

Hi Dan Polansky, just a general question, what do you feel when user pages do not have Babel and/or have categories derived from them? For me, I find it irritating. I wanted to find native French/Dutch/Japanese speakers, but they don't put Babel on their page, so I had to discover them from contributions from other pages – AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 22:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I like Babel, which is why I often ask people to add it to their use pages. Babel is relatively important in a dictionary project, especially since we have seen multiple editors contribute in a plethora of languages they do not speak; with Babel, we know whether the person relied in part on their knowledge of the language or whether they had to go by sources alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Slovensko etymology[edit]

Hi Dan, I wonder why this slovak word did not have its etymology fixed up before? (I had to do it myself) — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 19:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think it came from OCS rather than from an inherited form? --WikiTiki89 19:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It was based off the original etymology. — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 19:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not edit the etymology of the Slovak entry Slovensko, from what I remember and from what I can see by a quick glance at the revision history. I am not into Slavic etymology; what I did in etymology many years ago is source English etymologies from Century 1911, checking with modern sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External link templates and excessive detail[edit]

Keywords: reference templates, baroqueness, ornament.

I strongly prefer external link templates that are simple, simply formatted and contain minimum identification information.

In particular:

  • ISBN and OCLC are not necessary for unique identification and present visual noise. In general, I feel exposing numerical identifiers on user interface is rude to the user unless the user requested them or has special urgent need for them.
  • I see no need to render Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français into English as "[Illustrated Latin–French Dictionary]"; the translation should be pretty clear to anyone who understands English.
  • I see no need to spell author names in full. That is unnecessary for unique identification, and adds words for the eye to read.

There is cost to the skimming reader in being exposed to unnecessary detail for their eye to parse. Let us recall the busy search entry page of AltaVista search engine from the last century that was replaced by the beautiful minimalistic Google search entry page; the removal of items that were of no interest for the searching user was a major user experience improvement.

For those who feel a strong need for a lengthy, baroque identification, such identification could be placed to an appendix linked from the external link template. In such an appendix, there is a plenty of room for extraneous detail, and there, it does not disturb anyone's skimming.

For templates that are hyperlinking to online sources as opposed to merely referencing paper sources, the full identification is also present on the linked site. The key purpose of these templates is to take the reader to the target page to learn more about a particular word. Once the hyperlink is there, getting to the target information-bearing page is a matter of a single mouse click, unlike in the age of paper information resources when the resource identification was key for getting to the page where the referenced information was located.

For Wiktionary maintenance purposes, fuller identification can be placed on the template documentation page. Thus, even when a website goes down, the template documentation history shows details the resource once linked.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

To prevent further reverts, I create a vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/Reference templates and OCLC. I remember a BP discussion on the subject where I argued extensive identification could be in appendices, but I cannot find the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You're definitely right that such a discussion about appendices happened, but I can't seem to find it either. I'll try and look around a bit more. —JohnC5 08:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
A little bit of discussion is now unfolding at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/March#Vote: Reference templates and OCLC. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

One work online that uses reasonably short link identification is Encyclopedia Britannica. To wit, its article on tiger[1] has Additional Reading section containing K. Ullas Karanth, The Way of the Tiger: Natural History and Conservation of the Endangered Big Cat (2001) as an identification, with no ISBN and no place of publication. Its article on Australia[2] contains similar style, e.g. Tony MacDougall (ed.), The Australian Encyclopaedia, 6th ed., 8 vol. (1996) and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Year Book, Australia (1978– ).

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, you have used the following condition in several admin votes:

Symbol support vote.svg Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping adminship; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. A clarification: My position is that my condition only applies if passing of the vote depends on support of editors who used this condition.

Would you mind explaining the rationale underlying that? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: The rationale is that you cannot know how good an admin someone is until they actually become one and start acting in that role. Furthermore, people tend to behave better before they get in the position of power. Therefore, it has to be reasonably easy to remove the admin flag, which it is not if 2/3-supermajority is required for removal. The event critical for control of admin power is not ensysopping but desysopping. It does not seem to make sense that entering a role requires surpassing 2/3-bar while keeping that role once it is known that you are not entirely fit for it requires surpassing 1/3-bar.
I admit that this issue is not so critical in larger wikis such as the English Wiktionary. But it is still a good principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I see, so the confirmation vote will require a ⅔ majority. Doesn't that also risk making it too easy for a group of troublesome users to block a well functioning admin? Wouldn't it make more sense to have more built-in checks? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: There is such a risk, I admit, but it does not seem very serious to me, based on my wiki experience. Those who are bothered by that risk could be okay with our requiring 1/2 support instead of 2/3 support for a confirmation. From my perspective, even 1/2 begs the question of why 2/3 are required for someone who is not really known in their admin role while 1/2 are required for someone know is known. Still, even 1/2-confirmation would be a worthwhile improvement over what we have now. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Let us postpone the vote as much as discussion requires[edit]

I see that you like to say this when you create a new vote: "Let us postpone the vote as much as discussion requires."

I like that idea. I suggest adding it in Wiktionary:Voting policy, so it will apply to all future votes. The policy says nothing about the 7-day waiting period in the first place, so I propose adding this item there, too.

Proposed wording:

  1. Once a vote is created, it should have a minimum 7-day waiting period before it starts. (except user right votes and bot votes)
  2. The start of a vote can be postponed as much as discussion requires.
  3. A vote for granting the rights of an administrator, checkuser or bureaucrat may start immediately after the recipient accepts.
  4. A vote for granting a bot flag may start immediately.

Is that OK for you? Would you change the wording? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Votes are for concluding discussions, so if the discussion hasn't even started, it's not appropriate to create one. —CodeCat 18:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat. The vote shouldn't have been created if the discussion is still going on (or worse, hasn't started yet). --WikiTiki89 18:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: I don't think we need more policy text in this case; we have common practices that serve us well. Other than that, I do not see a problem with the proposed text, except for having an except-clause in brackets in the first item; exceptions or at least their existence should ideally be indicated as part of the sentence to which they apply.
@CodeCat, Wikitiki89. I obviously diagree, as is apparent from my vote-creating practice. Requiring that discussion took place before a vote page is created is avoidable bureaucracy. A vote talk page page is a suitable place in which to conduct a discussion; it is well suited for multiple section headings pertaining to the vote subject. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In defense of having policy text: It would hopefully help newcomers. IMHO, having policy text is better than not having it, because to learn unwritten rules requires observing what's happening or asking people about it. Just reading about the rules should make things easier.
Concerning my proposed text, I agree with you about the except-clause in brackets in the first item. That part could be improved. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Dan Polansky about this: "Requiring that discussion took place before a vote page is created is avoidable bureaucracy. A vote talk page page is a suitable place in which to conduct a discussion; it is well suited for multiple section headings pertaining to the vote subject." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


In reply to your old query at User_talk:Speednat#Source_of_quotations, I can verify that the quotation is genuine and that the book in which it appears is on GBS. However, it lacked sufficient identifiers and long s had been replaced by normal s; as a result of the long s, the machine-read text that was quoted is quite a load of GBP: exprefsly forbidding the Abyffine clergy, monks, and priefls, to perform any prieftly functions. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the point would have been, back then, where did the user find the quotation? If the user found the quotation on the Internet, as they claimed, they could have pointed to that location, the way you did, couldn't they?
google books:expressly forbidding the Abyssine clergy does not find the location you pointed to, so in what manner did the user find the quotation? If you have access to The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th edition, Oxford University Press, 2003, you may check whether, incidentally, the quotation is also there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't, though I can access the 6th edition. But I think the circumstantial evidence, including the unoriginal typography, already point toward copyright violation. Do you think that the entry in its current form is still problematic in the event we establish violation? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Copying a single quotation from a copyrighted dictionary to Wiktionary does not seem to warrant a removal, by my estimate. What is protected is the selection of quotations, not the quotations themselves. Therefore, there would be a problem only if the copying was systematic, on a larger scale. The goal of my posts to Speednat talk page was to prevent such a copying, if taking place, from becoming systematic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I checked the 6th and 4th editions of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, both lack any quotation at Abyssine. If there was any copying, which I still suspect, it was likely from another source. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Noun or adverb - horko and allies[edit]

Some Czech -o words feel like a special kind of animal: mokro, sucho, dusno, horko, vedro, parno, studeno, ošklivo, mrazivo, slunečno, zamračeno, jasno, polojasno, veselo, smutno, teskno, pusto, prázdno but maybe even světlo, and ticho. As for their semantics, they seem to refer mostly to weather conditions and to human mood conditions. Their derivation consists in replacing the -ý of an adjective with -o. Compared to -ost yielding nouns referring to qualities, the -o derivation is rather unproductive.

They look quite a bit like nouns but SSJC and PSJC analyze multiple of them as both adverbs and nouns, depending on use. The uses that SSJC analyzes as adverbial are often translated into English using adjectives, as in Je mi smutno -> I am sad. As nouns, they could be thought of as referring to qualities. A question is why they don't end in -ost, which is very productive in generating names of qualities.

Some sentences in which the nounhood is not obvious:

  • Venku je horko.
  • Je mi vedro.
  • Je mi smutno.

The nounhood is obvious in the use of inflected forms:

  • Nastala vedra.
  • A je to v suchu.
  • Pojďme radši do tepla.

Adverbhood is suggested by there being words that have typically adverbial suffix and morphological appearance yet are used in a way that is similar to those -o words:

  • Je mi zle.
  • Venku je krásně.

Nounhood is further suggested by words that have non-adverbial suffix, have noun inflection, and are used in a similar way:

  • Venku je zima.
  • Venku je tma.

However, the above uses are analyzed by SSJC as adverbial[REALLY?].

In Colloquial Czech, 2014, James Naughton mentions these -o words as follows:

  • "Some weather phrases use adverbs ending in -ě, but others use special forms ending in -o:"

SSJC has them often both as adverbs and nouns, even zima:

  • horko:
    • adverb: as in "je mi velmi h."
    • noun: 1. velké teplo; parno
  • smutno:
    • documented in smutný
      • noun: velké s. bylo po pohřbu v zahradě
      • adverb: bylo jí s.
  • zima:
    • adverb: chladno: není ti z.?
    • noun: ...; 2. velmi nízká teplota
  • tma:
    • adverb: temno; je úplně t.
    • noun: 1. naprostý n. částečný nedostatek světla; ...

What is it about the use like "je horko" that makes it necessarily adverbial? In "panuje horko", the horko is obviously the subject of the sentence and therefore not an adverb; and furthermore, in "panuje hrozné horko", horko is modified by an adjective. "je horko" can be analyzed as a short for "tam venku je horko" where there could equally be "tam venku je spousta lidí". In "je mi horko", the subject of the sentence seems to be "horko" (and not "já", inflected as "mi"), and therefore "horko" again would be a noun. However, in "je mi zle" and "je mi krásně", "zle" and "krásně" have adverbial suffixes, and it could be argued that the implied subject of the sentence is not "zle" but rather "to", that is, "to je mi krásně". Even then, that does not make "je horko" necessarily adverbial but merely ambiguous between nominal and adverbial. In "je hrozné horko", modification by an adjective suggests a noun; in "je mi hrozná zima", it is a noun again, but in "je mi hrozně smutno", modification by an adverb suggests an adverb; "je mi hrozně zima" can be found as well, whereas "je mi hrozné smutno" I do not recognize as Czech.

As per above, in some cases, the ambiguity is resolved by one of the following features:

  • Modification by an adjective vs. adverb ("je velké horko": noun, "je mi hrozně zima": adverb)
  • Being the subject of a non-auxiliary verb ("panuje horko": noun)
  • Being used in a nominal inflected form ("v tom horku nikam nejdu": noun)

In the cases where the ambiguity is resolved using adverbial modification, it is hard to argue that the use is not adverbial, which I would very much like to do but do not know how.

Komično, tragično, krásno, fantastično, absurdno and absolutno also appear to be nouns, and are ending in -o, but they seem to be of a somewhat different sort.

In German, the ambiguity between noun on one hand and adverb or adjective on the other hand cannot so easily arise since German capitalizes nouns. So there is kalt and Kälte, and warm and Wärme. In Es ist mir kalt, kalt cannot be a noun. On the other hand, on the morphological surface, German shows ambiguity between an adverb and an adjective, so "Es ist mir kalt" is not unambiguously adverbial. The "Es ist mir x" pattern seems to be much less commonly used of human moods: Es ist mir traurig seems much rarer than Ich bin traurig, whereas in Czech, "je mi smutno" is very usual, no less so than "jsem smutný". On Es ist mir kalt, How does "Mir ist es kalt" make sense?,, agrees with my understanding that it could be rendered as "It is cold to me", and argues that "Es ist mir kalt" makes actually more sense from a certain standpoint than "Ich bin kalt" and the English "I am cold". That was something of an aside, but anyway.

As a curiosity, the pattern was used to create the nonce word smažno to translate brillig of Jabberwocky, where 'Twas brillig was translated as Je smažno.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your not helpful advices[edit]

Your advice advice is not helpful, because you miss the point behind my notes: Being not in a position as admin, such words are the last means in cases where people do not react upon pledges for giving scientific sources for their claims, and even resort to nationalistic reasoning. And please note that your advice would be much more useful in those cases. I hope you see the point. HJJHolm (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Dan, I apologize for the spam on your talk page, but I'd like to make some points to this user. @HJJHolm: To what "nationalistic reasoning" are you referring? Where are there "pledges for giving scientific sources" on this site? Also, Dan is an experienced user of this site whose opinion is very important to our discourse, and his advice to you was quite good. Also, what are you implying by the phrase "Being not in a position as admin"? How would your being an admin change these situations at all? Would you block editors with whom you disagree or protect pages without consensus? I'll warn you that is you continue with your current strain of rude behavior, you will lose what credibility and goodwill you currently retain. Again, sorry for the spam, Dan. —JohnC5 06:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I think HJJHolm, not a native speaker, was trying to say that he, not me, is not an admin.
For reference, this thread is in response to diff, where I asked HJJHolm to stop using "!!!" and "???" and made some other requests. Meanwhile, HJJHolm has removed my request from his talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I understood all of that when I wrote this response, but maybe I was unclear that I was asking HJJHolm the quesitons. It's not important anyway. Thanks for your help, Dan. —JohnC5 19:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation section problems[edit]

Recently, my translation sections stopped being collapsible and some bookmarklets stopped working. Using Firefox web console (Control + Shift + K), I realized there appeared the following error:

  • "ReferenceError: Tbot is not defined" [object Error]

This stemmed from User:Dan_Polansky/common.js, where I now commented out the following (diff), and now it works again:

addOnloadHook(function() { Tbot.greenifyTranslinks('cs'); Tbot.greenifyTranslinks('sk'); });

Maybe there is something in User:ZBroz/Tbot.js that no longer works with Mediawiki. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


The utility of current CFI's approach to Navajo is being discussed e.g. in Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh (later at Talk:Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh); two dictionaries are mentioned. Being a less documented language, Navajo can be verified by a single mention, as per WT:CFI#Number of citations. Wiktionary:About Navajo currently does not mention inclusion criteria. Somewhat related is a failed vote Wiktionary:Votes/2012-03/CFI for Endangered Languages. A relevant BP discussion is Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/December#CFI for Navajo and other_languages. Talk:jádí dághaaʼígíí has a talk on a RFV-failed Navajo term.

Some Navajo dictionaries:

  • Navajo-English Dictionary by Wall and Morgan, 1958[3]
  • The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary by Young and Morgan, 1980
  • A Navajo/English Bilingual Dictionary by Alyse Neundorf, 1983
  • Analytical Lexicon of Navajo by Young and Morgan, 1992

A Navajo dict list:

--Dan Polansky (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Renomination for admin?[edit]

I now realize that the reasons for my opposing your previous admin vote were silly. I'd like to renominate you. I realize that adminship on Wiktionary is only about proper usage of tools and nothing else, and has nothing to do with discussion etiquette or opinions against other people, and after thinking about it that way, I think you'd be fine with admin tools. After diverting my way of thinking adminship was almost completely a position of authority, I think anyone who knows how and when to use the tools should have them, regardless of my opinion of the person. You've been here for 10 years making nothing but great contributions, and occasionally flaming other users, like me, but, regardless of that, what I'm saying is that you know how to edit well, and that's what counts. (I know; two admin nominations in one day, but I just had adminship on my mind.) I feel other users may have had the same misperception that I did. Do you accept the nomination? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. However, instead of starting a vote that is likely to fail (remember it needs 2/3 in support), let people who have changed their minds post support votes here, on this talk page. Also, let people consider a conditional support, such as "Support as long as the use of the blocking tool is forbidden" since that would help me advance RFV and RFD without having the block tool, or, more likely, without being allowed to use it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
For context, my admin vote failed in August 2016. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that the block tool is one of power over other people, and should not be awarded to people who we cannot trust, no matter how good editors they are. The use of the block tool does not require consensus, and blocks are rarely challenged. Multiple of current admins are not qualified to use the block tool, in my view. The deletion tool can be abused to hide trails of conversation; it was used in this way by an English Wiktionary admin who meanwhile ceased editing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I feel that this is acceptable. Perhaps we could start a BP discussion on the compromise you just suggested? This talk page doesn't seem to be receiving much attention at the moment. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)