User talk:Internoob

• Archive

norveçli

Thread summary:

In reply to a comment on his talk page, Stambouliote (talk • contribs) confirms that the page norveçli was created in error.

Bonjour,

En turc, ça n'exite pas, norveçli. On toujours ecrit des noms dérivés des noms propres en majuscule. Donc, ça doit être Norveçli, Norveççe etc. Désolé pour vous répondre en français. --Stambouliote 07:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merci. C'était ça que je voulais savoir. On a supprimé la page norveçli. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:fr-noun/Sandbox

It 'seems' to be your edit that has stopped the ACCEL links working. I've created this subtemplate to try and fix it - any idea how? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. I don't know a lot about ACCEL. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Testing.

I'm just testing out the LiquidThreads bit that you're using, since you did seem to kind of volunteer your talk page for this usage. It's not too bad, but it doesn't seem to do very well with the large font size that I use while I'm not quite awake (as I'm dyslexic, and when I'm tired using a large font makes it easier for me to remember how to read). It's going to take a good amount of work for me to remember that I don't have to sign my posts, though. Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 19:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it is kind of confusing that the newest stuff appears at the top.  :( Not to mention the ability to bump threads, which could get even more confusing, overall. I figure that a lot of users are used to looking for one discussion in one place, not having it move about over the talk/discussion page. Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You can sort the threads using the "Sorting order" thing next to the search if you want. But yes, it is going to take some getting used to. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The biggest concern that I have is that at large text sizes, though, the links don't all display correctly, and it could be very problematic, at best. I do kind of like the entire notification of new messages, though. Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In my Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3, the functions to make the text grow larger (Ctrl +) and smaller (Ctrl -) are working perfectly, including in pages where LiquidThreads is used. Daniel. 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

With mine, it breaks after seven increases with Ctrl +. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The seven or eight increases is what I'm talking about. When I'm tired or otherwise not entirely perfectly alert or awake, I often use very large font sizes. Additionally, visually impaired users often use large font sizes as well. Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 06:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an add-on for Firefox that can be used to easily increase and decrease font sizes and is not limited by that "seven or eight increases" rule. Here is the link to install it: [1] Daniel. 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't exactly what I'm talking about. I already have a similar add on. The problem is that LiquidThreads becomes incredibly unusable and confusing when at high font sizes, as the links begin to overlap a great deal, and other things just don't quite work right. Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The add-on that I suggested to you treats "full zoom" and "text zoom" separately from each other, thus permitting configurations where large fonts are displayed within an even larger background. I don't know if it would solve all your problems, but I personally could prevent link overlapping here. Daniel. 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

diarrhœa

Thanks for the correction.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation exceptions

Thanks for doing some work on this, but as a minor point if you do most of a section (i.e. there are fewer than 3 entries left), please just remove the entire section or combine it with the following or preceding one. This saves a small amount of hassle for others, and any problems that have not been done will be listed again at the next regeneration.

Cheers, Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:ht:Annimals

I'm not a Creole guy so I'm not sure here; should it be [[:Category:ht:Animals]] instead? sewnmouthsecret 02:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that, thanks. It's moved to Category:ht:Animals. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw just as I saved it... thx! sewnmouthsecret 02:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of the word zannimo as I typed it lol. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

lang parameters

A friendly reminder to put the lang parameter into templates such as {{abbreviation}} (eg N). Cheers. Bequw → τ 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

periphrastic

I this edit you changed the second /r/ in the Canadian pronunciation to /ɹ/, but left the first as /r/. I'm no expert on Canadian pronunciation, but it seems unlikely that this was deliberate? Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:cardinal

Your categorization is not working. Vahag 12:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I made it to only work if a category with the exact name "Category:(lang) cardinal numbers" exists, and so it works on, eg. karannde. There are other categories that some people use (like "Category:Cardinal numerals" and "Category:xx:Cardinal numbers"). There was a vote to get rid of the language code prefixed ones but some categories still exist. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

nvm I realized it really didn't work. I'll get on it when I get the time. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! Vahag 17:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:new enm entry

You've probably realized this is based somewhat on {{new ht entry}}. The problem I'm having is spacing. If I don't specify a descendant then it leaves extra spaces at the bottom. Also, I'd like to add an etymology section but the same problem applies - not specifying it then leaves two extra line breaks. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have exactly the same problem with {{new ht entry}}. For the etymology, I fixed it by giving it {{rfe|lang=ht}} when I don't know where the word came from. That way, I always have an etymology section. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think, after some more experiments. I put {{subst:#if:true| }} around it all. It works because whitespace is ignored at the beginning and end of #if statements. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

wherefore

Wherefore did you restore the IP's senseless edit? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be a good edit (probably original research though) because ! stands for an alveolar click in IPA. I didn't know, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Internoob/monobook.js

The bug's birthday is on the 14th, not the 18th, I think. :) Yair rand (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know how I missed that. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

CFI and geographic names

I think the headings ==== Names of specific entities ==== and ==== Place names ==== in CFI should be on the level 3 rather than level 4. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2 contained the level 4 headings, right, but it did not intend to change the level of headings in CFI, as the level 4 heading is also used in the vote in the red box, in the text that the vote intended to change. Dan Polansky 12:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. My mistake. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote on numeral vs number

I have left a note in the vote for you. Dan Polansky 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I have been trying to get {{derv}} to work as I said in the documentation page with regard to categorization: Optional expanded category name based on optional parameters. I can't understand what I am doing wrong. If you have time can you take a look? DCDuring TALK 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I think it had to do with my trying to make the second parameter contain a section link. To achieve that is beyond my pay grade.

OTOH, there may be something brain-damaged in what I have tried to do. If you can, take a look. DCDuring TALK 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The template looks good to me. I take it you've fixed all your problems now?

By the way, the page longlegs seems to have been created in error... —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'm not sure what the problem was. It might have been that the categorization steps take time to propagate. Is that possible?

I don't know whether longlegs is a real word, though I think it is short for daddy longlegs. It might have preceded it. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I find that for categories, you sometimes need to purge the cache or save the page again but make no changes or something else. I don't really know at all how the software caches pages.

The issue with longlegs was actually not that; it was that before Martin deleted it, it had {{dervcat}} in it and looked like it should have been named Category:English words derived from: longlegs. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Even cache-purging didn't seem to work. But, when I came back some hours later all was cool.

I'm glad MG cleaned up my little mess. I have to revisit most of the {{derv}} entries and associated categories because the ideas are still evolving a bit. So I will have plenty of chances to find redlinks etc. DCDuring TALK 09:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

assistance...

Thread summary:

This is from a comment on Uprightinc's talk page.

I am trying to create an article/phrase entry. I would like to properly link the info due to copyright info. and would like assistance in how to do this properly as to get this page published today Uprightinc 19:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'd be glad to help. I created the page microactivism (small case). Can you have a look to see if I got the jist of it? I didn't cite the Facebook page because I don't know which dictionary they pulled that from; otherwise, I would have cited the dictionary. I also didn't use the exact wording for this reason and because I didn't know whether that would be fair use or not, but I suspect not (IANAL). —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhymes:French:-je

I created these, starting with j- on the assumption in IPA terms it represents a vowel. Now I'm not so sure. Are these valid? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Sorry. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:fr-noun#fr-noun templates

Please have a look. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:penis

I have just reverted you in WS:penis, so here is an explanation. The terms that you have removed cannot be easily demonstrated to be unattestable. At least two of them actually are attestable. It would be possible to have the policy of keeping in Wikisaurus only those terms that are already attested in the main namespace. But that policy seems needlessly strict to me. What do you think? Dan Polansky 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Since we deleted the /more pages, people seem to be adding the protologisms to the main Wikisaurus instead, so I decided for that page that if the term was not defined in the main namespace, it was probably not trustworthy or worth listing. As it is, I wouldn't trust any of the stuff on that page. Maybe RFC instead. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

But only the following terms have been added to WS:penis since the deletion of "/more": "chopper", "tallywacker", "twanger". You have added a generic "protologism" RFC tag without bothering to investigate which of these are protologisms. A quick search in Google books for "tallywacker" finds some promising hits. So what makes you think these are protologisms, other than that they are not yet in the main namespace? Dan Polansky 08:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of them just failed the "smell test" because I have never heard of most of them before. You're probably right though about most of them being attestable. Sorry, that was my lack of judgement. But for some of them I'm still a bit skeptical, like "chopper" and "dingy" (perhaps they meant "dinghy"?). "Custard cannon" could only be attestable with Google Groups; Google Books gave me nothing that I could read. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:n-g

I moved {{n/g}} to {{n-g}}. Just so you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:199.126.224.245#brick

What is "pooped"? 199.126.224.245 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The sense of pooped that I meant doesn't seem to exist yet in the Wiktionary. I meant "broken". —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Checked again

Thread summary:

This is in reply to a comment User:Internoob made on User talk:Companionship about توپ.

hi. i checked the source again. it's one of two most important Persian dictionary (Dehkhoda). The etymology is not clear. First: Persian, second Turkic and also from French "tube". it's not just the matter of sense. In this dictionary, words with Arabic and Turkic origin are clearly mentioned at the beginning. Link: توپ--Companionship 04:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I can't read the link, so I'll take your word for it. Are you saying that the dictionary doesn't make it clear what the etymology is? Or are there two etymologies? In any case, I'll revert myself on توپ never mind, you already did because you seem to know it better than I do. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the acronym thread. Regarding government acronyms...

will people grumble if I put up a lot of them? I was just going to post ones that pertain to fields I am especially interested in. Geofferybard 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) They might make a fuss, but I personally won't. There's no general consensus as to names of specific entities (see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, and note that even the section on place names is the source of some dispute) but these are probably okay because they're initialisms and acronyms, and that "redeems" them in the eyes of most people.

Also, they have to be able to meet the attestation requirements in WT:CFI, which they probably do but I haven't checked. It's not necessary to give all three quotes on the page so long as there are three potential quotes out there that you could give in the case that someone requests verification. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For Englilsh -Only fans: Is there any way that...

I can just see populated ENGLISH language pertinent definitions without all the clutter of Basque and Sanskrit and ancient Chinese and Albanian cognates?:

These are all wonderful languages, but I don't necessarily need to see their intricate etymologies every time I seek and English definition...

Perhaps I will get used to it? Geofferybard 04:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In WT:PREFS, there is an option for tabbed language browsing (each language has a tab), but I don't know anything about it at all and I think that it is still very buggy. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I get rid of red letter pluralization that automatically populates new pages

even when it is obvious that there is no plural?? Geofferybard 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I think that you could use {{en-proper noun}} (proper nouns) or {{en-noun|-}} (uncountable common nouns). Does that answer your question? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It provides hints for experimentation.

I think you mean that if I past those templates the problem will go away.

It seems obvious but I am not sure that it will get the exact effect I would like to see.

I will try it but I've got a back log of new definitions I want to get created session so I might not get to it.

I hope people don't mind but I have a lot of ideas for great new entries and I am not into polishing them up with pronuounciation and etymology at the moment. I don't think that is all that important on some type of words,technical words. Geofferybard 06:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah cool works perfect. Geofferybard 06:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the template if there IS a plural.

Check out Yakima.

What's the drill? Geofferybard 06:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is a plural, the way you have it at Yakima is exactly right assuming Yakimas is the plural of Yakima. I assume that if it has a plural, it also means "a person of the Yakima tribe"?

If you want an easy way of adding entries for these plurals, you can use WT:ACCEL and install it by selecting, in Special:Preferences, under the Gadgets tab, "Add accelerated creation links for common inflections of some words." Does this answer your question? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Yakimas is improper. She is Yakima. They are Yakima. I went to pray with the South Fork Yakima tribe. I went to pray with the South Fork Yakima. But if you look at all of the different bands of the Yakima, you might say that there are indeed, through history and time, different forms of the the Yakima[s].[?]Geof Bard 19:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Yakimas" seems to see some usage, however. [2] There are some usages in that selection of "Yakima" as the plural of "Yakima" too.

If you want to specify that it has two plural forms like antelope, you can use {{en-noun|pl=antelope|pl2=antelopes}}. For more sophisticated things, you could use, for example, {{en-noun|pl='''moose''', (''chiefly humorous'') '''[[meese]]''', (''dated, rare'') '''[[mooses]]'''}}.

Hope this helps. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

She was Yakima.

She was one of the Yakimas.

She was of the Yakima.

She was of the Yakimas.

Yes two plural forms. Geof Bard 19:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Liquid threads rock.

I want one of my own how do I get one? Geofferybard 04:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you add {{#useliquidthreads:1}} to your talk page, then it will have liquidthreads on it. Yair rand (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chumash - what is the fix for that entry?

The Hebrew word needs to be made more prominent near the top of the page people who scroll down will miss it. Geofferybard 06:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend to flip around the etymology 1 and etymology 2 sections. That might be worthwhile for this entry because it would put the external links and references nearer the bottom of the page where they're not as much in the way. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to restore "New Messages" marked as Read?

Is there any way to restore "New Messages" marked as Read?

There is good information in those I would like to review. I did not have warning that "marking" also meant "making invisible"! Geofferybard 07:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You will have to look for them again on the page you posted them on. I don't know of a way to put them back in Special:NewMessages. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They were message to me I didn't post them Geofferybard 04:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. In that case, if they are replies to what you posted, they should be found under the thing you posted. "New Messages" is kind of a counter-intuitive name because they're not really like emails or anything. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and they might be at User talk:Geofferybard. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Need overide of Scotus to SCOTUS

Third time in two days still no clue if I can get this done without pleading for admin. Geofferybard 04:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured out the trick. EOM Geofferybard 04:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dzogchen: When I switched it from Tibetan to English, I get the Union Jack flying over ancient Tibetan words...doesn't seem right

Thread summary:

Flags feature sucks

I know it is because I turned that feature on but that is irrelevant. Many people will have the flags feature; it seems there should be a way to nullify it on words of clear non-English derivation. The so-called "borrowed" words. Geof Bard 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. All words with English headers get treated the same. The script has no way of knowing which ones are borrowed from other languages. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've concluded that the flags feature is not helpful because of this issue.Geof Bard 23:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not a very popular feature for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it uses the flag of communist Yugoslavia for the Serbo-Croatian language, and we once had a huge fight over Serbo-Croatian which you can see here. The "Serbo-Croatian = Yugoslavia = communist, dead, genocidal &c." argument was one of the recurring themes and I think it doesn't help to reinforce that. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read it yet but I can well imagine.

Does Jeff over-rule or does he just test people's determination and conviction? It seems like I am attracting vociferous opposition not just from him but from others who seem to think that

they have it all figured out. I respect the really stellar work that is done here but it seems also that there are certain ways that they are set in regarding which they are not inclined to budge. Geof Bard 00:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ian, is WP:BITE specifically considered to be NOT-policy at wiktionary?

I have received some surprisingly harsh criticism for such offenses as writing an excessively lengthly defense against an rfd, removing what seemed to be a routine mispelling error (at this point moot whether or not it was) and providing definitions that some thought were too fussy. No mention anywhere of correcting the black hole of missing theological terms, which I think may be something I could contribute; it seems that the web attracts a higher proportion of white hat hackers and cyberpunks who are not necessarily up on the traditional religious cultures. Or, for whatever reason; the point being that I would have thought that there would be a more positive reception for those contributions and a somewhat toned down picking of nits. I don't mind being relentless flamed when I am pushing a point - such as the entry of TULIP, and its derivatives. And I don't mind being on the losing side of controversy such as the rejection of Game (the rapper),despite the fact that they are letting in a lot of entries that are probably less defensible. But some of the remarks seem to take the view that it is some kind of crime to have a different perspective, and frankly there seems to be a very strong bias toward UK and Commonwealth English. Be that as it may, the subject upon which I seek your advice is whether in fact WP:BITE is specifically rejected as either guideline or policy. I think I am obligated to find this out, aside from any benefit which may devolve to me from understanding the answer. Please advise. Geof Bard 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who this person is, but since he's referring to me as critic: (i) he has repeatedly refused to read our basic policies, preferring to rely on long-winded bombast and speeches, (ii) he has made various ill-advised edits on the grounds of being an expert (including some kind of promise or signature in the edit summary, which is obviously not provable or enforceable), and (iii) he is talking here about Wikipedia policies, which do not apply to Wiktionary. Cheers, Equinox ◑ 01:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerning BITE, I think that we've developed a culture that is less tolerant than Wikipedia of the newbies. This is because we have fewer prolific editors than them, so we need to spend less time fixing other people's mistakes and we're less patient. And this is not just my opinion by the way; it's been discussed before, e.g. on Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/January#Pulling our act together. In reply to your previous question about Jeff (SemperBlotto), User talk:SemperBlotto#Please do not bite the newcomers pretty much explains it all. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah that about sums it up. Well I looked over dozens of edits and Jeff only reverted a couple, so I guess my case was kind of the opposite of the normal new user situation with regard to the definitions. And everybody has been very cool and helpful regarding format issues. I freely admit that I screwed up on respell, which was partly my own arrogant sense of style for which I have always just detested that word and partly my inept clicking the wrong link and missing the voluminous google list of uses of the word. It is a very contentious environment but as far as I am concerned language is sacred. I hope that Equinox revives his account, the guy is brilliant and he has a lot to offer. I think it might be OK to work up a somewhat softer reception for new contributors but the important thing is that Wiktionary does not become responsible for degradation of language, most particularly English and Sanskrit. Again, Equinox could be a major contributor to that, his vast knowledge,skills and abilities are far too important to not undelete and resume. I publicly apologize for antagonizing him by so stupidly overlooking the obvious on the respell matter and if it will bring him back on board I am more than happy to leave Wiktionary for an agreed term. However, I will not concur that he has any right to post that I allegedly "refuse to read" something or other as he has no way of knowing what I have and have not read, nor did I ever post any statement of refusal. It must be annoying to have a newbie whose sin is not the prevailing general ineptitude with language, but rather a poet's sense for it. But for a crew that has some excellent language [chops], it should mitigate any sense of annoyance you folks may have over things to know that I acknowledge that this is a space where everyone else is pretty much as smart or smarter than myself regarding our Sacred Mother Tongue. I hope that other dude - I suppose you call him that "chap" - comes back sooner rather than later, and accepts my apology, despite my reservation. It doesn't make it not an apology, it is just that I can't acknowledge that anyone else has ESP or remote vision and I do speak for myself on what I have and have not read. So if that assertion nullifies the apology, or delays its effect, or if perhaps I am just the lastest straw in a big haystack of setbacks at wiktionary, I honestly don't know what I will do. It is easy enough to see how one could become addicted to wiktionary; perhaps for some it is more productive to step back and write haiku on the beach...I don't know at this point whether that is the more enviable option. In any case, Jeff K. should get a prize for what he's been able to accomplish here, but I hope it doesn't get messed up with imprecise definitions which then propagate like, well, prions... Geof in a Lao Tsu mood 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anatman ---------------------------> (आत्म‍|/Ātmā), * IPA: /ˈɑn ˈɑːtman/

I'd appreciate if you would take a look at my entry [anatman] and let me know if I screwed up the etymology by not including the proper tag for inter-wiki search engines, or violating protocol on the etymology.

I am pretty confident with definitions and meanings but not so much so with these other aspects of the format. Thanks. Geof Bard, but then I am you and you are me and we are all together... 05:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology looks good, except it's unclear whether the an- prefix comes from English or Sanskrit. If the prefix was added in English, I recommend that you use {{prefix|an|atman}}, and then describe where atman comes from like you have done; if it was added in Sanskrit, you should say that the word comes from the Sanskrit word anatman which is itself composed of an- + Ātmā ("no soul") or some such.

PS. I'm going to go on a wikibreak, and I'll be offline for the weekend. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is Sanskrit and Anglicized Sanskrit.Geof Bard 19:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify please? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that both atman and anatman, or versions of them, existed in Sanskrit and probably Pali, although the Buddha was famously silent on the issue. Thus, there is a Sanskrit prefix "an" which negates...perhaps that is where we obtained the English prefix "a-" or "an-". We being speakers of an "Indo-Aryan" tongue...But you still haven't commented on

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#sunyata where the biased secularists are flaming alreadyGeof Bard 19:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. If you know what the Sanskrit word anatman with the prefix is, then it would be good to add that to the etymology. If not, it's probably good enough as is. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bodhipathapradīpa

I was all set to create this entry but came upon a warning it had been deleted. I think it is a settled issue that words like this will be created on Wiktionary. Maybe it was previously deleted because it indicated "Tibetan" as the language and thus proceeding is not a problem as long as it is coded as "English"

Bodhipathapradīpa is the name of an influential book which a lot of Americans read in translation. It even has English commentaries. The basis given was that theoretically it is not kosher to write in "Latin" letters words that were previously written in some other script. Obviously that would throw out all derivatives of Greek, Teutonic languages, etcetera. Also we would have to toss out words like karma.

I posted this question on Information desk but thought I would ask you as well. Geof Bard 06:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction - it is part of the Sanskrit canonized by Tibetans. It is a word in Tibetan just as it is a word in English, as is [karma]. So it is in all three languages but with Sanskrit derivation.

I think it is like [Bible]. Whatever the policy is on [Bible], should be policy on [Koran], [Qu'ran], [Dhammapada],and Bodhipathapradīpa. Etcetera..

Geof Bard 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the reason it was deleted is that it had Latin letters but had Tibetan as the language, but Tibetan uses the Tibetan script. Go ahead and re-add it with an English header. Even if it's a loan word from Tibetan or Sanskrit, if it's used in an English context it's considered an English word. Its version in Tibetan script would be considered a Tibetan word, and so forth. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. But I don't understand why the language wasn't just changed to English, unless the purpose was to create some kind of standing monument to something or other...oh well, in Buddhism we don't worry about "standing monuments" one way or another. Geof Bard 19:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The admin that found it was probably reluctant to make changes to it because it was Tibetan and he didn't know whether the script was wrong or the language was wrong, so he deleted it. He might have used {{wrongscript}} but he maybe didn't understand the definition either. As an administrator, I can restore the page and clean it up if you want. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I probably wrote it up wrong but sure lets get the ball rolling and restore the entry.Geof Bard 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Done.

PS. You don't have to sign your posts in Liquid Threads because it's done for you already :) —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

sunyata (emptiness)

I've been reading about sunyata in English philosophical writings for decades. It is like karma and nirvana but less common. Someone deleted it without discussion. What is the proper way to contest or dispute a deletion aside from nominating it for deletion yourself and voting keep?? Geof Bard 18:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI" part of his deletion summary was not really the reason for deletion; it was that it had a Sanskrit language header but it was in Latin script. It should be okay now.

When administrators delete a page, they have the option of selecting the reason from a drop-down list of reasons. As a result, sometimes the reasons are unclear or vague when they don't think that hard as to which reason really applies. It happens that there's nothing in CFI about using the wrong script, but he probably assumed there was somewhere. I've done that myself on occasion. In this case, he added an extra note in the deletion summary so that's how you can know the problem.

If you're ever unsure why an entry was deleted, you can always ask an administrator such as me (or better still the deleting administrator) for clarification. If you still think that it was deleted in error, you can post on WT:BP or a similar forum. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please re-post this at

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#sunyata

with your four tildes thanks. Geof Bard 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

abazia

Ok, I got it. Thanks for welcoming and for your message. Larry Yuma 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ishionomy

Am i not wrong? That if some thing is published on a article on a website, blog, or other internet source, it is acceptable for this site 71.236.108.63 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be recorded three times in permanently recorded media (books, Google Books, Google Groups, but not blogs or web sites) per WT:CFI. Ishionomy gets zero Google hits, on Books, Groups and even web (which doesn't count for WT:CFI, but goes to show that it probably doesn't exist). If it does exist, please provide some evidence. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is some evidence, but there is more. Gigasolus 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. For some reason that didn't come up for me on Google Groups. I'm still a bit skeptical however. If you can find enough citations, please add them to Citations:ishionomy and readd the entry. Also note that the definitions would be formatted like this:

# The process of working with stone

# Masonry

With a # instead of 1. The hash turns the list into a numbered list in the same way that * makes a bulleted list. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies

I am responding on your talk page to your response at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies from 13 March 2011. I have overlooked your response; sorry for the late response.

Re: "You can't get everyone to structure their creations in exactly the same way, and with every new thing that gets standardized, we have to explain to newbies that make a mistake what their mistake was and ask that they remember it in the future.":

Getting everyone to use the common format and structure is exactly what Wiktionary has been trying to do all along. We require that the entries conform to ELE, including the requirements on used headings, used format in translation sections, and more.

The vote is not there to scare the newbies. It does not even use the word "forbid"; it says "deprecate", which is defined by WT as "to declare something obsolescent, i.e., to recommend against a function, technique, command, etc, that still works but has been replaced". The point '(b) declaring that anyone is welcome to replace less-than symbol with "from" in etymologies, no matter whether manually or robotically' formally allows editors to switch to the "from" format, which is what some editors have informally been already doing anyway. Once every etymology contains "from", newbies are likely to use the same formatting rather than being confused by the mixture. Instead of having to search for policies and guidelines, newbies will be able to just look around and imitate. Thus, this seems to be an improvement for newbies. I do not support people pesking newbies for using "<"; I merely support that people should feel free to replace "<" with "from". If you read the text of the proposal again, it does not say anything from which pesking of newbies would follow. If you are afraid that pesking of newbies could be read into the proposal, you can explicitly state that you oppose pesking of newbies for deviating from the standard.

The use of "from" is really easy to pick, and I have seen newbies spontaneously using the form. What is much harder to use for newbies are the etyl and term templates. Some newbies vehemently reject to use them. Some senior editors have been pesking newbies for failing to use the templates in etymology sections, asserting that their use is the community decision. (As you can seen from this vote, that is as improbable as anything. ) I have been pesked by a senior editor for writing {{term|latin term||gloss}} instead of {{term|latin term||gloss|lang=la}}: what the editor complained about was the missing lang=la.

I am sorry for the long response; its benefit is that I could explain and highlight things in detail. Thank you for your attention. Dan Polansky 10:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, no need to apologize. I am not bothered.

RE: "Getting everyone to use the common format and structure is exactly what Wiktionary has been trying to do all along. We require that the entries conform to ELE, including the requirements on used headings, used format in translation sections, and more."

Yes, I agree that we value consistency. However, there needs to be a compromise between that and having a manageable number of rules so that we don't drown in them all. There's no way to easily make everyone's contributions exactly the same in structure. Some people put the oldest definitions first in a list, some put the perceived most common definitions first and for some people it's arbitrary. Some people use "colour" and others say "color". Some people use a * for the only item in a usage notes section and others don't bother. The list goes on. As individuals, editors edit differently. To change this requires effort.

Having said that, I will be willing to switch to abstain if I understand correctly that no one (whether newbie or senior editor) will be forced (or strongly recommended, or whatever language someone might use to "force" someone to do something) to use ", from" over "<". I don't care if users want to change what other people write if they think it's bad for some reason, but I won't go so far as to support it. All I care about at this point is that it won't become a silly point to nit-pick over just because it's been voted on.

If you can assure me of that much, I will abstain. (Or you can discount my vote for me, if time runs out before I do.) —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In all frankness, I cannot assure you of the behavior of other editors. (I can assure you that I will do no pesking myself.) If the vote passes, it is the proposed text that passes. The proposed text is, to recall, this:

'Voting on: Setting the use of "from" in etymologies as Wiktionary standard, and deprecating the use of less-than symbol. In particular: (a) adjusting Wiktionary:Etymology, a guideline for formatting of etymology, to state that "from" is the standard, by replacing less-than symbol with ", from" in examples and by other adjustments as needed; (b) declaring that anyone is welcome to replace less-than symbol with "from" in etymologies, no matter whether manually or robotically. (c) There should be a comma and a space before "from", with the exception of "from" that is at the beginning of the etymology, and possibly some other exceptions; as in "From A, from B, from C" rather than "From A from B from C".'

The proposed text does not prevent editors from pesking, but it also does not mandate pesking. But then again, for pesking, senior editors do not need any vote: it suffices that they claim that the newbie has violated "what the community has decided" without there being a vote, such as the use of templates in etymology sections. Actually, in my case with missing lang=la mentioned in my previous post, I was no longer a newbie yet I got pesked by a senior editor. Peskers will pesk; many of them have an innate drive to do so. I think I have such an innate drive but I am trying to block it. If you want to prevent pesking in general, you have to do more than oppose a vote that makes it possible for people to replace "<" with "from": you have to say, possibly in boldface, I vehemently oppose pesking newbies for failing to use 'from'. When you see pesking that you do not like, you have to stand up to the pesker. However, there are some senior editors who won't care anyway, your boldfaced opposition or not, this vote or not. This vote really is not about whether newbies should be pesked, but rather about whether editors can feel free to quickly converge to "from".

As my afterthought, consider Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms. This vote could have been opposed on the ground that the editors should spontaneously converge to something in the mainspace. In fact, there was not all that much time for editors to spontaneously converge to anything as regards Romanian forms, unlike "from" vs "<" which was given at least four years for the convergence since I have started editing Wiktionary. One of the Romanian editors has been pesking another Romanian editor for using the option that has in the end won in the vote. Thus, this particular vote has protected the pesked from the peskers, despite the vote's imposing a standard. Dan Polansky 07:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. I'll think about it. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:rfd

If you read this diff, rfd now seems to add an extra space, making the colon appear as part of the section header. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was wrong to begin with but it's fixed anyway. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

/ɵ/

Thread summary:

Continued from User talk:Xyzzyva.

Well, I acquired the habit of using /ɵ/ from Wikipedia, where it's used for those unstressed vowels that vary between /ə/ and /oʊ/ (or somewhere between) for different speakers. The note at WP:IPA for English:

Pronounced [ə] in many dialects, and [ɵw] or [əw] before another vowel, as in cooperate. Sometimes pronounced as a full /oʊ/, especially in careful speech. (Bolinger 1989) Usually transcribed as /ə(ʊ)/ (or similar ways of showing variation between /əʊ/ and /ə/) in British dictionaries.

I'm not sure how this fits in to Wiktionary's pronunciation policies. — ˈzɪzɨvə 03:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Wiktionary has few guidelines concerning pronunciation, and nothing on this specifically, so there's nothing wrong with it. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for temporary protection for Talk:loser.

Please protect Talk:loser for a while, it seems that multiple IPs have taken to vandalizing it. Ajraddatz 02:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

message, vintage

Thread summary:

Continued from User talk:Kzman

look at this →

--Kzman 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I replied there. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

developer program

developer program entry denied

Sorry newbie here. I would like to try this again but need to retrieve the original text and can't figure it out how to access the full text of my original submission.

Not sure how to avoid company names since developer programs are always associated with a company. See: Apple Developer Program. AT&T developer program. developer.sprint.com, etc.

Thank you.

Sorry I had to delete this page. We generally don't include the names of companies (see the policy WT:COMPANY), except in certain cases such as McDonald's, and even that is undergoing a request for verification. —Internoob 05:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I realize now that this isn't really a company name at all. I saw the link on the page to developerprogram.com and I assumed that it was promotional material for that site/company. I'll restore the page.

I don't know really what a developer program is beyond what you've written but it seems to me that the definition could be pruned to help comprehension. The phrase "via published APIs, SDKs and NDKs" might be changed to "by providing access to resources" or some such thing (make it more general and more accurate). I'll leave that up to people that are more familiar with the topic. Also, I realize that the external links go to examples of developer programs but external links aren't aren't usually used here, except for references. They tend to look spammy and don't fit in with dictionary material very well IMO. —Internoob 23:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How can I retrieve my original, initial definition for "developer program" which was rejected? I need to retrieve that verbiage so I can begin working on a Wikipedia entry. Thank you. Jmarkhayward 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Under the History tab of the entry, click the date for the version that you want. You probably want this one then. —Internoob 01:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

We want to create a Wikipedia entry for "developer program."

Developer programs are a $billion+ industry. Google it.

Little public information is available because all programs compete for same developers and they don't share technology or best practices information.

Many developer program attempts fail as a result. It appears to be solely a technical problem; technology is the easy part. Most developer program people learn this the hard way, and we hope to use Wikipedia to help educate the industry.

We simply are looking for a venue for to educate people. The approach we hope to take requires input for everyone in the industry and we need your advice. We understand the Wikipedia processes. Instead, we are looking for some insights. Who can we talk with?

Thank you.

Mark Hayward, +1 (512) 218-1001 x607 Jmarkhayward (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

I think you should ask for help at Wikipedia's Help desk. I am only a Wiktionary administrator and all I know is that Wikipedia is a more appropriate place for the stuff you want to do than Wiktionary.

Cheers —Internoob 03:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making slash fiction the Word of the day

Thank you very much for making slash fiction the Word of the day! Most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you for nominating it. —Internoob 04:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, my pleasure! ;) It's my first Word of the day, exciting stuff. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

hot chicken sandwich

Hi Ian! You're in Canada according to WT:Wiktionarians and a "hot chicken sandwich" is Canadian according to WT:RFV#hot_chicken_sandwich, so I wondered if you wanted to comment there (or here) on whether or not we should keep our entry about it. I'm assuming it's attestable; a question raised on RFV is whether it can be made with meats other than chicken, and whether than makes it more, or less, SoP. Also, do you know anything about a "hot hamburger"? - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing as a hot chicken sandwich or a hot hamburger, sorry. —Internoob 03:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for setting the Words of the Days

Thank you for setting the Words of the Days! It's a massive, daily undertaking! I remember when I took over from Widsith, and eventually got burnt out, which is when you stepped up (thank you)... if you ever feel tired of it or need a break from it yourself, you should bring it up in the BP like Widsith did so others can help out. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't have an objection— it is very early, but— I'm tempted to start filling December with words like doomsayer, rebirth, apocalyptic#Adjective and b'ak'tun — interspersed, of course, with calmly atopical/untopical words like, well, intersperse and atopical. (I'd leave Christmas, New Year's and as much of Hannukah as possible open for others to fill with their holidays' cheer, and if anyone came up between now and then with better words for days I'd set, the better words could always be subbed in.) What do you think? When December arrives, it'd be a month off. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :)

If you want to fill up December, I have no objection and I would appreciate the help. Just make a note on Wiktionary:Word of the day/Status of which days you've done so that I don't set them again. —Internoob 16:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The 14th sense you added to à

Hi Internoob. I do not agree with the sense you added to à with this edit: "(in conjuction with the definite article) Used to name the owner of a body part". The sense is much broader: here, "à" introduces a complement to "couper", not to "les oreilles", and introduces a provenance. It can be translated as "from" and usually can be equally replaced with "de". It is the same "à" as in "couper une branche à un arbre", "retrancher 10 au résultat", "prendre à Pierre pour donner à Paul". This sense should stay because it is not redundant with any other sense, but it must definitely be rephrased. — Xavier, 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I made this change, which is an improvement but could use some more explanations, maybe. What do you think? —Internoob 21:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that's better. However, in my opinion, what remains to be said is mentioned in the usage notes: "à" introduces an indirect object (envoyer qq chose à qq'un) or a second object. I am not grammatically savvy enough to tell you more but my feeling is that this sense 14 (naming the owner or the provenance) is not the same as sense 6 (belonging to). Contrary to sense 6, this "à" is intimately bound to the verb and it introduces more the origin of an action (from ...), or the indirect object of an action, than the belonging of the direct object.

In this respect, the bolded translation, albeit correct, is misleading. To make myself clear: "il a volé la voiture à son père" would translate to "he stole the car from his father" (origin). On the other hand, "he stole his father's car" (appartenance: il a volé la voiture de son père) is very close but doesn't exactly bear the same meaning. — Xavier, 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely different than sense 6, yes, but I'm not sure how to express the difference clearly either. I made this edit to the translation. "Cut the ears off of" sounds like more natural English IMO than "cut off the ears from". —Internoob 21:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! And you are in a better position than me to judge what sounds best in English ;-) BTW, I wonder whether the "off" shouldn't be bolded too. — Xavier, 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself, but I don't know enough about syntax to say for sure. —Internoob 21:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

about about

Judging by the talk page, people keep adding joking or simply incorrect "Canadian" pronunciations to [[about]]. If you're Canadian, could you check out the audio pronunciations which are still in the entry and the IPA transcriptions which were just removed, and help us work out which, if any, are actual Canadian pronunciations of the word? - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of the audios are right, although File:En-ca-about.ogg was once vandalized and then corrected. The IPA was right, AFAICT. w:Canadian raising says it's [ʌu] or [ɛʉ], but the entry had [ʌʊ] and [ɛʊ], which are probably either the same or acceptable variations. —Internoob 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Haitian Creole

Thank you for the vote of support on Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2012-06/Well_Documented_Languages. It has passed. Do you want to propose Haitian Creole be removed from the list? Consensus in the Beer Parlour is all that's needed. BB12 (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not removed, but added. I'll look into it. Thanks for reminding me. —Internoob 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

re: percussão

Thank you for your remarks, I will remember them for the future. I didn't know about {{attention}}. Thanks again! Zu (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Any time. :) —Internoob 05:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Rockefeller entry.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Freud The entry on the name gives a definition for the famous Freud, Sigmund. So isn't it reasonable to have a definition of the family for the name Rockefeller, if it can be briefer and less long winded than what I wrote? How about this, "A wealthy family that included John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, and Nelson, Vice President, among other prominent people." Is that better since its shorter? PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Paul, thanks for your message. I need to explain myself. On WT:CFI#Genealogical content, our policy page about what words and definitions to include, it says, "Wiktionary is not a genealogy database. Wiktionary articles on family names, for example, are not intended to be about the people who share the family name. They are about the name as a word." So I think that the Rockefeller sense about the family itself would fall under that criterion.

Why is Freud an exception? (Also Einstein, Jefferson, etc.) I'm not sure, but it could be that the surname itself is commonly used in an idiomatic way to refer to one particular individual, and not just any old person named Freud. This kind of usage seems marginally acceptable in my opinion, but talking about the whole family of Freuds would probably run afoul of the WT:CFI. —Internoob 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, is almost as well known as Freud. Is adding an entry about him ok, as long I don't turn it into a geneology? It would be along the lines of Freud, Eintstein, Jefferson, because he's so famous. PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a tough call. Place names, people names and company names have always been a controversial topic and I'm not sure how I feel about them. I say go for it, as long as it doesn't look like a genealogy and as long as what you add otherwise meets CFI. I can't guarantee that someone won't put it up for verification and/or deletion though. —Internoob 05:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Drinking age etymology.

Sorry, I did not know about the Texas Hold 'Em drinking age thing. That's weird. I had not read the second definition. Obviously, I should have. Now I understanding why that was mentioned in the etymology. Sorry about that. PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :) —Internoob 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Review my editing

Could you review my editing, please? I want to make sure I'm not being an idiot again, so I don't get banned here like I did on simple English wikipedia and English wikipedia. PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means. I will need to log off soon, but I'll see what I can do. —Internoob 06:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You said here,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=statutory_rape&diff=32726653&oldid=32726488, that pipelinks should generally go to lexically related words. At first I agreed with you, but now that I thought about it I don't. Because underage is a broad term. In the context of a statutory rape crime, it means a person below the age of consent for sex specifically. There are other ages of license that a person reaches, for example the age of majority that makes a person a legal adult, the driving age, the drinking age, the voting age, etc. All of those are about issues not directly related to sex laws. Statutory rape has to do specifically with prosecuting an adult for having sex with someone below the age of consent. Also, unless a different age is specified, people usually assume underage means someone under the age of majority, i.e. 18, but sometimes the age of consent is lower than the age of majority. So for that reason, if underage is going to be pipelinked, I think it should be pipelinked specifically to age of consent. PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the way it was before in this revision was acceptable, saying "below the age of consent". It's fine either that way or with "underage" in my opinion. Wiktionary is not paper, so although definitions shouldn't be unnecessarily verbose, there is no need to make them especially succinct either. So you can replace "underage" with "below the age of consent" if you prefer.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's sometimes better if the definition can be understood without needing to follow the links to other entries. So if you think that "underage" is ambiguous, maybe it's better to replace it in the text with "below the age of consent" rather than link it to what you mean to say. I don't think the ambiguity is a big problem though.

We generally like to link only to lexically related words because our idea is that if someone clicks a link, it's because they want to know what that word means, and not some other word. —Internoob 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lobachevskyian

Thread summary:

Continued from User talk:PaulBustion88

I believe that there is a specific kind of geometry Lobachevsky developed, called Lobachevskyan geometry. That definition, if I am correct, would be different from the definition of the term as "of or related to Nikolai Lobachevsky" as a person. Sort of like the difference between Freudian psychoanalysis and Freudian in the sense of "of or related to the man named Sigmund Freud", one is related specifically to a scientific theory, the other is related more broadly to biographical information. That's why I added the other definition. PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The sense that's already there mentions his work on non-Euclidian geometry, right? It says, paraphrasing, relating to the person Lobachevsky or his work on non-Euclidian geometry. —Internoob 22:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But Lobachevskyan also can mean specifically "hyperbolic geometry". I think that sense should be in a separate definition, because its only tangentially related to "of or related to Nikolai Lobachevsky". PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But the point is, that the first definition already says, "Of or pertaining ... to his work ... on non-Euclidian geometry". —Internoob 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should be two definitions, but if so, you need to remove the part from the first one about the non-Euclidian geometry so that the definitions aren't redundant. So in that case, one would be only about the person and the other only about the geometry. —Internoob 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Review my editing.

Hello. Could you review my editing some more? Could you tell me if its good or not? PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I've had a look at some of your edits. I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wiktionary for the next few days because of other priorities, but I can give you a few pointers.

In leamh, I had to remove your contribution. Keep in mind that I don't know any Irish at all, so it's quite possible you know something that I don't know. There were a few things wrong with it from what I could tell:

• It seems to me like leamh isn't listed as a form of léigh on that page's conjugation table, but léamh is and it has a meaning "reading". So I assumed that your contribution was on the wrong page on these grounds.
• The order of language sections is the following: Translingual at the top, where it exists; then English, where it exists; and then all other languages in alphabetical order. So in particular, the Irish section you added would have to go above the Scottish Gaelic section if it were to return.
• You absolutely need to specify the part of speech of everything. It looked like a verb from the usage examples you gave, but then léamh is a noun and I don't speak Irish so I can't tell.
• The definition "reading" is not very helpful. "Reading" is a present participle. Is leamh exactly the present participle of the verb léigh? The present participle of some other verb that means "read"? The entry léamh is more precise in that it uses {{verbal noun of}} and in general, words that aren't lemmas should use form-of templates in their definitions.

Cheers —Internoob 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure this is a good edit? How good is your Spanish? It seems to me that "golf pelota" should rather be "pelota de golf". (It's a good idea to include a {{Babel}} box on your user page so that people can see at a glance how far to trust your edits of languages other than English.) Is this natural usex with clear context? (I don't see what golf balls have to do with Lucifer.) —Internoob 23:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

British Isles. Is that term obsolete or still popular?

Equinox reverted my edit to British Isles where I called the term obsolete. I would have thought it was obsolete because most of Ireland is no longer under British sovereignty, so the majority of one of the British Isles is not British anymore. Should the term be labeled archaic or not? PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Equinox and those guys. As long as people still use the term, we can't label it archaic or obsolete. "Archaic" is for words that sound really old and aren't in common usage like "thou" and "quoth". "Obsolete" is for words that are so old that their meaning is no longer widely understood, like Category:English obsolete terms. So "British Isles" is neither because it is still widely used and understood. You might get away with calling it politically incorrect or proscribed, but I wouldn't bother since the usage notes already seem to cover it. —Internoob 06:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In cases where a legal idea is being described using a term that the law does not formally use, is it ok to note that its not a formal legal term. For example the term age of consent is never used by states/governments, although obviously it is a real concept in the sense that adults are not allowed to have sex with children, its not a term that appears in government/state usage ever, and Malke2010 criticized me for using the term on English wikipedia, pointing out that its not a term that appears in any laws. Its a real concept, but the term is not actually used by the governments, so I thought that should at least be pointed out in "usage notes". Another example is that the British Empire was not an actual legal entity the way the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were, there was never a constitutionally organized called the British Empire, it was just a way people informally described the combination of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later just Northern Ireland) and its colonies, dominions, and crown dependencies. Is it ok to note discrepancies like that between formal legal terminology and how its informally described? PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if it's true, then it may be a good idea to add a usage note to that effect. However, I am skeptical about what you claim about the "age of consent" not being used by governments or in law. Here's a Government of Canada website that defines the term and here is Bill C-22 in the Canadian parliament that contains the term. It doesn't appear to be in the Criminal Code of Canada, however. —Internoob 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few states and governments that use the term, but not many. For example, in Indiana the legal age for sexual activity is called "sexual misconduct with a minor" they do not use the term "age of consent" at all. Rhode Island, I remember reading, actually does use the term age of consent in its law, but that's pretty much the only time I've heard of it being used as a formal legal term. So what I'm saying is true 9 out of 10 times, that states and government do not use this term. I used to believe it was a legal and was criticized by Malke2010 and Flyer22 for using it on wikipedia without pointing out it was not a formal legal term. Also, statutory rape is not a formal legal term either. I found a source for my statement that the British Empire is not a formal legal term, Pax Britannica by James Morris, I remembered reading it when I was in middle school and looked up the quote that I remembered on google books. PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What this amounts to then, is that some governments sometimes use the term. I don't really know what the Wikipedian guys say, but in any case we shouldn't just take their word for it. Also check out this Google query for "age of consent" on government websites: [3] Keep in mind that we are descriptivists and not prescriptivists, so we document the actual usage of a word, and not what some authority says the usage is or should be. —Internoob 20:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is including the medical definition of pedophilia in the pedophilia entry ok? The medical definition is primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The popular definition is any sexual attraction to/interaction with a minor by an adult (i.e. someone 18 or older being sexually attracted to/sexually interacting with someone 17 or younger.) Equinox has objected to the medical, saying that we should only use popular definitions, or "real world usage". Equinox's criticism was stated https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ATea_room%2F2015%2FApril&diff=32765298&oldid=32765077 "[4] So are we defining things in terms of what they mean in practice, or in terms of what PaulBustion88 says they mean according to the medical establishment? jus checkin. Equinox ◑ 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)" SemperBlotto agreed with Equninox,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/April&diff=prev&oldid=32766787, stating, "*We should be defining terms with the meaning that they have in the real world. If a term has a more strict meaning in a the legal system of a particular country then we might tell people in the talk page but not make it part of a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)"My response was "*Equinox, if you had bothered reading the entry, you would have seen that the broader definition, of any adult sexual attraction towards/interaction with any minor, is also included. I'm only limiting the MEDICAL definition to a primary or exclusive attraction to children. That's what Renard Migrant and I agreed on as a compromise. The broader, "real word" usage is already included, and its the first definition, so what the problem?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)"https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/April&diff=next&oldid=32766787

However, Renard Migrant has stated he favors including both the popular definition and the medical definition, because they are different in their meaning and usage."PaulBustion88 has raised on my talk page (and not here, much to my chagrin) the possibility of having two definitions. A general-use definition, an instance of an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor, no matter what the ages are apart from those two restrictions, and a medical definition where we specify pre-pubescent. I would be in favor of it; I think these definitions are distinct in terms of usage and meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)" https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ARequests_for_cleanup&diff=32733249&oldid=32733177

Do you agree with Renard Migrant and myself that the medical definition should be included, as it is currently, or do you agree with Equinox and SemperBlott that only the popular definition should be included and the medical definition should be removed? PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with BoBoMisiu's comment here. The easiest way to convince people that your definition is valid is to give quotations of it. Other than that, I would like to decline further comment. —Internoob 20:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

BoboMisiu has added two definitions to pedophilia that seem redundant, and one that definitely is. I took the one that definitely was redundant down. Do you think I made a mistake in doing that? PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems at first glance like I agree with your decision, but then again I haven't read the whole discussion about this word on the talk page and in Tea Room. —Internoob 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bobomisiu has been insinuating that I'm a pedophile advocate. I think she's partially doing that as an ad hominem attack against me so people will not listen to my point that the definitions she is adding to the pedophilia entry are redundant. PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me the diff for this comment? —Internoob 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan

Under the entry for Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, I noted that the official legal status of the colony, that of being jointly ruled by the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland and Egypt, was nominal, and that in reality the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland was the sole ruler of the country. Is it ok that I pointed out that fact, or is that to detailed for a dictionary? PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I made this change to the entry. It wasn't bad the way it was before, but since you mention it, I do agree that the definition was a bit too detailed. —Internoob 05:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mormon Jesus

Since the Mormon Jesus is a separate entity from the Christian Jesus, was my idea of putting a definition for him in the Jesus article separate from the Christian definition ok, or not?https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&type=revision&diff=32769639&oldid=32694084 PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I think not. There are many different ideas of who Jesus was. Christians think that he is the Son of God; Muslims think he was a prophet of Allah; Christ-mythicists and conspiracy nuts think that he didn't exist; a lot of people think he was some kind of human moral teacher; Bishop Spong thinks that he was some kind of spiritual entity, the son of a God who doesn't properly "exist" in the normal sense of the word.... Better not to have a separate definition for each of these guys, IMO. —Internoob 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

KateWishing on sexual philia articles I edited where I defined the philis as attractions that were mostly or only to the fixated object, changed this to "preferential", mostly and only mean the same thing in this context, and are simpler terms. Is there anything wrong with sticking with "mostly or only"? PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a big difference to be honest. —Internoob 05:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My editing

Do you think my editing right now is good, bad or mediocre in general? Do you see any major problems with it? PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My advice is to stay away from controversial edits as a newcomer. For many of your edits, hundreds of words get written on talk pages over them. Large discussions have to happen once in a while, but when your edits always have to be discussed and argued over, then it becomes problematic because it takes other editors away from building the dictionary. In the past, users have been blocked when they cause a lot of controversy and some of the grouchy administrators lost their patience. I don't want you to become like that.

So my advice is to find a book about a niche topic, e.g. church history, and add words from it that we don't have yet. Or add pronunciations and etymologies. If you think that an edit might cause controversy, then the best course of action is often to refrain until you become an experienced editor. If you can show that you've learned how to edit entries in accordance with WT:ELE and WT:CFI then we can add you to WT:Whitelist and that would be good. Hope this helps. —Internoob 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved away from making controversial edits. For example, I stopped insisting on not calling Mormonism and Christian Science Christian, and accepted the popular use of the word instead of the theological use in those entries. I also, even though I prefer to limit pedophilia to the medical use of the term, have accepted that the popular would be included and also be the first sense defined, even though I was against that. Also, even though I prefer simpler language, I accepted what Equinox and KateWishing said and went back to "primarily or exclusively" for the philia articles and away from "mostly or only". So I'm deferring to consensus more now than I was before. PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, that's good. —Internoob 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not socked on this wiki, but I used to have different accounts from this one, and Dan Polansky is demanding I explain them. Is this usually the prelude to a user getting banned, or is it possible he's just trying to make sure I don't ever use the old accounts again? PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan Polanski is not an administrator, so he can't block you. The issue on your talk page seems like it has been resolved, and it looks like you aren't abusing multiple accounts. So don't worry, I think. —Internoob 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of my taking out something controversial I'd done. I had removed reference to the religion as Christian, because it isn't theologically, but in popular use it is so I restored it,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness&action=history, I also did for that for other cults of Christianity, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=32776174&oldid=32774616, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history. I also abolished my entry about the Mormon Jesus, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&type=revision&diff=32774179&oldid=32773008. Here, I dropped my insistence on excessively simple words, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=gerontophilia&type=revision&diff=32776115&oldid=32773855. So that shows that I'm backing away from making controversial edits. PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn the French language and the Irish language right now. Could that be my niche topic, adding words from those languages? Or does wiktionary frown on excessive foreign words being added to it? I know it does have some foreign words, I've edited and created articles on some myself here. PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely encourage foreign words. I was myself working on French and Haitian Creole before my long hiatus from Wiktionary. But if you don't know the language well, be sure that your contribution is correct by checking other sources before you add it. There are only a handful of Irish editors, so there are not that many people available for fixing mistakes.

Overall, Wiktionary has almost as many articles as Wikipedia, and a small fraction of the number of editors, so we can't check every entry for correctness. The responsibility is more on the creators of entries to verify that they are correct. —Internoob 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan Polansky is trying to have me banned or blocked.

Hello. Dan Polansky is trying to have me banned or blocked from the site. Is there anywhere I have recourse to against him on the site or no? He keeps posting on my talk page accusing me of things. PaulBustion88 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here. On the one hand, we've warned him for intimidating behaviour/harassment in the past, but on the other hand, users are allowed to publicly call into question the behaviour of other users in a constructive manner. I think the way you handled it on your talk page was appropriate. —Internoob 00:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree with my nominating the entry I created, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, for deletion? PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the deletion nomination, but I think that it's actually a decent entry. I voted weak keep. —Internoob 03:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wel

Come back... Type56op9 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thank you. —Internoob 06:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"eschewing authority" and "liberal" in low church

I'm using "liberal" to mean "nontraditional", "non-conservative" as well as politically liberal/accepting. Low churches also have less adherence to central authority. I'm not fighting your changes, but I AM explaining my original wording Purplebackpack89 03:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay yeah, I can see that low churches might be nontraditional, but I don't think they are generally politically liberal. I am thinking of the Southern Baptist Convention, which usually has worship services that I would say are low-church, but I wouldn't call it liberal. I'll add in nontraditional to the definition because that seems to convey the right meaning. —Internoob 18:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

en#Haitian Creole

Hello, do you have a reference for this entry? Entry has been proposed for deletion on fr.wikt here.

BR Automatik (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like I have an answer here: [5] Automatik (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I got most of my Creole words from Haitian Creole Wikipedia or from the Creole Bible. I can find this one on w:ht:en for example —Internoob 05:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Lua memory and Template:ja-r

Curious about this. Where the {{ja-r}} template is not used inline in running text, such as these Derived Terms lists, I've often preferred the format of {{ja-r|[TERM]|[KANA]}}: [GLOSS] anyway, which would avoid any issue of embedded [[bracket links]] causing Lua problems.

Was your self-reversion because you discovered that [[bracket links]] actually didn't have any Lua memory impact? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted myself because I didn't see any improvement after I made a null edit and a hard purge. I did believe that having those links inside the template arguments caused the Lua errors. It's possible that I just needed to wait longer to see the improvement... I have been out of things for too long and I don't remember the details on how the caching works. —Internoob 05:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)