User talk:Koavf

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
User talk:Koavf Archives An icon of a file folder
Archives from 2005 to present
001 71 topics (2005-06-23/2022-03-30) 139 kb

Current discussion

Deletion of Latin verb forms[edit]

Hi Justin! Thanks for going through CAT:CSD; it was getting surprisingly full. Three entries I placed in there - sepele, savabar, aufugero - contained a deletion message requesting to delete all the other entries listed there. These are all bot-created non-lemma forms so there is no need to tag them individually. Could you please delete all these pages as well? Or, if not, restore the three pages I linked so another admin can take care of them. Thanks! This, that and the other (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@This, that and the other: I gotcha, boss. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auto-patrol[edit]

Hi. Are you aware of WT:WL for discussing these? Equinox 18:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Equinox: I'll post to there. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary unprotection request[edit]

Hello, can you please temporarily unprotect Module:usex/templates and Module:usex, since I need to edit them (asking as online admin). —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Svartava: Please make the edits in the next few minutes; I'm about to go to bed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Svartava: Actually, sorry, I need to get some rest now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you unprotect for an hour or so, so that it restores the protection after that time even if you aren't available? —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:sa-sc for Eastern Nagari[edit]

Please note that, at least for most words, {{sa-sc}} cannot detect whether an Eastern Nagari entry is in the Bengali or the Assamese script, and therefore |sc=Beng is not redundant. A case in point is অন্ধো#Sanskrit, which you recently and I think inadvertently changed from being described as a Bengali form to being described as an Assamese form! --RichardW57 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57:, why is অন্ধো the only entry in Category:sa-sc cleanup (redundant sc param)? —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ignorance and imperfect coding. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RichardW57: Neat. Can you fix it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Svartava made an asymmetric fix this morning. It treats as-Beng as redundant (and therefore in need of attention), but does not object to Beng, because that is not automatically derived. This will confuse editors, and means my update to the documentation of the template needs to be reviewed. Perhaps Beng and as-Beng should be explicitly detected as not redundant. I've also discovered that the head line template was silently jumping to assumptions about which version of Eastern Nagari is being used, so the Bengali and Assamese script spelling always need different lemmas. --RichardW57 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, that leaves me unsure of the long-term solution, but thanks for updating. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fear that the long-term solution has not been worked out. I would favour merging Bengali and Assamese-script entries where possible, as I do for Pali. This then raises the question of what to do for inflection tables, as -r- and -v- may appear in the inflections but not the citation forms. Automatically adding tabular footnotes would be one method. For Pali, I nowadays resort to different tables in such cases (alphabet v. abugida), but Pali differences can be extensive. For {{sa-sc}}, intelligent handling is more complicated, for it is currently just a template, but the intelligence would probably have to go in a module, and module use is bad news for long pages. I had hoped to involve @Svartava in discussion of the matter. In the medium term, I think I do need to make us the treatment of Beng and as-Beng more symmetric. The preference for Assamese is encoded by "as-Beng" preceding "Beng" in the list of Sanskrit's scripts in Module:languages/data2, and there's no protective comment. I think we need special logic for a tie in script detection, especially in the case of Sanskrit. If we don't hear, I intend to change {{sa-sc}} to accept 'Beng' and 'as-Beng' without flagging an anomaly. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If what is needed (short term) is intelligence, can you add a nocat option and add in nocat=yes to this entry? That would at least solve the problem of it being in that tracking category. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
অন্ধো is already out of the tracking category. I think there's no hurry to change things - there are very few Eastern Nagari Sanskrit lemmas at the moment. There was an agreement to hold back on the mass production of Bengali script Sanskrit lemmas, not that I was party to it. Tomorrow night is soon enough. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Svartava has now discontinued the tracking category. That leaves only the underlying problem of people forgetting to specify the Eastern Nagari variant in the head line. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RichardW57, Svartava: Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"mainland United States in the Americas"[edit]

The terminology "mainland United States in the Americas" [1] is unique and easily visually confused with "United States of America"; I would suggest that Wiktionary avoid this terminology. Further, it is not immediately evident that Alaska is part of the "mainland United States"; the usual grouping is "continental United States" referring to the 48 states. Very confusing wording. Changed here:[2] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there isn't a particularly easy and non-clunky way to refer to the Lower 48 and the District, but not the freak states and territories. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term lower 48 is used to cover the contiguous states of the USA and DC as well. I'd bet that continental US does include Alaska. DCDuring (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring Oh, you're right, I should have said 'contiguous United States'. Check this out: Continental United States. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd have to exclude lots of islands, like Manhattan, Staten Island, Block Island, Nantucket, the San Juan Islands, etc., by the silly qualification WP has. Terms like "mainland US" are not terms used to satisfy some narrow definition of mainland. A lot of contributors get hung up on whether the component terms are actually "properly" used in such expressions. Imprecision of that kind is so common as to be beneath notice. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whitelist issue[edit]

By doing things out of order (i.e. whitelisting Inqilābī and Quercus solaris), you've created a situation where I'm not sure how to proceed. Somewhere along the way, the text got edited and I didn't realize they had already been whitelisted. @Equinox and I both voted against Quercus solaris for autopatroller; I'm not sure of his reasons, but I'm against their rambling usage notes and I'm troubled by an exchange at Talk:neuropathy (see history), and they've continued to write them after hearing our complaints. I'm not sure if this warrants removing their autopatroller status. Ultimateria (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ultimateria: If you think he can be trusted to have his edits assumed to not be vandalism, then he could be autopatrolled and if not, then I support removing the right and giving an apology (i.e. I would give the apology, not anyone else). If the whitelist is a policy, then it should be listed as such, but the page is ambiguous about process and whether or not it's actually binding. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to consider them "on probation" and just keep an eye on their edits. I see what you mean about the whitelist; the text could be more explicit. I'll consider improving it. Ultimateria (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks kindly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't I already comment on this in April? See above on this same talk page. Yes, I think Quercus is causing significant unintentional damage: look at the history. Jesus. Equinox 01:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Equinox: You did not comment that in April. What is your point? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, consider it "commented" now then. Equinox 07:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all. I was not aware of this discussion of me until now. I make a lot of unassailably good edits at Wiktionary; 95% of my edits around semantic relations and ontology components are unassailable, in the sense that they are both terse and indisputably directly relevant. As the exemplar of that class, I would point to the countless (short/sweet) syn-cot-hyper-hypo-derived-related edits, as well as the usage notes that I created at mesial § Usage notes, and diphosphate § Usage notes, and phytoncide § Usage notes, and idiocratic § Usage notes, and allergenic § Usage notes. Anyone who would think that those usage notes are counterproductive has a vision of lexicography and of language reference works (such as usage guides) that is probably unintentionally damaging to Wiktionary's purposes. (For example, anyone with such a vision could never work on AHD, which [quite usefully] provides plenty of more-than-one-line usage notes as editorial advice for writers and editors; and I suppose that a book like GMEU might simply cause their head to explode with its thousand-page length.) Regarding the 5% of my edits that others might consider miscalibrated (the exemplar here for that class is cast steel § Usage notes), I have recently developed a way to sequester that 5% (i.e., what I detect as possibly belonging to that 5%) so that they don't trigger whatever minority of people are triggered by them, that is, those people will be spared what is (apparently?) the feeling of great horror and affront that they feel upon seeing them. That new sequestering method is at User:Quercus_solaris#Valid_insights_but_sacrificed_to_terseness; it is still just a new brainstorming experiment at this point but seems promising. For the rest of you, as calibration in deciding just how horrible or loathesome you think I might be, just know (1) that the boundary-case 5% are outputs of the same analytical cognitive process that produces the main 95% class (e.g., aforementioned, mesial et al plus syn-cot-hyper-hypo etc); (2) that I work in gigs that put me into real-world-evidence contact with every single confusion, conflation, and semantic bumble (or cognitively adjacent one) that I try to address in my Wiktionary edits (yes, that's what causes me to even go to Wiktionary's entry for mesial in the first place), which means that anyone who thinks that "such a bumble is hypothetical and not realistic" merely shows that they don't and haven't worked in such gigs, or else just that they perhaps have but just weren't particularly good at them (I know such ones; I've had to spoonfeed them in my gigs); (3) that even the 5% class represents a class of analytic integrity that is inherently sound, notwithstanding that most people may not be able to see the soundness (in that connection, see User:Quercus_solaris/Converting_the_energy_of_light_to_an_electric_signal, which is directly relevant to it, although not everyone may be able to see the relevance). Lastly, I am not big into wiki bureaucracy and did not even remember what autopatrolling even is, and trying to look up that useful 101-level information at WT:Autopatrollers was fruitless because it isn't even explained there (good thing Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Autopatrolled is a vastly better piece of documentation that actually explains anything to non-initiates; but oh, I guess such actually-useful documentation is exactly what a few Wiktionarians most hate, so there we go). I have no problem with not being an autopatroller on Wiktionary as long as any new dictionary entries that I might create there are not unduly deleted or slashed. And so far in my Wiktionary editing experience, that problem hasn't arisen, which is good. Basically I think what happened is that (as I here duly admit and apologize) I too hastily responded too grouchily to a handful of times when User:Equinox objected to a specific edit/addition. The only reason I was so defensive is because I thought that the edit/addition was not misplaced and needed due defending, but I sometimes failed in achieving due diplomacy about it. As I proved recently, I am improving those aspects, as exemplified by both this recent collegial edit and by my sandbox development of the new sequestering method now beginning testing. I suspect that Equinox would portray me as some evil ogre (à la "Jesus", what a "horrifying" history I have, and so on), but I leave it to others to form their own independent judgments about how horrifying of a menace I might pose to Wiktionary's clutched pearls. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, there's no reason why your new entries would be deleted. Again, sorry for all this kerfuffle and thanks for your understanding. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I also just reencountered, and just had to point out here (because HIGHLY rleevant), a good example of the fact that whether my "boundary case" usage notes are good or bad certainly depends on the eye of which beholder is beholding them. The example is marked at User_talk:Quercus_solaris#Bringing_down_the_outhouse. Sadly, the very usage note that one Wiktionarian took the time to thank me for was later deleted by someone else who thought it stank. But that's barnyard calibration for you. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Regarding the guesstimated 95% to 5% split: Better data, per edit count stats for me, as of today: "Live edits 6,245 · (99.7%) / Deleted edits 21 · (0.3%)". How those stats could jibe with the notion that I am doing "significant" unintentional damage to Wiktionary ("Jesus") is inexplicable. Less than 1% is the norm, and no one has absolute zero. I realize that no one here cares. I'm just defending my editing record, on the record, for my own sake. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quercus solaris In a thread about your tendency to excessive verbiage that was already fairly long, you've contributed 6,361 bytes compared to 2,277 for everyone else so far. Your 5,146-byte initial post alone more than quadrupled the volume. Being concise is hard. It requires deciding what to leave out- "killing one's children" as one writer described it. It's nonetheless very important- your writing accomplishes nothing if no one reads it. Walls of text are deadly, especially in a concise format like a dictionary. The strongest, best formulated and most watertight argument can be blown out of the water by 5 characters: tl;dr. For your own sake, not just Wiktionary's, you need to work on your pruning skills.Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TL;DR: This reply is more than one line long, but it's fine if none of the present conversants here reads it; I've written it for my own sake. Chuck is of course right about the nature of tl;dr. I do well know the nature of tl;dr, and as 99.7% of my Wiktionary edits show, I'm quite capable of pruning. Pruning is part of what I do for a living and I do quite fine with it there. And this new tool is an excellent example of my pruning skills, because with it, I've just developed a way to never annoy anyone like Equinox or Ultimateria ever again (because now with a whole new level of pruning), while also (a) still building and saving some interesting analyses nonetheless, (b) getting to the root of what our discrepancy was, and (c) devising a complete solution to it. It's fine if none of the present conversants here reads it; I've developed it for my own sake, and it is a success. But the other part of what I do for a living is detect the things in documents from other people that need to be changed before publication lest they be nitpicked/dinged by readers, and either (a) change it for them or (b) explain to them how (which way) to change it and why it needed changing. But you can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it, and that is why for part b I explore analyses that are deep enough that they take more than one line to express/explicate in words. The only reason the other person needed the edit (in the first place) is because they didn't know what they didn't know. I work out and capture such analyses not only for the person with the problem but also for any other audience that may ever explore the analysis, or even just need its results/upshot, even months or years later, even though the other person at the time usually couldn't digest the whole thing (because it was too long for them to read, and they didn't; but they needed its results/upshot, though, which I provided). The second audience, if they care too, can trace the correct output, and the entire problem, and its analysis, and its solutions, along with me (as they are reading it), or (if they don't read it, and yes, it is true, one can predict that they will not), they can nonetheless just ask me for its upshot and I can give it to them (having worked it out and captured it once), and all of this is a success, and is great for my own sake. It's especially great when I get asked the same question again later by another person (or the same person who couldn't remember the answer), and in that respect it is the polar opposite of inefficient, and of unnecessary, and of unuseful, and of misguided. My apologies to anyone else along the way who had to read more than one line (or more than 5 characters) because I couldn't do the whole chess game in my head even before the first and second moves like Magnus Carlsen would. I'm not that good, as I freely admit. But I'm good enough that I've blown some things out of the water in my time, even some things that other people couldn't see or didn't read. One thing I love about Wikipedia and Wiktionary is that the history is forever and is easily available for anyone who might ever someday care and have time for it, notwithstanding that most people at most times don't. This particular piece of it is a success, even though I am probably the sole person reading it today. If any of today's conversants here have read this far (unlikely), you probably won't be subjected to reading more than one line of my thoughts ever again, as tools such as this new one should obviate most occasions for that from now on. Which is great for your sake, and for mine. So again, good job, self. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re User:Ilovemydoodle[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your e-mail. I have some annoying net issues around here until Monday, related to extreme weather/storms, and my ISP is killing me every 5 minutes, so I can't respond as quickly or often as I would like ("hallelujah!" - the rest of the editors). Anyway: I think "Ilovemydoodle" has been basically a net drag on the project, and I believe that fully blocking 'em at this point was justified. (Even Wikipedia has done this, and their standards are much more rigorous than ours. Not that I did it on that basis! WP is extremely different from us, as you must be aware.) I'm not sure what I can tell you beyond the talk pages and the user's (IMHO rather bad) edit history. But if there is a local admin consensus against me, then fine. It was good faith (or perhaps I should say self-defence), but I'm just one guy on a small project. Later, Equinox 09:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Equinox: Thanks kindly. I don't think there is a consensus otherwise. I'm frustrated by how this is playing out, but not because I think you were rogue or clearly inappropriate. Tricky. Stay safe and good luck with your net issues. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]