User talk:LlywelynII

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

Archived talk page[edit]

1 2

Assuming you aren't just sockpuppets[edit]

A concerted campaign of harrassment and vandalism of an editor's talk page by numerous editors is far more off-putting than a single unpleasant one. I'll probably stay just because I care about the project, but you're going to drive off other new editors acting like this and you should be ashamed of yourselves. — LlywelynII 23:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you're way off. What you call vandalism may or may not be justified, but it's not vandalism. There's no evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry, and the only coordination I see in this exchange is some people people giving their opinions, when asked, and others sticking up for fellow editors- nothing concerted about it. For my part, I had to respond to the nastiness and unfairness of your edit comments, which were directed at editors who regularly contribute far more to our Chinese and Japanese coverage- and to the encouragement of other editors- than anything you could ever do.
As for "harassment", It started as a simple request for you change your editing practices, which you responded to with criticism on a marginally-related topic. Not long after that, you responded to an argument made by way of a straightforward statement of opinion with a bunch of loaded words directed toward belittling the person who made the argument and pretty much the whole Chinese Wiktionary community. Suzukaze-c reacted to that provocation with a post that may have been rude and confrontational, but understandable given the tone of your previous comment.
Your response, though, was worse, and quite typical: you love to criticize others, but you simply can't handle criticism directed at you. If anything, your response has only served to show that the post had a legitimate point- that you have no respect for anyone else, nor for their contributions. You may go along for a while and play nice, but at the slightest provocation- imagined or otherwise- you're back to savaging anyone or anything you disagree with.
I'm less worried about people being intimidated by the actions taken here, then about letting your nastiness and wild accusations directed at other contributors go unanswered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, or you wouldn't have "stuck up" for your fellow editor by repeatedly vandalizing my talk page in the first place. (No, it wasn't vandalism or harrassment—however unpleasant and off-topic—until it was restoring content removed by a talk page's own user. That was, however, precisely what you three did and, yes, it's indefensible and you shouldn't to it to other users, however much you currently happen to like Suze more than me.)
You're welcome to vent your displeasure elsewhere and that's fine; you're welcome to post helpful and substantive suggestions about the project here; but yes I'll remove further drama from my own talk page and you three should learn to respect that even from editors you happen to dislike. — LlywelynII 02:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of glosses in zh-forms[edit]

Is there any particular reason why you insist on using links, line breaks and {{nowrap}} for the glosses in {{zh-forms}}? The formatting looks very cluttered and not that much different from the automatic glosses. If you find it is absolutely necessary for the glosses to be in that format, it could be automated if we change the data modules for single character glosses, which currently do not have links and use semicolons instead of line breaks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It's much clearer and less cluttered in display. It's a hypertext dictionary and of course you should include links. What it looks like in code is completely irrelevant. It'd be great if you could automate better formatting than what you're using now, although it sounds like you disagree anyway. In any case, I only override the glosses when they're wrong or throwing in irrelevant senses, so improved automated forms are a separate issue. — LlywelynII 00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the links, but I'm not sure if we need to use line breaks and {{nowrap}} when semicolons should suffice. I'm thinking of trying to improve the automatic glosses by adding the feature of choosing which glosses to display. Take 丁亥, which has these automatic glosses for the individual characters:
  • 丁: “4th heavenly stem; man; people; little cube; a Chinese surname”
  • 亥: “12th earthly branch; 9-11 p.m.”
I think we should having something like {{zh-forms|1|1}} to capture the first gloss for each character. @Wyang, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is a good suggestion. If we do this, a small link in the top right to the gloss data page would be handy. Something similar could be done for multisyllabic words too. Wyang (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
(One possible problem is that the data may be edited and "2" may refer to something different in the future though... —suzukaze (tc) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC))
Line breaks are much clearer to the actual reader. A mess of semicolon text is much less helpful and there's no reason to leave it at that. — LlywelynII 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew units of measure[edit]

Where are you getting these values for Hebrew units of measure? I'm not sure they were even accurate enough for it to be worth giving any kind of conversion to modern units. --WikiTiki89 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Isn't the reference already in the entry, like at lethek? Also, many modern English Bibles have units of measure conversion tables. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh right. But still, I don't know how historically accurate they are, or how accurately they even ever were used in practice. I think the amounts aren't lexically significant anyway. We should probably give the physical reference to the size, like "length of a forearm" or "size of a large basket", but there is no need for overprecision. Also, I'm mainly concerned with the Hebrew entries, not the English entries. --WikiTiki89 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's Oxford and of course they're lexically significant. It's lexically meaningless to give "ancient measure" with no modern value where it's known which is why I included an authoritative up-to-date source. These were not just "forearms" or "pots": they were in fact standardized units within a certain degree of precision (hence "about").
If you have other and up-to-date and authoritative sources to the contrary, we can talk about adding a range of values, but don't remove well-sourced and pertinent information where other people have gone to the trouble to find it for our readers. — LlywelynII 03:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That said, thanks for making me look at this again. In English sources, omer and homer are all mixed up but I just found the right original form of "homer" at Strong's so I'll fix that at the Hebrew entry. — LlywelynII 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)