User talk:Richardb

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


Admin powers[edit]

I was leaving a note for Eclecticology when I saw your request. I imagine things are much the same as on the Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_reading_list, etc. Jnc 18:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Richardb,
It seems like one of the only policy documents we have is this: Page_deletion_guidelines.
Basically it comes down to the following as far as vandalism is concerned:
  • At first you revert what a vandal/spammer did (also check what other pages they touched)
  • If they are persistent, you add a comment about it to Vandalism_in_progress
  • If they exaggerate, you ban them. Please note that banning is relatively futile, as they could (relatively easily) come back with another IP-address. Also somebody else could get this address afterwards and find their way blocked.
  • Edit wars are almost inexistant so blocking of pages is only needed for pages that are the target of repeated vandalism.
Being an administrator is more of a burden than a privilege. You get to clean up the mess. Don't let it distract you too much from adding and improving content. Polyglot 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My view is to treat the Wikipedia policies as guidelines instead of strict policies. This allows for situations where we approach things differently. Maybe someday we'll get around to having a version of our own. Muddling through is a tried and true technique. Being bold is good advice, but flammable. With a little caution one can avoid being a bold in a china shop.

I've not used SQL requests, though I should have learned something about them long ago; there's enough for me to do without it though. User:Hippietrail has found much useful information that way; put a note on his talk page if you have questions about this technique. Eclecticology 01:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sql queries[edit]

its not too hard to run your own mediawiki if you want to run sql queries. --Eean 18:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

basic words[edit]

I like to see that you are working in a very dynamic way on Wiktionary. I'm a bit through my very active phase and now I'm doing something here and there where I see the need. I don't have a lot of time to put into it anymore though. Besides that I'm working on a project I'm starting (PolyBot). Its purpose is to read a Wiktionary page, store all the data in an object model and then reproduce it in a way that follows all the standards. What's kind of special about it is that is meant to be able to reproduce the content for each and every Wiktionary in the format that the Wiktionary in question chose for their articles. The definitions and etymologies etc will still have to be translated, but the idea is that it takes a lot of work from the person operating the bot. (Especially where translations are concerned). And then there is the idea to create a Wiktionary in database. People choose an interface language and the information is presented in their own language, but all the common stuff comes only from one source and if somebody puts in that word A in one language can be translated to word B in another language, then this information will be available to all Wiktionaries at once. The first advantage of this is that with less effort, everything will be checked up by a lot more people. And to quote Linus Torvalds: with enough eyes to review, all bugs are shallow. The bot/script I'm trying to create is a first step toward this goal, because if the ultimate Wiktionary ever happens, all that is in all the Wiktionaries will have to be transfered into it. That's what I'm working on for the moment. I'm using the entries of the countries to test and try to transfer them from en.wiktionary to nl.wikiwoordenboek. Polyglot 14:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is simpler to try and convince a computer to do something for you or to try and convince human beings... :-) To me the former seems easier, but the latter is just as necessary. Maybe even more. Polyglot 16:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).


Hi Richard,

Just to let you know there's a (thread in the beer parlour about WikiSaurus), which you might be interested in contributing too. — Paul G 19:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lexicographical entries in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Richard,

I saw your comments in the beer parlour about lexicographical entries in Wikipedia, such as "bouncebackability". I've replied, mainly to point out that Wikipedia has a category listing entries that need to be moved to Wiktionary. — Paul G 12:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)



I have done some lengthy investigation into templates on Wiktionary lately. I am absolutely stunned that you broke the recent changes page. I do not understand what "rules" you are refering to in your note when you moved them, because evidently, you haven't written them yet.

User:Eclecticology told me that templates boil down to what gets used, what becomes popularly used. (Perhaps that is poor paraphrasing; I'll find the direct quote if you really would like me to.) With that in mind, I recently have added what *I* find to be useful templates to me. (You see, you vandalized my talk page also, when you deleted the Wanted articles template.)

Template:Wanted articles and Template:Requested articles have been under a considerable onslought of vandalism recently. While I agree that that is problematic, I fail to see why you didn't simply protect the page(s) in question.

For me, personally, I'd be interested in helping define and catalog all templates. But I'd really like some explanation as to what happened tonight, or for you to restore the template:Wanted articles, before I can see any reason to get involved in such an effort.

--Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Template: Wanted Articles

I've been on a bit of a mission to clean up Wiktionary, trying to inhibit the tendency to not bother looking how something is done currently, rather just creating another page. That tendency leads to a lot of confusion, anarchy and duplication and cross-purposes in how we, as a team, are tackling the building of a useable Wikitionasry. (Anarchy etc is fine in the actual content of the Wiktionary).

To me, the usage of Template:Wanted Pages was totally contrary to the intended usage of Templates - that is, to contain text to be copied into articles. There was already a page directly addressing wanted pages. So I merged the contents of the two.

I'm sorry if this caused some offense, but, I'm at a complete loss how come you thought it was OK to use a template page for a project page of sorts. If you want a project page of sorts, why not create a page such as Project:Wanted Articles. The Template namespace has a specific intention. Not respecting that purpose can cause a lot of confusion - confusion being what I am trying to reduce.

Tell you what, I'll put it all into a page called Project:Wanted Articles, and change all the links and references so it works for you as before, but leaves the Template namespace free.--Richardb 05:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a sec. PLEASE.

  1. I did not devise this use of templates.
  2. Although I have asked a couple times in the past, I never once heard it said that templates are specifically limited to what you say.
  3. On certain pages, templates have a dynamic nature. Perhaps the Projects methods you refer to are better for embedding dynamic content - I don't know as I haven't investigated that yet.

Can you not see that simply deciding for yourself that templates "should" be used a certain way, will not guarantee they will not be used in other, MORE USEFUL manners? The capability exists. Unless you change the underlying software, a similar tack is likely to rear it's head elsewhere at some time in the future.

The only downside I ever saw to template:Wanted articles was that as a result of its usefulness, it became a #1 target for vandalism. It certainly did encourge newcommers to contribute. It certainly did add variety to old-timer's contributions. (Where old-timer:== wiktionarian >3 months.)

--Connel MacKenzie 05:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Using a redirect from a template, ummm. Well first off, it hoses a preview of a page that contains the template. Secondly, it breaks the differences view. Lastly, it breaks the EDIT button on there (I'm sure I can fix that, when I find where the page got to.)

Can other pages be dynamically merged in with Projects? --Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it up so it all works the same for you, without using the Template name space at all. No hard feelings I hope.--Richardb 06:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You can *DO* that? Oh cool. OK, since that works, then yeah, I'm behind you all the way. Hmmmm...what else have I screwed with in templates recently that belongs there? ...template:artfl for sure... hmmmm...
No, no hard feelings; thanks for working through the misunderstanding patiently. --Connel MacKenzie 06:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a couple of false starts along the way, and I'm still cleaning up, so give me half and hour or so (while my dinner is going cold)--Richardb 06:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and understanding too./ My feeling is we could create a useful standard, like having all dynamic content pages named something like Wiktionary:Dynamic Content:Wanted Articles, with a category of "dynamic content".

Um, for embedded stuff that gets reused in several places, SHORT names are better. Just a side-thought. --Connel MacKenzie 06:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IF there is a problem of making these pages too accessible to vandals, then we can lock a few of the pages.--Richardb 06:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So far so good; surviving just fine without locking the pages down; just giving me and other newcomers lots of reversion practice. --Connel MacKenzie 06:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User Page[edit]

Please don't modify my user page. It is for my own use. SemperBlotto 08:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed it so that broken links would not affect you. Would you rather I left links broken ? :-)--Richardb 09:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my user page - Yes please.

In other pages - fix the problem. SemperBlotto 09:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Richard, this was an existing template that I made a small change to. Is that not an OK thing to do? SemperBlotto 12:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

template inuse[edit]


I know you hate the template concept, but perhaps you could use the template:inuse while you are working on the policy pages, if for no other reason than to let everyone know implicitly when you are "done" with an individual policy page? --Connel MacKenzie 14:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Beer parlor: Wiktionary:Project - Cleanup of Basic English Words[edit]

I'm checking the odd word now and then in the Basic English Word List, and every time I find the entry is less than complete. Sometimes the entry is only missing an etymology, or a pronunciation, but sometimes it is missing more. Can people please do an odd word occasionally in this project, and mark the results in the Project Table. Otherwise we still have a Dictionary with some basic words having a really inadequate entry.--Richardb 11:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am glad I have not told you I would do one a day on your list - yet. I like your list a lot. But we all have our pet projects. I have several, that I try to knock off one a day from each. Occasionally someone like Jeffrey will come along and clear an entire list (like Transwiki) but otherwise we each tend to contribute only as much as we can afford the time to. We each have our own level of wiki-addiction, and our own "pet" projects. I am encouraged by your list, because I know it will not go away, with you as its advocate.
I could easily present the absurd position that one list is more important than another. I don't think I would convince you that User talk:Connel MacKenzie/wikipedia words with counts is more "important." Nor would it make any sense to try. I think as en.wikt is better filled out with preliminary definitions, I'll be delighted to attack your list; by then, I will have a good grasp of entering pronunciations. Etymologies I tend to pull from artfl (Webster 1913) using my {{artfl}} template. But with so much of the language currently undefined, I find it harder to justify spending one hour on a single word. (All the words on your list tend to be words that require significant time and/or research to improve.)
Perhaps when en.wikt passes the 100k milestone, I'll feel differently. At that point, it will probably make sense to start dedicating huge amounts of time to individual articles. For now, I think I shall content myself with making 10-15 smaller initial entries in the same amount of time. And sit back and appreciate the thoughtful, intelligent contributions you (all: RB, dmh, EC, HT, etc.) are doing on this list. Seeing your good examples raises the bar for all of us - that is a very good thing for Wiktionary.
--Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that
<input type="hidden" name="num" value="50">
should be inserted to
so that 50 search matches could be displayed at one time.
--Dubaduba 20:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey There[edit]

Please see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Voting for Wiktionary:Policy - Transliteration Kevin Rector 05:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary-l mailing list[edit]

I've just been looking through the long pending emails list (created while there was a gap in adminship) to Wiktionary-l, which is where emails from unsubscribed addresses are sent before they are checked by a listadmin. I noticed two emails from an email address I identified as yours. So, since it was in that list, I was wondering if you're receiving emails from the list, as it seems to think you (or at least the email address you were using) were unsubscribed. Cheers, Wytukaze 00:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dead horse[edit]


I've moved your question from Cockney rhyming slang to the corresponding discussion page, which is the appropriate place to ask it. You will probably get an answer sooner if you raise it in the beer parlour. — Paul G 11:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Policy templates[edit]

Check out the changes I made to your policy templates; the Xxx parameter is no longer necessary. Jon Harald Søby 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back indeed.

I hope you like the navigation aids I've added to the Beer Parlour archive. Hopefully this makes it much easier to glean policy pages from them.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back - except that this is only a brief visit. I'm swamped by the need to run my new business to make a living !
Boy, have you been a busy boy though (apparently) ! Keep up the good work. By all means take over any of my work, such as policies, wikisaurus etc. Richardb
Well, you have a certain knack with policies that I don't. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
WikiSaurus was you? Hey then, before you go, could you comment on Category talk: Wikisaurus:Book? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I have responded to your post on the discussion page. TheDaveRoss


Where did I state that I didn't like the word? Your assumtion is baseless and wrong, I RFDed it because I had seen it on a list of protologisms, which are not wikt* content, if it has gained acceptance then good, the system worked. RFDing something is a note that I feel something needs to be looked into, I didn't delete anything, I didn't blank anything, and as far as I know you are the only person offended by people trying to keep wiktionary clean and accurate. chillaxin isn't the appropriate page either, it should be chillaxing or chillaxin', as it is the present progressive form of a verb.
As for treading carefully, I think you ought to tread carefully when it comes to removing other users tags without the consent of the user or community, and you should tread carefully on over to the formatting page to see what actually needs to be done to that article. - TheDaveRoss

Excellent...[edit] with the policies! — Vildricianus 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: A category as a subcategory of itself? (Category:Meta Elements of Policy)

Wiktionary:Protection policy - stub???[edit]

Could you please fix whatever is was you did to Wiktionary:Protection policy? That page is linked internally by the MediaWiki software, and needs to reflect all aspects of our protection policies. What you've done looks almost like page-move vandalism to delete edit history! No page in the Wiktionary namespace should be moved or deleted without checking WhatLinksHere first. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

template:BE-ready etc.[edit]


This project seems to be defunct. The entries that are tagged show up in Special:CrossNamespaceLinks...can you clean these up somehow? In particular, I don't understand what the -ready template is for. Why should an entry that is clean now advertize an outdated cleanup project? Am I missing something? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Richard. The category Category:Translations to be checked has been superseded by Category:Check translations. What do you exactly mean? — Vildricianus 12:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut out the considerable duplication of cleanup categories.See the page Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements. As far as I could find out, the two cateories "Check translations" and "Translations to be checked" duplicate each other. I have chosen to "keep" one nad mark the other as "Superseded".If you think there is a need for the two in the future, please put some explanation on Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements as to waht the two different categories are about.

Note: I'm not deleting the things out of the category. Just indicating which of the two categories should be used in the future.--Richardb 12:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Translations to be checked is, as you may now, fairly new. The intent is indeed to phase the other one out, as the newer is far more useful. That will be done by removing Category:Check translations from Template:checktrans; however, we're in a too early stage of cleanup there to do this yet. So I'd say the supersession is the other way round. — Vildricianus 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Can you perhaps do a bit of cleanup on this then, and update the table in Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process so that people can clearly see which is the category, template, list etc that they should be using.--Richardb 12:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User Warning Templates[edit]

I am missing the connection between user warning templates and the cleanup and deletion process. These templates are intented for combating vandalism. They have nothing to do with cleanup and deletion. My intent is to organize the user warning templates. A few had been created, but I could only find them by sorting through the index of all templates. Prior to this, I could not find them listed anywhere. I hope to create Wiktionary:Vandalism and incorporate the category there. If I have circumvented a Wiktionary process or protocal, I am very sorry. If you have any advise, please let me know. Also, I am a local staff op on #vandalism-en-wt. If you notice any praticular types of vandalism on Wiktionary, please inform me. I am going to gather this information and pass it on to the other Counter Vandalism Unit staff to improve bot performance in detecting wikt vandalism. -- Psy guy 14:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I have noticed that you are interested in policy discussion. I too am interested in wikt policy. I have written a few, but I can't seem to get any discussion going about the policies. Any advise? Thanks. -- Psy guy 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WT:WS gone missing, replaced by WT:WT. But incomplete.[edit]

Hi Connel,

just wondering why you (well, I'm assuming you) took out WT:WS as a short cut for Wiktionary Shortcuts, changing it effectively to WT:WT ?

Also, it's not quite been completed, becuase on page Wiktionary:Shortcuts still shows the shortcut as WT:WS. Leave it with you to decide which way it should go.--Richardb 09:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard, the why is discussed at Wiktionary talk:Shortcut and Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March 06#Bot Request: User: Tawkerbot.
Please note that I was taking care not to remove the older ones.
The one you are asking about in particular, WS:WS was moved to the WT: namespace, but still stands for "Wiktionary Shortcuts". Duplication arises from visitors who would reasonably expect that link to exist at WT:WT. I referred to the w:WP:WP page on Wikipedia (and the other projects) in trying to make the standard expected entries, such as WT:WT. For maintaining the link integrity of archives, I'd object to any of them being removed, for quite some time at least. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a separate page[edit]

There is already a page Wiktionary:Requested articles:English doin this job, so why do we need this page as well. Please see if you can reasonably just put these words into that list, then delete this page.--Richardb 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a separate page, but the embedded short version that shows up at the top of "Recent Changes". It appears nowhere on its own and is merely a short list reminder for people who might not be willing to take the time to sift through the blue links on the full page. Since I have begun updating this list, I've noticed an increased interest in the Requested articles list, so it's helping, not hindering. --EncycloPetey 01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Double entry needed?[edit]

Question/Concern: For the last few new entries I have done, I have had to "Save" them two or three times before they appeared. The first time I "Save Page" after typing the entry, Wiktionary returns a page telling me there is no page yet for that entry (obviously!). As a result, I have to either go back and "Save Page" again (sometimes two additional times) or else selct the "edit this page" option in the new window where my text mysteriously appears, even though "No page yet exists". Is there something amiss in the editing interface? --EncycloPetey 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiSaurus stuff[edit]

Thanks for your comments, here are some of my thoughts so far.

Re: Condensation, I personally think that condensing articles into one related word will proove to make huge and hard to navigate pages, a word with 4 meanings in just one part of speech, each form having 10 synonyms, some idioms, some antonyms etc. would get very large. That was what I hoped to eliminate with the "related" section, make it easy to find other forms while not stuffing them all in one place. "Danger" does look like it is working to eliminate the clutter also, and I am sure there are plenty of other ways to prevent sprawl while maintaining information.

Re: Bot, If we could figure out a good way to do it it is certainly possible, but I think it might get the same kind of contention as Connel's TransBot, because of the number of factors involved with deciding which synonyms relate to which definitions and how. That would be complicated at best. Barring that difficulty, anything that populates WikiSaurus further is a good thing in my opionion, as long as the content is useful and accurate.

Re: Project, I have yet to really "document" the styling that I have been fiddling around with, I haven't exactly solidified how I think it should be, but I will add what I have done to the project page so that others can kind of see where I am going with it and comment. Right now it is somewhat difficult to use (especially when adding terms to an already existing list) and I have been looking for ways to make it simpler, as yet to no avail. My overall idea is to make the entries as easy to read as possible, eliminating as best I can the typical problem with thesauruses that I see, namely unless you are already familiar with the synonyms, you have to use a dictionary too, thus the short "sense" listings. They of course add to the work required, but I haven't found it too difficult, and like I said I am still playing around with it to see what works best.

I have a couple pages in my namespace (for now, they can probably be migrated to the project page, I didn't have a good place to put them before) which you might want to take a look at, "cleanup" and "to Saurus" for starters. I'll move them into the project and hopefully add some of what I have on paper too them soon. Sorry it took a little while to respond, I have been pretty busy and unable to do too much wiki-ing recently, - TheDaveRoss 22:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

top3, mid3[edit]

These templates are not supposed to be coloured, AFAIK. Only top and mid, because of their purpose in the translation section. There are also top2 and mid2, which have the same code as top and mid, except then that they're not coloured. — Vildricianus 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll check out what links there. I don't believe I'm doing any damage by adding the colour, but I'll sample and see.--Richardb 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
check the change out on Wiktionary:Inflection templates and see if there is any problem for you. I just think the tables look slightly better in colour.--Richardb 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Checked out quite a few. All look fine, better with the same colour for 3 column tables as for 2 column tables. So, please leave the change in. Thanks --Richardb 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, these columns are/will be heavily used in =Derived/Related terms= sections, which should not be coloured in order to mark the difference with the =Translations=. This is because either you're interested in translations or you're not, so the colour makes it easy to either skip or focus on this section. Now there's another point of focus in the articles. Perhaps you can create new three-column templates with colours. — Vildricianus 13:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can create some others. But, I hate creating more templates than necessary. How about we use a different colour Pale), instead of no colour ?--Richardb 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no more templates than is necessary. I'm at the moment trying to organize this stuff as WT:I2T is insufficient. A different colour than yellow is indeed another option. I let you proceed with that. Perhaps you can use #F8F8FF as they do on de.wiktionary. — Vildricianus 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already added a note to Template:top - "Note: It is intended that this colour background is used to indicate the translation tables in an entry, for quick and easy indetification of those tables. Please avoid using this colour, and hence this template, for other tables.". And I'll proceed with changing the colour fo the top3, mid3 templates.--Richardb 14:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC) - Done--Richardb 14:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the message; I wonder why I actually hadn't done that before. The new colour looks OK. Could you perhaps also change top2, top4, mid2, mid4? Thanks. — Vildricianus 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

TOC problems[edit]

Hi Richard. I've read you proposal for Wikitech. Concerning the fixed TOC, I think we might perhaps solve this problem of our own (probably not, though). You may want to take a look at User:Vildricianus/Fixed TOC. As you see, there's only part of this I have found now. — Vildricianus 12:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Variants[edit]

I agree with the policy so far - I was getting tired of the eternal debates on this issue. I think you should also mention ligatures (fetus, foetus and fœtus). Jonathan Webley 07:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too, and thanks for your work. I can't help but notice, though (and perhaps this is deliberate) that you're not really addressing the whole big intractable color/colour problem; it's basically left hiding behind some vague words like "If you create a new 'real' entry for a spelling variant". Now, on the one hand, sticking to the anodyne pieces of the policy makes it more likely we'll reach consensus on them, but on the other hand, of course, shying away from the contentious issues means that the eternal debates on those won't go away.
I don't know how to break the deadlock, either, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. (If only King Solomon were here!) —Scs 13:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved "Flame War" to Draft Policy and elsewhere.[edit]

  • Yes, thanks. I've been meaning to do some organizing as well. — Vildricianus 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I'd be best to have the entire discussion as it was before your moving in the BP archives. — Vildricianus 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Really there are two aspects. THe policy, and the work to try to keep translations common. As written, the policy can stand regardless of the success of Connel's idea for the latter.--Richardb 10:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

New volunteer?[edit]

Could you please give them some direction. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


I can help the project of cleanup BE words in translations, I am a Catalan and Spanish speaker. I've taken some words and start to look if they have already translations, should I procede in a particular way?-- 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Plurals and see also[edit]

Are you proposing that we link plurals and inflected forms at the top of the page now? Up to this point, I've only seen that done with variants in terms of capitalization and diacriticals. Inflected forms tens to be linked in definitions or templates. -- 10:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) EncycloPetey 10:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC) sorry, the site didn't get my user info for some reason Only in the case of disambiguation, such as in cobblers--Richardb 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So then, you would propose doing this for pant/pants scissor/scissors crap/craps and such? I think this might be better relegated to a "See also" at the bottom of the page, since it is linking to a morphologically distinct form. --EncycloPetey 10:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Disambiguations belong right at the top of the page.--Richardb 10:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would completely agree if this were Wikipedia, but here it gets complicated. Do you think this should be done in all the languages where disambiguation might be a problem? What will this make the top of some pages look like? How will users know what language is meant? --EncycloPetey 10:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If someone is really that unfamiliar with English, then why would they look up cobbler if the word in the text is cobblers? --EncycloPetey 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "that unfamiliar with English". There must be millions of people who would first assume "cobblers" is the plural of "cobbler". I would suspect less tan 1% of people with English as a second language would recognise that "cobblers" was a distinct word.--Richardb 10:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with how it looks in Wikipedia. As to how the page "looks". Personally I think the pages already looking a disgusting mess with all the etymology and pronunciation "crap" (I am not a linguist, just a user of dictionaries for finding spellings and meanings) before we get to the real stuff, the definitions. Never mind a million transaltions before you get to the useful stuff of finding a pointer to the page you really want.

My guess is we could formulate some sort of policy for this, so that only a few pages get much in the way of disambiguation stuff at the top. And we could easily put language in brackets after the word. Or, more probably, the dismbiguation could come just after the language heading.--Richardb 10:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go for disambiguation just after the language heading for differing forms like this -- much more than for cluttering them at the top of the page, which I would reserve for listings of capitalization differences and diacritics (which can be difficult to type). -- 10:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! I'm going to create a discussion page just for this. Please wait a few minutes.--Richardb 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wiktionary talk:Disambiguation in layout - Policy Think Tank


Good job working out these policies, we do need them. Yet, a stupid comment of mine: could you perhaps make the titles of Wiktionary: pages a bit shorter? Eg. Wiktionary:Disambiguation in layout - Policy Think Tank could easily do without the " - Policy Think Tank". This may sound like a trivial matter, but I get confused by these long titles, especially by the dashes in them. (I also often fail to find them back because of this reason.) Cheers. — Vildricianus 11:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation in layout is the name of the Policy. Policy is a necessary tag to differenetiate it from any odd page. We coulddrop te Think Tank bit. Feel free, but I'm off to bed!--Richardb 12:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Hiya Rich. Beth can't be Hebrew - it's in the wrong script! I agree with you that it doesn't look like English though. Maybe the best approach is not to change it to Hebrew (which it can't be) but to RFV it. That way others will check it out – maybe it is Yiddish or something, or maybe it has been used in English somewhere (though I can't find it). Widsith 08:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Collaboration of the week[edit]

There's discussion on its talk page. — Vildricianus 12:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gross National Product[edit]

I see many instances of this. Which one is correct doesn't matter me, but at least this deserves a redirect. — Vildricianus 12:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


That is exactly what I was trying to do with breasts and got shot down hard. - TheDaveRoss 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Can you integrate some ideas you had on Wiktionary:Project - Improving WikiSaurus into Wiktionary:WikiSaurus improvements? —Vildricianus | t | 12:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'm trying to organize stuff a bit around Wiktionary:WikiSaurus, which is a good central point for it I think. I'm also putting up an important thread in the BP right now, so please comment when I've posted. —Vildricianus | t | 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

aphorisms, maxims etc[edit]

Hi Rich. You might be looking for Category:Proverbs (specifically Category:en:Proverbs. Widsith 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me.

So what is a proverb vs an aphorism vs an adage vs a maxim ?

To be honest, I think it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Widsith 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave off now, as it's 3:15am for me now. Should have gone to bed hours ago. Hven't got time to sort that conundrum out right now.--Richardb 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rich. In Old English poetry, metonymy and synecdoche are very common as rhetorical devices. They talk about destroying a throne and it means they will bring down a king. Medusetl is along those lines; it means literally a mead-bench, but very often when it is used the entire mead-hall is meant. You ask what my sources are, but the word is not an obscure one and it's very clear what it indicates. Medu means ‘mead’ and ‘setl’ is the English word ‘settle’ = seat, bench. However, checking in Sweet's Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon I see he gives the meaning as ‘mead-seat’; Bosworth & Toller, which can be checked online somewhere, defines it similarly as ‘A mead-seat, a seat in a banqueting hall’. The word (and the related medubenc) comes up a lot - the citation from Beowulf is just the most famous. The source you have seen is probably glossing the word in a context where it indicates the hall in general; but that is something which a reader of Old English will understand from context, since very many terms are used in this way. Mead-benches and halls in general were very important in Germanic society and that's why their destruction or otherwise was always thought worth commenting on. The English always did like to drink... Widsith 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Looks like I missed a few during the transistion from the harder to edit version to the easier to edit version, stingy and a few more need updating. The full list of entries that use the new format:

  1. WikiSaurus:big (inclusion)
  2. WikiSaurus:alcoholic (inclusion)
  3. WikiSaurus:bad (inclusion)
  4. WikiSaurus:book (inclusion)
  5. WikiSaurus:activity (inclusion)
  6. WikiSaurus:anger (inclusion)
  7. WikiSaurus:apathy (inclusion)
  8. WikiSaurus:happy (inclusion)
  9. WikiSaurus:giggle (inclusion)
  10. WikiSaurus:annoy (inclusion)
  11. WikiSaurus:annoyed (inclusion)
  12. WikiSaurus:active (inclusion)
  13. WikiSaurus:doer (inclusion)
  14. WikiSaurus:cornucopia (inclusion)
  15. WikiSaurus:talkative (inclusion)
  16. WikiSaurus:gullible (inclusion)
  17. WikiSaurus:surprised (inclusion)
  18. WikiSaurus:stingy (inclusion)
  19. WikiSaurus:informant (inclusion)
  20. WikiSaurus:calm (inclusion)
  21. WikiSaurus:quickly (inclusion)
  22. WikiSaurus:prompt (inclusion)
  23. WikiSaurus:son (inclusion)
  24. WikiSaurus:swearword (inclusion)

I will go through them and make sure they are all in the newest format. I am also going to make a quick tutorial on how to edit this style, it is very easy, just 4 templates. - TheDaveRoss 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


What are you trying to prove? What is this format like? Since when do we include Google search results? —Vildricianus 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiSaurus formatting page[edit]

I wrote down where I am at on the formatting and put together this page to debate and establish WikiSaurus formatting policies, have a look. Wiktionary:WikiSaurus Format - TheDaveRoss 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Also let's please discuss WS:CFI, I have put down a few of my thoughts and would like some of yours expressed there so that we can start establishing a CFI of sorts. - TheDaveRoss 05:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I do owe you an apology, regarding that spelling policy draft.

I it hard for me to understand how to classify (in my tiny brain) a draft policy vs. any other classification of policy. To me, once something is in the Wiktionary: namespace, with "policy" in the title, it is being proclaimed as fairly representative of existing practices. I was quite chagrined for two reasons: 1) it was currently under discussion, 2) as I saw it, it was opposite of existing practices (just that first rule.)

Anyway, I'm sorry I upset you. Especially after all the time you've taken to be patient.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, an apology is different from total capitulation. I can certainly promise to discuss color / colour in a polite manner there. And it doesn't get much worse than that, does it? :-) I'll reply there soon. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


butt monkey is still under discussion, now at WT:BP#Failure in the verification process. I am far too tired right now to follow this trail coherently. Good night.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

purple patch[edit]

Hi there. You seem to have forgotten our formatting standards! The headword comes after the ===part of speech===, and definitions start with a #, not a *. SemperBlotto 07:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


What's up with all the personal attacks? RFD has a purpose, you know. Everyone should be able to nominate an entry without getting all that nonsense in replies. — Vildricianus 10:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominating words for deletion is one thing - though I think there is a huge amount of personal bias in what gets nominated, since 90% of the words accepted into Wiktionary do not meet CFI. But deleting words instantly, then redeleting them and hiding them when another administrator reinstates them for further discussion. That is ABUSE. My attacks on Connel are out of shear frustration for the way he is so damn autocratic. But they stay at the level of debate really, not simple abuse. I mostly give reasonns for my attack. Connel just takes unilateral bowdlerisation action, completely abusing his powers, the agreed processes, everything. I tried for a few weeks, in an off-line conversation, to concentrate on what he is good at. But no, I even think he's started stalking my work now, as well as others he has stalked before. And he no longer just deletes a word, he moves it then delete's it, so it is no longer traceable. Completely against any policy or etiquette. —This unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talkcontribs) 08:06, 17 June 2006.
For one thing - and that's regardless of whether anyone is being autocratic here - you shouldn't make personal attacks. I find it highly disturbing that a newbie like me should tell these things to an oldbie like you. After all those years of being around here, you should know that they don't help and that they make your comments absolutely worthless.
On your other accusations I will not reply, since they make little sense. If there are severe cases of abuse you should offer evidence for them, not random allegations. And if he's following your contribs he's got a good reason to, for they are most of the time not very well formatted. — Vildricianus 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Example of Connel abuse[edit]

You try finding the entry for whorebagger, so you might be able to make your own judgement. You'll find Connel has hidden it. While whorebagger might not be a very worthy word, by what right does Connel decide to not only delete an entry, but hide it from other administrators. This is not the only word he has done this with. Why does someone who behaves like that deserve the benefit of the doubt any longer. --Richardb 09:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a kind of experimental practice that I don't agree with either. I'll ask him. Will I need to make personal attacks? Make accusations? Not at all. BTW, it's not "hidden". It's just moved. OTOH, your behaviour makes it very difficult for everyone to approach any comments of yours in a neutral, civilized way. You might want to tone down a bit and re-state your gripes in a less offending manner if you want to be taken into account. — Vildricianus 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" obviously cuts no ice with you. It's fine for people to do all sorts of dastardly deeds without you raising a murmur, but god forbid that someone should start calling a spade a spade.--Richardb 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I have no idea what you mean by "affectation". It's there because that's the way it's spelled. To do otherwise would be neologizing.

It's also worth noting that the 2,500 speakers (a 17-year-old estimate, btw) is just for the Yatzachi variety. There are about 531,000 speakers of Zapotecan languages total, and varieties other than Yatzachi use ṉ. --Ptcamn 08:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What is going on?[edit]

You are spouting personal attacks all over the place, and now you just deleted requests for deletion in response to a nomination of a page you created? That's terrible judgment on many levels, especially from someone we entrusted with adminship. I've given you a 1 day block to cool down, and, frankly, if a less experienced user had been acting this way, it might not be so lenient. Please take a step back and use calm discussion when you disagree, and lay off the ad hominem. Dmcdevit·t 10:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. Please see User:Richardb/explanation-12-Jun-2007

Sarcastic comments like that on RFV are...ill-advised to say the least right now. Widsith 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

for Pete's sake, I can't even be sarcastic now! Just pointing out what is so obvious to me, that Connel just hates any word to do with sex.

But how about making some comment about CM's blatant disregard for policies; his quoting policies and votes that just don't exist. No wonder I get damn frustrated. Does everyone else live in fear of the guy or something ?--Richardb 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you can be as sarcastic as you like. I just don't think it makes you look particularly good. Widsith 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well why doesn't someone else also take the argument up against CM's behaviour instead.--Richardb 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop spreading bullshit, far and wide. Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Wikisaurus semi-protection is the vote you (every time) ignore. The community is against your POV. The Wikisaurus is not intended as a collection only of vulgarisms, as per the Wiktionary community. Your insistence that it is for vulgar terms only (at the direct expense of valid thesaurus entries) is baffling. --Connel MacKenzie 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I mistook your "explanation" page for a talk page, and replied there. --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"pull up stumps"[edit]

Could you please move this to the proper title pull up stumps and delete the residual redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 16:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2007-06/Expand default namespaces for searches[edit]

Hi, I know Wikisaurus is important to you, and I'm trying to notify you of this vote, but I'm unable to email you. Your old vote won't count since the vote was restarted almost a month ago. Will you be able to cast a vote in the next few days, before it closes? The new vote is here. Thanks! DAVilla 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


You "decided metonym should be the category, not metonymy". Shouldn't that be Category:metonyms? - dcljr 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion favors deleting the category, so the name is immaterial. --EncycloPetey 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Connel MacKenzie/thesaurus[edit]

Maybe WS can use some feeder stubs? This is an analysis of ===Synonyms=== sections of ==English== sections of en.wiktionary pages. Enjoy. --Connel MacKenzie 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Do you still need the User:Richardb/colour subpage? It's appearing in a number of categories. PhilHibbs 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


G-d knows I've had my differences with Connel, but vis-à-vis Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#fable, if he wanted to vandalize, he would have done so without RFD-ing, and if he wanted to troll, he would have commented back to stoke the flames. Please assume good faith where possible (which is nearly always). —RuakhTALK 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "But his attitude is one of the biggest reasons Wiktionary still does not have beig team of helpers": Oh, definitely. But when he is acting in good faith, and within the bounds of wikiquette (as he was in that discussion), if you jump in and start something, then you're the problem. Saying you lost your good-faith assumption years ago won't win anyone over; that's essentially saying that you refuse to abide by community decisions, which is a one-way ticket to bansville. So, I suggest you either find it in a hurry, or leave and don't come back until you've found it. —RuakhTALK 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I would echo Ruakh. We're serious. Personally, I don't understand how the irony of harassing and attacking someone because you think they are unpleasant escapes you. To be honest, Connel can be unpleasant and he can also be a tremendous blessing for the dictionary, but you're just being unpleasant. If anyone else has to edit another of your comments to remove unnecessarily personal or baiting comments, I would recommend you simply be blocked instead. Please keep that in mind. Dmcdevit·t 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not harass and attack Connel because he is unpleasant. I couldn't care less if he is unpleasant. I care that he is a VANDAL. Check a page I started a while ago User:Richardb/Monitoring Overzealous Admin and have added just a few entries to. He consistenly deletes pages without notice, misquotes CFI in a way that can only be deliberate and knowing. He always claims to speak for the whole Wiktionary community, when often he is going directly against something clearly stated in policy. The very reason I started the policy pages a few years ago was to try to get some control of Connel. And damn me if he didn't then unilaterally change and delete policy pages too. He is out of control, and a great danger to Wiktionary. And yet you are more concerned about me being "unpleasant". So, no worry, I'm not about to rejoin the community when sycophants still support Connel in his destructive ways. do something to get him under control, or continue to watch Wiktionary languish for lack of a decentr number of community minded contributors.--Richardb 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that all of your characterizations of his actions are true, that does not make him a "VANDAL," nor does it make one a sycophant for disliking your incivility. Have you ever considered that Connel is not, in fact, the ruler of Wiktionary? Actually, plenty of people disagree with him, and if, say, he actually misrepresented the CFI, all you would have to do would be to take the matter to RfV and have the community resolve the matter against him (and without attacking him). You seem to be more interested in finding ways to attack him than in finding ways to resolve issues; your tactics certainly aren't helping anything, especially not the things you claim to be concerned about. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be very useful to remove gratuitous labels (overzealous, puritan, no backward step, etc.) if you would expect folks to take your collection of instances seriously. It would be very reasonable to take deletions you object to to the Tea Room. A serious analysis of any class of action might be helpful. In the case of someone as active as Connell it would be a surprise if he hadn't made mistakes, so a few incidents over a year does not make a very compelling case. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations pages[edit]

Hi Richardb, I'm not sure if the information you are adding to the Citations pages should be there - it sounds like it should be under the === Etymology === header. Citations pages are for examples of the word being used (see Citations:hinder). Conrad.Irwin 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

True - but I've just found the info, and finding somewhere to store it is a problem. It's not in the neat and tidy form desired for Etymology. So, I'll leave it in Citations till someone can be bothered to put it into the Wiktionary etymology straitjacket (not my penchant). Unless you have a better suggestion for where to store this info.

Of course, one could also argue the word is being "used" in these bits of text I am storing away.--Richardb 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the case for all of them, but the Citations:billboard page seems to be a direct quote from the link given. It might be better to just leave the link languishing harmlessly on the talk page. Conrad.Irwin 09:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean harnmlessly. Or do you mean uselessly, totally uninformatively. I'm sorry. I hadn't realised these Citation pages were so full that couldn't perhaps be used for temporary storage which are sort of citations. But, it is a Wiki. Do what you like with them, which no doubt you will. But if you delete the info, it's gone, 'cos I can't be bothered arguing with you. I never win against the straightjacket deletionists.--Richardb 09:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I had hoped never to be accused of deletionism - but nevermind. I'm not going to delete it, because I agree it is useful - however I can't see the point in wasting time copying other websites here when it is (to my uninformed mind) probably copyright violation and exactly the same as providing a link (which could be under === External Links ===). I know that the Citations pages are not full, however if it isn't clear what is supposed to be put in them then it seems (again personal point of view) more likely that people will not bother to create them because they aren't sure. I have to confess to misunderstanding your intentions above, I thought you meant "I'll leave them there and let another editor format them even though I know it's wrong", though I now realise (I hope I'm right this time..) you are copying the information there so that people can read it on Wiktionary. Conrad.Irwin 09:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"I'll leave them there and let another editor format them" - actually that was what I meant. My view of Wiki's is some people find information, and some people delight in tidying up. Personally I'm not a big fan of the strict formatting here on Wiktionary, which often seems to be held as more important than the content and information. If you want to tidy it up, go for it. As to putting a link instead of content. We'd have nothing but links here if you followed that logic fully. All the information exists elswhere, unless its a neologism. It's easier to get the information with one less click.--Richardb 09:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I am personally against using the content namespaces for that, but as no-one else seems to object I can't really claim I'm right. I don't really have a problem with getting information from other places here - otherwise we would be sunk - but I (for no reason I can fathom) don't like the idea of copying prose directly. Conrad.Irwin 09:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too: Hello Richardb -- I also have serious misgivings about what you have been doing with the citations pages. These chatty, sometime copyvios may strike some readers as interesting but they read more like blogs than dictionary sections. Some of this material probably could be tightened and folded into the "etymology" section and some could go into "usage notes", but right now they read more like "rough notes" and there is no valid section for that (not even "citations"). I'm not anal about "the stict formatting here on Wiktionary" but it is my considered opinion that you have gone too far in the other direction. -- WikiPedant 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You choose a name like Wikipedant, and then claim you're not anal ??? Nice one. Hey, delete the stuff, Be my guest. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.I was only trying to put information somewhere useful. -Richardb 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Y'know, Richardb, that sort of sounds like a personal attack. Please be civil. -- WikiPedant 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Richard, you are (1) deliberately misusing the Citations namespace, and (2) violating copyright of multiple websites. The latter behavior could become grounds for a permanent block. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Not multiple websites, single website. Ages ago I wrote to the guy who's site it is to get permission to copy some of his stuff to Wiktionary. I never got a reply. So, is it a copy vio or not ? I changed to, on my last couple of entries, just pointing to the website, or was I giving the reference. Not sure. OK, I stand corrected on risking copy vio. Hey, but since you like being the policeman so much I'm sure you'll get far more enjoyment out of doing the deletions. Be my guest.-Richardb 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Violating another author's copyright is illegal, and puts the Wikimedia Foundation at risk. It is an administrator's job to proactively remove copyright violations when we see them, not to actively commit copyright violations, as you have done. You are not allowed to simply copy someone else's work just because they didn't reply to your email. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Which part of "I stand corrected on risking copy vio." is beyond your level of comprehension ?--Richardb 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Which part of "You're an administrator, please clean up the big mess you made" did you not understand? --EncycloPetey 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw sod off the lot of you. Get a life. I'm busy putting decent stuff into the Wiktionary. Can't be bothered with you boring lot. Won't be replying to this crap any more.--Richardb 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Calmos guys. When we get into arguments like this, it's only because we care about the Wiktionary. It's worth remembering that, that even if we have different ways of doing it, we all have the same goal - improve the Wiktionary. And group activity has to have some conflict. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello Richard, could you please create an alternate version of the logo WikiSaurus.png, with dark blue background instead of the red one, and with no gradient? I think it could boost the overall appearance of Wikisaurus, providing less conspicious contrast between the two hues--the red and the light blue. Green background could do too, as the hue of green and the hue of the chosen light blue are close to each other. Thanks for considering my request. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

US American[edit]

I'm puzzled by your reaction. I'm sorry if I haven't made clear what the issue is. I'm neither for nor against use of the term "US American". I haven't had any reason to use it and haven't heard it used, as best I remember. I would expect that it would be attestable, but that is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. My personal opinion wouldn't and shouldn't matter much to any final community decision about its inclusion anyway. The question of whether a term is included is not a value judgment about the term or its use. Inclusion is not purely a matter of voting. We have discussions as to whether a given term meets WT:CFI. People often change their opinions in the course of the discussions as to how the rules apply in a given case.

If someone thinks it productive to try to change the rules (mostly about voting, WT:ELE and WT:CFI), a discussion takes place in WT:BP which may lead to a vote. HTH. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

shotgun marriage[edit]

Is this an appropriate use of a redirect? --Yair rand 05:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisaurus - linking from mainspace[edit]

You have posted the following to my talk page, to the thread "Nice to see someone working on Wikisaurus"; I am also quoting my previous posting to which you were replying:

Hello Richard, I have read your post, thought about it a bit, and have not changed my mind. I still think that discussion on Wikisaurus is best lead in Beer Parlour. The logo should better be avoided. Linking from mainspace using "See also Wikisaurus:artifact" is the preferred way. --Dan Polansky 07:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I try not to get riled when I put together several paragraphs of argument, and someone else comes back with linking from mainspace using "See also Wikisaurus:artifact" is the preferred way.. Why is it the preferred way ?--Richardb 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, picking up on a month old thread does not seem to be the best idea. For another, if you want to discuss anything about Wikisaurus with me that would lead to the change of the current practice in Wikisaurus, please start a discussion at Beer Parlour, and notify me that you did so, so that I can join the discussion. --Dan Polansky 08:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Dan. I was only trying to work with someone who is interested in Wikisaurus. Already, by my name appearing on Beer Parlour, my arch protagonist, CM, has tried to provoke me, despite making virtually no contributions since May!

If you want to TELL me how to work on Wiktionary, then perhaps I've gone cold on the idea that maybe I could collaborate with you. I find Beer Parlour such a disgusting place to try and do any real analytical, policy work. Just forget I was interested.--Richardb 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisaurus - formatting[edit]

Can you please properly format "Wikisaurus:rage" that you have just created? You can model the formatting on any other Wikisaurus entry, or look at Wiktionary:Wikisaurus. --Dan Polansky 12:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you? I mean, not just adding the ws template, but format the complete entry. There should be no "* " before {{ws}}. There should be "English" L2-heading; there should be an L4-heading for the sense. Et cetera, to be seen at any other Wikisaurus entry. --Dan Polansky 12:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to tidy it up, but if you can't respect the "Work in Progress" flag, and choose to act more like a bleeding Parking Inspector than a colleague and collaborator, then..... You know what, I don't give a flying F*** for the formatting. That adds no bloody value at all as far as I am concerned.
But, guess what. It's a Wiki! Wikis usually have lots of people of different interests. I think Wiki fairies are the ones who go around and quietly tidy things up. Are you a Wiki fairy ? Me, I'm more like a Wiki troll. Go do your fairy thing if you have to.--Richardb 08:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to a self-confessed "wiki troll" who does not "give a flying fuck for the formatting" (see the paragraphs above): it seems easier for me to cleanup after you than getting you blocked or something, in the hope that your contribution spree is going to be short-lived anyway. It seems that you have learned nothing ever since the conflict about "Citations:" namespace; as nice, civil and cooperative as ever.
You don't need to copy the conversation to my talk page; I am watching your talk page when I start a conversation there. --Dan Polansky 08:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll change my self description from "troll" to "gadfly", trying to sting you smug b******s into accepting that a world of real people out there want to use Wiktionary, not just ponce about with it.
Unfortunately I have learned something. Wiktionary is still controlled by the peak-cap mentality, by dogmatists, who do not understand the very basics of a Wiki, shared contribution, different roles, different styles of contribution. You actually would consider proposing blocking a contributor (but you would just be happy if my contribution spree is short lived!) just because I don't bow and scrape and grovel, or wipe my feet, when you tell me to do exactly as you tell me to. I can see you are following well in the footsteps of some of the other infamous administrators that have done their very best to drive contributors away, just because they don't do exactly what they are told.
And you have not responded as to why you did not respect the "Work in Progress" notice on the entry. Why was it necessary to be so damn pushy and impatient, not to mention stalking and downright goading?
And of course I paste it into your talk space, so you get the new message notice. It also lets people see what you are like too. But then I guess that's why you wipe it out. Wouldn't like some of the mud to stick.--Richardb 08:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You have as yet not learned how to indent wiki discussions. You disrespect the choices made by everyone else but you. You feel entitled to a "different style of contribution", meaning that you don't care about formatting and someone else does the cleanup. In the past, you have posted unformatted snippets from a website into "Citations" namespace. You think that you are not bound by the common practices in a given wiki. You seem to think that "work in progress" notice makes sense, that it somehow differentiates a malformatted page from a normal wiki page which is per definition work in progress, and that the label "work in progress" entitles you to leave pages malformatted and to post whatever comes to your mind into wiki pages instead of to your personal notebook. You label my concern with your action, which I of course monitor given your recent edit history including modifying Wikisaurus guidelines to the point of increasing the inclusiveness and so decreasing the quality of Wikisaurus, "stalking" and "goading". You find Beer Parlour a "disgusting place", as it is a place in which it is easier to see what the community preference is, and a place where various people are welcome to contribute to discussion, people whom you deem unworthy; also a place that is monitored by some past contributors who might want to have a say in a matter. And yet, you seem to think that you alone represent "a world of real people out there", unlike everyone else in English Wiktionary. So be it. --Dan Polansky 09:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Try reading w:Wikipedia:WikiBullying, w:Wikipedia:No vested contributors, w:Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules,
Interesting points to note are:-
  • On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing of all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less are at a lower level and are not entitled to their point of view.
  • Stating a real policy when it is necessary is not considered WikiBullying. But going beyond an editor's call of duty to enforce policies can be.
  • You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
  • The {{inuse}} tag may be temporarily placed on top of a page so that others do not interfere with one's planned editing.
The facts. I created a page Wikisaurus:rage at 12:39. On this page I included a "Work in Progress" banner, and the summary comment was "to be built on". By 12:40 Dan had sent me a snide comment about needing to format it. Now if that is not pushy and impatient, and a sign of stalking and goading, what is ? --Richardb 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What you are quoting is not a policy but an unofficial essay, expressing the opinion of some people. The page that you are quoting has been created on 31 March 2009, and edited by a few people. The page is unlikely to have a wide endorsement of Wikipedia editors, as many of its sentences make little sense.
The sentence "all editors have fair and equal rights to editing of all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system" is a non-differentiating summary: editors do not have right to vandalize pages, for instance, or put POV material in them. In Wiktionary, anonymous editors do not have the right to edit locked pages, as they do not even have the technical possibility to do so.
Even if the page had Wikipedia endorsement, which I doubt, it is a Wikipedia page, not a Wiktionary one.
The material that you are quoting is, in other words, irrevelant.
You would have to quote a relevant material, but I doubt that there is any such one, either Wikipedia or Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 10:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You still have not answered why you chose to ignore the "Work in Progress" banner.--Richardb 10:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The "ignore all the rules" banner This concept is important to Wikipedia. The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia. It has a long tradition, and deep and subtle meaning. Please consider this before editing this page was written by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia Founder. Is he irrelevant too!--Richardb 10:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
All right, here you have nothing else to respond to my pointing to your mistake in misrepresenting a fallacious essay as a policy but to point to an allegedly missing answer to "Work in Progress" banner, an answer that is already implied in my previous post: "You seem to think that "work in progress" notice makes sense, that it somehow differentiates a malformatted page from a normal wiki page which is per definition work in progress, and that the label "work in progress" entitles you to leave pages malformatted and to post whatever comes to your mind into wiki pages instead of to your personal notebook." So to put it differently, each wiki page is a work in progress. Each edit to a wiki page should be a completed unit of work, leaving the page well formatted, while incomplete. Accidents happen and are alright, but I disagree with the intention to leave pages malformatted. Hence the pointlessness of a "work in progress" banner.
You may try to import "ignore all rule" banner from Wikipedia into Wiktionary, but I disagree with the implication that you drawing from it, the implication that Wiktionary should be anarchistic. If you want to, we may discuss it in Beer Parlour. You know very well that Wiktionary is a carefully formatted project, and that if you did in the mainspace what you did in Wikisaurus, you would generate immediate reaction from other Wiktionarians. You also know that a proposal to "ignore all rules" made in Beer Parlour is unlikely to meet agreement. So I am not sure what you are trying to do here, other than pushing your POV and your anarchistic creed. --Dan Polansky 10:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You love putting words into my mouth, don't you.

You find Beer Parlour a "disgusting place", as it is a place in which it is easier to see what the community preference is, - Absolutely the opposite. Discussions get scattered over many topics, over many archives. There is no way of seeing what community consensus is, just what the latest contributors say. Taking sensible discussion to a specific, well advertised place is far preferable, so that all the contributions, all the history of contributions, can easily be seen. And such a discussion place should be regularly advertised on Beer Parlour, so any occasional visitor can go the sensible discussion area, and immediately know all that has been said before on the topic, not just the past few contributions.
people whom you deem unworthy. Point to even one place where I have said anything of the sort! I have only said we have different ways of contributing. What I have said, and I repeat, is that any expecting to get a clear headed discussion of a topic in the noisy Beer Parlour is likely to be disappointed
you seem to think that you alone represent "a world of real people out there". Absolutely not. But I do find the place is a bit overrun by what I deem to be academic linguists who use words like hypocoristic instead of pet name - see rabbit. Who seem to think it is essential to have Wikisaurus entries formatted to death so they can be part of a "Semantic network", at the expense of actual content for simple users.

Stop putting words into my mouth.

Conversely, I don't think I've done any misrepresentation of you at all. And I don't think I've told you to do anything my way.. Just asked you to follow the kind of policies I have pointed to on Wikipedia. Allow each to contribute in their own way, as long as they are adding value, and not wiping out the work of others just because it doesn't meet some supposed standard of perfection the instant it is created.

--Richardb 10:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Above I have stated the impression that I have gained from the recent discussion with you. You have said that you find Beer Parlour disgusting. While you did not explicitly say that some people are unworthy, you have spoken of the "noisy crowd" in Beer Parlour; on your talk page you say "can't be bothered with you boring lot", disregarding what other editors say and prefer. This I read as expressions of disrespect to fellow Wiktionarians. You have just quoted a Wikipedia page, which is neither policy nor a guideline but a personal essay, and have tried to sell it as a policy: "Just asked you to follow the kind of policies I have pointed to on Wikipedia"; see also my response above. --Dan Polansky 10:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

- it matters not what arguments I put, what evidence I offer, what questions I ask Dan to answer. Nothing matters as much as 'Dan's Opinion, unsupported by evidence or anything.. So I won't bother trying to use argument or evidence anymore. Good night.--Richardb 10:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are not passing that opinionated Wikipedia essay as evidence. Can you indicate of what evidence you are speaking, per "it matters not what ... evidence I offer"? What evidence do you offer, and for what claim? Of course that my normative opinion matters as long as it coincides with the normative opinion of other fellow contributors. The statement "Wiktionary pages should be well formatted" is a normative opinion, as it contains "should"; it is a value; but the fact is that the requirement for well formatting pages is the current practice. While the norms are just norms and not facts, it is a fact that these are the accepted norms.
If you doubt that "Wiktionary pages should be well formatted" is an accepted norm, we can test the norm's acceptance in Beer Parlour. If this test does not suit you, you can propose another test that would show the norm's acceptance in the community of Wiktionary editors. --Dan Polansky 10:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
As always, I am still looking for the pointer you probably should give to some policy or other.--Richardb 11:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel pressed to give a hyperlink to a policy, as long as there is a common practice. If you doubt the existence of a common practice in a particular point, we can check it in Beer Parlour. I do not share the assumption that what is not codified in a formal policy is left unregulated regardless of the current practice.
I have not still heard from you about: what evidence do you offer, and for what claim? --Dan Polansky 11:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Responding to one of your posts from above: "I created a page Wikisaurus:rage at 12:39. ... By 12:40 Dan had sent me a snide comment about needing to format it." Indeed. I was so closely following your every step so as to be able to post one minute after you have created the page. The wiki revision history, luckily enough, proves otherwise: you have created the page at 12:29, not 12:39, so I reacted 11 minutes after its creation. I am monitoring recent changes in Wikisaurus, which is how I have noticed the creation. Anyway. --Dan Polansky 12:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. 12:29, so 11 minutes. But, yet again, you have not answered. Why did you feel compelled to tell me to cleanup when it clearly had a "Work in Progress" banner ? Why is it your role to police this. If you want to clean it up, clean it up, don't tell me to clean it up. You are not my boss, and I don't work for you.--Richardb 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Genuinely, off to bed!--Richardb 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried two times to answer your question about the "work in progress" banner, stating my conviction that the banner is pointless, and that wiki pages should always be well formatted, especially when created by an oldbie. If however, you are asking about my underlying motivation for caring about Wikisaurus, that is none of your business; I do care without providing any explanation, as is my full right.
My question is still pending, so don't pretent I am failing to answer your questions while you promptly answer mine: what evidence do you offer, and for what claim? --Dan Polansky 14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

shotgun marriage‎[edit]

Did you know that you just deleted an article without rfd-ing it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See discussion in User talk:Mglovesfun

Active discussions[edit]

Hi Richardb. I'm trying to make that Active WT Discussions idea of yours into a category. See WT:BP#Active discussions. --Yair rand 07:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Wikisaurus slash-more pages[edit]

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/2010-10/Deleting_Wikisaurus_slash-more_pages, which I think could be interesting for you. I natually do not want you to oppose, but I find it only fair to notify you of this vote. --Dan Polansky 11:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus and attestation[edit]

FYI: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus_and_attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi there. I'm gonna start a vote to de-admin you, as you haven't been active in 35 years. --Quadcont (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)