User talk:Salaskan

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


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


I have to wonder, really what you were trying to do to this entry? The removal of other language sections really isn't helpful; that entry sees more than its share of regular (periodic) abuse.

Please note carefully, that on the English Wiktionary, translation sections are given only for English words; on the Dutch Wiktionary, translation sections are given only for Dutch words. Entries for words in other languages are welcome, but they only indicate the English translation (on the English Wiktionary.)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me why you removed my constructive contribution on lol without a comment? (please respond on my talk page) Salaskan 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you keep putting things in the wrong order. "Translingual" always goes first; and, since this is the English Wiktionary, English always comes next (or first if there is no Translingual section). ALL OTHER languages go after, in alphabetical order. —Stephen 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea of this, I'm new to wiktionary. Keep the translations section out then. Am I allowed to readd the Etymology section, though? Salaskan 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, each word in each language can have its own etymology section. This section precedes the ===Noun=== or ===Verb=== heading. —Stephen 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your contributions. Please note that we do not generally use redirects here at Wiktionary. (There are some exceptions, but that's the general rule.) Please see the current version of utilisation to see what we do instead. —RuakhTALK 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version shows an American bias. Why not do the opposite (i.e. put the text currently on utilization to utilisation and replace utilization with "American variant of utilisation"? Salaskan 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The so-called "American" version is valid in the UK; the "UK" version is not valid in American English. Most of the discussions on the topic have noted that "-ize-"/"-iza-" forms are currently prescribed by British reference books. So, calling it an "American variant" would simply be incorrect. Some experiments have been made with duplicating the content, but with various shortcomings to each method tried. Please note clearly that the broad majority of the top contributors here on en.wiktionary speak either Commonwealth English or British English; the very strong bias that exists is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. --Connel MacKenzie 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what you are saying is (to use a British word) complete bollocks, compare Wiktionary:Wiktionarians#United Kingdom with Wiktionary:Wiktionarians#United States. Salaskan 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? Are you kidding? I've been around for a year, with (including bots) ~100,000 edits, and I've never heard of that page until now. It is hardly representative. If it was useful at all, you'd have to add up all the Commonwealth/British English countries. Like Kenya. Robert Ullmann 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your curious POV[edit]

Why on earth are you vandalizing the entry prick? That meaning is in widespread use here in the US. Yes, you have expressed some bizarre UK bias previously, but that does not explain why you'd want to remove valid information from an entry. --Connel MacKenzie 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for accusing me of "vandalism" (i.e. the editing of a page with the sole goal of degrading its quality, destructive editing), and failing to AGF. It is most appreciated, and will surely encourage me to contribute to this project. Salaskan 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
why would you want to remove "US" and substitute "especially UK"? prick is very common in the US. VERY. What it isn't is common in other English speaking countries (East Africa, etc.) although it is known. Where are you from, and what variant(s) are you familiar with? Robert Ullmann 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)