User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-12

Re your reversions

So I'm a "POV vandal," huh? Why on earth did you blindly remove my sourced, verifiable, and most of all non-POV edits? Who do you think you are? I've been working my ass off on Wikipedia over the past year just to improve articles about the English language, focusing on American English, British English, and the differences between the two. I thought it would be nice to do the same here on Wiktionary---which is currently a mess. But now I guess Wiktionary is bound to remain a mess. JackLumber 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your false, unsourced, unverifiable POV edits were reverted. --Connel MacKenzie 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

193.144.127.248

This anon didn't reply your last message (7:something UTC); I added a note to the user page saying STOP, and they continued; blocked IP for a week. I'd like to just revert delete it all. What do you think? Would be nice to believe it is good faith ... Robert Ullmann 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That IP traces to SPAIN. Please unblock and try finding someone here fluent in es: to get him to behave. The contribs are clearly good faith, just horribly clueless. --Connel MacKenzie 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. My Spanish is pretty rusty ... Robert Ullmann 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

False? Unsourced? Unverifiable? POV?

You gotta be kidding me, Mr. MacKenzie. Take a deep breath, think over it, and you'll find out that your behavior is way out of line.

• metamorphosize is featured in the Oxford English Dictionary just like any other word, with no regional tags at all. Therefore, it can be spelled metamorphosise in British English. And please note that metamorphose is NOT an alternate spelling, but it's a different word altogether. Not to mention that Wiktionary does have an entry for metamorphosise, which makes your position indefensible.
• In Canadian English, -yze and -yse are both current, but -yze has an edge over -yse, as per the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which records both, in that order. Furthermore, according to the OED, ...from the first it was commonly written in Eng. analyze, the spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible. (I assume you know who Dr. Samuel Johnson was.) Even the British National Corpus has several instances of analyze. See Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, page 37. Therefore, the sentence -yze truly is an Americanism is not completely accurate.
• Résumé can happily mean "summary" in American English. Webster's 3rd, M-W Collegiate, Random House, AHD, Encarta, CALD, OALD, and LDOCE all record that meaning without comment. If you don't have access to corpus data, or if you don't believe me, just Google it. (a resume of the findings of the Follow Through Project Evaluation, a resume of the evidence submitted to it, a resume of the current financial status of the event, etc.) I can't find one source that regards this meaning of résumé as British---aside from Wiktionary, of course. (And what does "UK and parts of Commonwealth" mean anyway?) See also Peters, page 473. If you personally aren't familiar with it, well, that's completely normal. After all, it's an old-fashioned and somewhat unnecessary gallicism, presently overshadowed by the "job summary" sense. But it's current, period. Additionally, that punchline about Microsoft Word is simply ridiculous, and truly POV. This is supposed to be a dictionary, not a magazine. "given its tremendous predominance..." Come on.
• As you see, my edits were true, sourced, and verifiable. But I still can't figure out why you regarded them as "POV." Truth be told, the very lines I removed were POV. Ask Wikipedians like Smjg, Gnetwerker, Snalwibma, Chris Q, Adrian Robson, Angr, West London Dweller, Boothman, Cultural Freedom, Joesty Nestorius, Espoo, and others. They know who I am, they know I'm not biased or POV or whatever. You called me a vandal. I asked you to explain, and not only did you not explain---you just jerked me around. You owe me an apology. I hope we can still be friends, though. JackLumber 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are so many errors in the above, I hardly know where to begin.

This is a dictionary. Not an encyclopedia. Therefore, spelling matters. So a form without diacritics is not the same word as a form with diacritics. Google searching "normalizes" the searches that include diacritics, returning all forms. So the results of a Google search of "resume" will return the same items as a search for "résumé" without providing any of the distinction that is important in that specific example.

While some of what you removed was POV itself, your POV (unbeknownst to you, perhaps) is also clear when you claim "job summary" to be an accepted meaning in places you are not from. Ignoring the talk page(s) is simply inexplicable. Using the Oxford representation of what is spoken in America has always had problems - this one is a more blatant example of what seems to be completely erroneous entries in those sources. (Again, see those handy talk pages.)

Regarding metamorphose, I can only defer to the many British contributors here on en.wiktionary (such as a Bureaucrat) whom I assume knows a thing or two about British English. (Oddly, the majority of regular contributors here are British, particularly in the top ten.) Your changes conflict with the earlier fact-checking I did on the topic...particularly the OED. Your comment that we don't have an entry, for an entry that we have had for a long time is equally confusing.

Regarding "-yse is truly an Americanism" I do not recall who added that, but I do recall it being contentious and sourced (without checking the talk page, just yet.) Your removal of it was not sourced (and I now doubt the above, without checking into it further, to see where the error is.) If the above is misquoted, it can certainly lead to an erroneous interpretation.

As far as querying your UK-cabal, hmmm. Why exactly would I want to do that? Angr is the only username I even recognize, as having made any attempt ever at contributing to Wiktionary (and that was short-lived, a long time ago.) If you carry a POV that you don't even realize you have, your peers will probably share it, right? Perhaps it is all just a misunderstanding, where you don't quite see the importance of separating the entries?

I appreciate your suggestion of taking a deep breath and thinking things over. The edits and comments you've made have left me defending "far from perfect" Wiktionary entries. But the only removal of yours that made any sense at all, was the reference to Microsoft. Even then, the corporate reference is what should have been removed, not the concept being conveyed.

Please, for controversial changes, use the talk pages first. You can safely assume that anything regarding US/UK spellings, pronunciations, meanings or etymologies is controversial to some degree. Please also, cite your sources before making those controversial changes! When claiming that "the corpus has examples" don't simply make that claim: insert the relevant citations into a ===Quotations=== section of the relevant page. If you need to include more than 9 citations, use the citations sub-page. Please note that citations carry much more weight here than secondary sources.

--Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A misunderstanding, huh? You actually misunderstood most of what I said.

For starters, who said anything about diacritics?!? My Google search was precisely supposed to return examples of the noun resumé, résumé, or resume, whatever the spelling. There's no meaning-based distinction whatsoever between these spellings. And I NEVER EVER claimed that "job summary" is an accepted meaning outside of North America---whatever "accepted meaning" means. (In fact, I was speaking about U.S. usage.) I just claimed that the "summary of events/facts" sense *is current in American English as well as British English*. All possible dictionaries support this claim. On the other hand, you used to say that the "summary of events/facts" sense is "not valid" in American English, and this is, of course, false. All I did was precisely remove that "UK and parts of Commonwealth" tag. The talk page only deals with the spelling issue; my edit was about the *meanings*, not the *spellings*. Anyways, résumé is hardly an "incorrect spelling," as you say---according to the M-W, for instance, résumé is the main spelling, and resumé is but an also-ran, whereas resume is an equal variant of résumé.

Re yze/yse, I only substituted

"Finally, the -yze ending (as in analyze and paralyze) is found normally only in the U.S. and Canada; in Britain and elsewhere (including sometimes Canada) -yse is used (analyse, paralyse)."

for

"One notable and oft-cited exception is analyse, where the -yze ending truly is an Americanism."

What's so wrong or POV about it? My version is more accurate and more comprehensive. yze/yse is not even an "exception"---it's a "rule." By and large, the yze ending is an Americanism. But if you consider the big picture, things are slightly more complex. So I just fine-tuned the sentence, that's all.

Re metamorphose, the entry for metamorphosise was apparently authored by an Englishman. [1]. As for the OED, are you putting me on or what? The OED has an entry for metamorphosize. The OED uses -ize spellings. Ergo, there's nothing wrong with the spelling metamorphosise. This word, however, is very rare in both British and American English. Anyways, it is NOT an Americanism.

What do you mean by "you don't quite see the importance of separating the entries"?

I wrote much of the whole Wikipedia enchilada about American English, British English, Canadian English, etc. I have good relationships with a lot of fellow Wikipedians from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Nobody ever said I'm POV---nobody but you. And you didn't even explain why. And you still owe me an apology. JackLumber 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is way out of line. Blindly reverting edits is what you have been doing, with the occasional insulting comment in your edit summaries. You should heed your own advise about taking a deep breath. Did you discuss any of your changes on talk pages? Did you add references to controversial entries anywhere along the way? Did you add citations? Or were you just trolling/baiting all along? --Connel MacKenzie 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been jerking me around all along. I've never insulted anybody. Nobody ever bothers adding citations; Wiktionary is a pigsty, and you know it well. It's just that you've got it in for me. I don't know why, though. You haven't answered my questions yet. And you still owe me an apology. JackLumber 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

rv/watch your language, mister.

Why, Connel MacKenzie?

what's an "etymologically correct context"? Rephrasing

rm POV & OR. Sense 1 is minor yet current throughout English-speaking world.

rm POV/OR

rm loonie, already in "regular words" section. rm skeeter, just a word y'all borrowed from... US

Am I really misinterpreting your various blind rollback comments? --Connel MacKenzie 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You know what a "loonie" is, right? It's the Canadian dollar. rm skeeter, just a word y'all borrowed from... US means "skeeter is an Americanism and not a Canadianism." Everybody says "rm POV" or "rm OR." "Watch your language" was justified by you calling me a vandal. By the way, you still owe me an apology. And you haven't answered my questions yet. JackLumber 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And "etymologically correct context" doesn't mean jack. JackLumber

Don't hold your breath for an apology. If it were deserved, perhaps. But you have been wildly, blindly baiting edit wars, pushing your POV (hence the POV vandal comment) and not using talk pages for the entries you dispute. (You react with long winded rants here on my talk page instead, after the fact!) --Connel MacKenzie 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You called me a "vandal" well before these so-called edit wars [2]---and without a reason. I had just *rephrased* a sentence to make it more comprehensive. That's why you owe me an apology---and you haven't answered my questions yet. JackLumber 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I got it. Apparently, a contributor is POV if s/he disagrees with *your* point of view---in which case s/he might also be called a "POV vandal." This helps explain why Wiktionary is way less popular than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a regular wiki, Wiktionary is not. Come on, how can the sentence "Finally, the -yze ending (as in analyze and paralyze) is found normally only in the U.S. and Canada; in Britain and elsewhere (including sometimes Canada) -yse is used (analyse, paralyse)" be POV? JackLumber 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys: chill. Remember, it's only a dictionary.

JackLumber: I doubt you'll get an apology from Connel, because he's just as stubborn and headstrong as you are.

Connel: If you would assume good faith a little more often, you wouldn't have to endure so many of these intractable arguments.

—scs 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, by "assume good faith" you mean to say that I should accept edits that seem incorrect, entered with misleading, baiting comments, clearly knowledgeable of the informal policy that all US/UK spelling differences are inherently POV, making (initially) unsourced changes to pages that have seen heated arguments in the past, changed in Wikipedia-style to no longer conform to Wiktionary conventions, ignoring previous talk page discussions, followed by arrogant misplaced rants here as "good"? Sorry, but I know all Wikipedians aren't this bad. FWIW, I have heard the bizarre keyphrase (used to wrap up a long rant) "I hope we can still be friends, though" by only one other contributor. Does it seem to you like I blew a gasket after reading that? Combine that with the other things I itemized below, the seeming prevarication, the gravitation towards POV entries and snide summaries, I don't see how you expect me to assume good faith. --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother with the whole point-by-point reply thing. I have reviewed the edit history at résumé and -ize and I don't see anything horribly wrong with JackLumber's edits -- certainly nothing remotely approaching "POV vandalism". My point was that if you had assumed good faith about those edits the first time he made them, all the rest of the things you're accusing him of might well not have happened. More below. —scs 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough already. You had your fun. Now it's clear you're doing this just for kicks. This Wiktionary free-for-all will get by just fine without me around. So long, Mr. MacKenzie. JackLumber 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) scs: thank you for your concern.

Not to take sides, and pardon me for being blunt, but:

• JackLumber: Connel should not have reverted your edits as "POV vandalism", but you should not have edit warred and taunted him. As always, it takes two to create a conflict like this -- either party could have deescalated, if you'd wanted to.
• Connel: from where I sit, this is another case where you've "come down like a ton of bricks" on someone and turned what ought to have been a simple difference of opinion into a big, caterwauling fight. I don't know what you mean by the "informal policy that all US/UK spelling differences are inherently POV." US/UK spelling differences are not "POV"; they just are. We can all attempt to describe the differences accurately and dispassionately. If this "informal policy" (which no newcomer can possibly hope to understand) means that anyone who so much as touches any US/UK-related language is immediately tarred by you as a "POV warrior", I think we've got a problem on our hands.

—scs 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers to questions

Some of what you've said seems almost reasonable. You've mentioned that I haven't answered your questions several times. Well, I thought I had, but just to let you further jerk me around or troll me, here are the sentences you posted on my talk page ending in a question mark. I do hope you are not a troll; but if you are, you are a very good one, as I haven't been trolled this well in ages.

• Question one: So I'm a "POV vandal," huh?

I have not yet found the entry that sparked my interest on November 7th (something deleted or rolled back.) But looking at some of what is left behind, I see immediately:

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=metamorphosize&diff=next&oldid=1004223

Edit summary: "metamorphosize" actually originated in Britain and it's not even a truly American word.

Now, I looked at that edit, recalling the discussion I had with User:Paul G about the "bad" redirect, and my replacing it with something worded to his liking. At the same time, I saw a weird UK POV being pushed - directly controverting what I had taken as fact from an established, respected British contributor (and sysop and bureaucrat.) The fact that the British equivalent metamorphosise was not considered valid (not citations were entered at that time) was the rationale for the disputed wording. But the edit not only removed all distinction, it implied the opposite of what it is supposed to - that one spelling is the normal construction in the UK, while the other is the normal construction in the US. Your edit intends to show the British spelling variant as American?

How you can say that that is not POV vandalism is a little weird.

• Question two: Why on earth did you blindly remove my sourced, verifiable, and most of all non-POV edits?

Previously answered...they are all false, unsourced, not verified, and POV.

• Question three: Who do you think you are?

An American contributor.

• After several insults, condescending rants and irrelevant appeals to authority,
• Question four: And what does "UK and parts of Commonwealth" mean anyway?

Previously answered, but to reiterate: to you that can be interpreted as "Non-US."

• After more length ranting, additional irrelevant appeals to authority,
• Question five: A misunderstanding, huh? You actually misunderstood most of what I said.

Good sir, you still seem to be the one misreading/misunderstanding what is being said.

• Question six: For starters, who said anything about diacritics?!?

I did: your ambiguous statements gave the distinct impression that you consider them irrelevant (indeed, your later comments reinforce that notion.) I was hoping you'd do something helpful, like provide a citation for what you were ranting about, instead of just ranting. From your comments you seemed ready to supply citations for resume instead (which, of couse, is also another word.) But I mentioned them so that you would not mistakenly place citations from your British texts for "resume" on résumé. Your later comments imply that you still don't understand that distinction.

• Regarding -ize - http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=-ize&diff=1425334&oldid=1425298
• Question seven: What's so wrong or POV about it?

Taken in the context of your previous UK POV, and you mangling of Wiktionary standard headings with some non-standard one, I did not look closely at this, the first time. You replaced "normally only in the U.S. and Canada." with "normally only in the U.S. and Canada; in Britain and elsewhere" with an edit summary about another change on the page (which also ignored previous discussions on that topic.)

• Question eight: As for the OED, are you putting me on or what?

No.

• Question nine: What do you mean by "you don't quite see the importance of separating the entries"?

That was answered above (diacritics.) To make it clearer, in English, you cannot say "résumé" to mean "begin something again."

---

Just because long-term reviewed, debated, corrected entries do not match your POV, does not mean they are incorrect. Your edits all certainly look like bad-faith edits, particularly without any discussion on any of those entries' talk pages. Did you realize that most of them do have relevant talk page discussions? --Connel MacKenzie 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, thank you for that "I haven't been trolled this well in ages." I'm so flattered. Too bad I'm not just another ass kisser.

Metamorphosize: my edit summary was supposed to mean "metamorphosize is not an 'Americanism,' it didn't originate in the U.S., it's American as well as British, possibly modulo the spelling." My arrangement was supposed to mean "metamorphosize is used in both British and American English; metamorphosise is used only in *British* English." A UK tag for metamorphosise, no tag for metamorphosise. Compare factorize. Per the OED, metamorphosize is a bonafide word (do you want the germane link? [3]), so it can be spelled metamorphosise in British (Australian, etc.) English. User:Widsith, who is a British administrator as well, supports this position. That's all.

ize/yze: I did *not* replace

"normally only in the U.S. and Canada."

with

"normally only in the U.S. and Canada; in Britain and elsewhere".

I replaced

"the -yze ending is found normally in the U.S. and Canada"

with

"Finally, the -yze ending (as in analyze and paralyze) is found normally only in the U.S. and Canada; in Britain and elsewhere (including sometimes Canada) -yse is used (analyse, paralyse)."

I guess you didn't get the chiasmus. The last sentence means

1. yze is used in the United States and Canada.
2. yse is used in Britain and elsewhere and sometimes in Canada.

What's POV about it?!

resumé: my Google search was done without diacritics, just because I didn't bother typing the é. After all, doesn't Google ignore diacritics, as you said? And who said anything about the VERB resume? Indeed, you can rest assured that my Google search leaves out all the instances of the VERB resume. Why? Because, in the phrase I googled, which is "a resume of the", the word resume cannot be a verb. Do you want me to repeat the search with the alternate spellings? Here you go---[4] and [5]. The meanings of the noun are all that matters to me. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THAT THE "summary" SENSE IS VALID IN AMERICAN ENGLISH TOO. THAT'S ALL. I didn't cite any "British texts." God, did you even read what I wrote? I didn't want to raise the issue about spelling differences, let alone about the verb resume. Indeed, I only edited the first meaning of the definition of the noun resumé. Maybe you're just sidetracking the discussion because you know you're wrong.

"UK and parts of Commonwealth" doesn't mean really much. Is that meaning current in Canada? Australia? India? Kiribati? Pakistan? Malta? I showed you that meaning is current in the United States too.

talk pages: The talk page for resumé is completely irrelevant, since it only deals with spelling, and my edit had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with spelling. The talk pages for metamorphosize, metamorphosise, and -ize are nonexistent.

So, I guess you said "you don't quite see the importance of separating the entries" only because you misunderstood me.

Finally, I gave you plenty of evidence and I cited a whole bunch of sources. Then again, you have the gall to repeat, "[the edits] are all false, unsourced, not verified, and POV." Are you blind? In bad faith? Maybe you just don't give a damn. I wrote much of the Wikipedia shebang about British, American, Canadian, etc. English. Nobody ever accused me of bad faith or POV. Nobody except for you. So I guess it's pretty safe to assume the problem is you.

WHY WERE MY EDITS FALSE, UNSOURCED, NOT VERIFIED, AND POV? Come on and deny the truth once again! Make my day!

You said, "this is a dictionary, so spelling matters." Well, apparently you don't know that much about spelling, do you? [6] Seriously, man. JackLumber 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Holy crap. No wonder you were so pissed off by the time you got to Wiktionary. FYI, I've walked blindly, headfirst into the same minefield that you had, on Wikipedia. If you'd like to stay abreast of the latest developments, see w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of idioms in the English language (A). For what it is worth, I don't see how anyone can claim that those aren't encyclopedic articles. There seems to be quite a contingent of rabid deletionists who wish to promote their view that American English is no different in any way whatsoever from British English, Indian English, Jamaican Patois, Canadian English, Australian English, etc. I am stunned. I now hate visiting Wikipedia a tiny bit more. --Connel MacKenzie 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Verification

I don't know if that's what necessary, but outfangthief seems to be a perfectly legitimate word: see for example this blog post which defines it as well, and you can certainly find it in the OED:

The right of a lord of a private jurisdiction, more extensive than that of infangthief (see INFANGTHIEF n.), to claim for trial a thief, esp. one who is the lord's tenant, captured outside the jurisdiction, and to keep any forfeited chattels on conviction; occas. used to denote the thief so apprehended. Also, more widely: the right of a lord to try any thief apprehended within that lord's jurisdiction, regardless of the accused person's place of origin.
The right was variously defined or circumscribed in the 13th cent., when its meaning seems to have already become conjectural.

and so on. Hope this helps. --24.186.239.25 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My local library provides on-line access to certain North American flavors of the OED (and other related North American versions of Oxford texts.) Looking up outfangthief there, I did not find it in any dictionary, but listed in "The Oxford Companion to British History" which identified it as having become obsolete sometime in the 13th century. In my opinion that means that it is not English, but rather, ==Middle English==.

Of course, the template {{nosecondary}} exists to disqualify this sort of research. Instead, Wiktionary relies on citations of the word in use (in running text) from published sources. Blogs and web sites don't count much towards verification (although some blogs can, if they can be shown to be "durably archived.") --Connel MacKenzie 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

superlative of template

Hello there, in the template {{superlative of}} you have added in category:English adjective superlative forms, I thought that these form of templates were not specific to English, I know they have been used in Scots articles. Is there any way of ammending the template to specify the language such as in template {{wikipedia}} where the lang= switch can be used, or should have seperate form of templates for every language?--Williamsayers79 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also I'm not totally sure of this, but I think that this template is not specific to adjectives either, since adverbs can also have superlatives.--Williamsayers79 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I was trying to bring those two templates in line with the rest of the inflection templates. I completely forgot about lang=. I had not looked at the preload templates (nor the templates they call) in quite some time. Perhaps after a cup of coffee I'll add that, if you don't beat me to it. --Connel MacKenzie 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've updates both {{superlative of}} and {{comparative of}} so that they will auto-categorise based when both of the parameters lang and POS are given. Please have a look and see what you think. I've tired them out of lower, lowest, littlest, littler, sleekest, sleeker, dowier and dowiest.--Williamsayers79 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed bot

You mention that your bot may have failed in the transwiki of w:Australian English vocabulary. Yes, I did notice something amiss. What got moved across was an earlier version of the "article". No edits since 6 Nov 06 appear in the history. I copied and pasted the current version across, cleaned it up a bit and moved the said glossary to Appendix:Australian English vocabulary. There still is, of course, that big gap in its history. Jimp 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Gliorzio

Sigh. He was very usefully correcting the bad pinyin in some of the entries. (Nanshu made mistakes on rui4, cui4, and who knows what else. I'm working on that next, while fixing Wantedpages ;-) But then he probably finds entries not in his dictionary, and thinks they ought to be removed. (It may be just that most people have no comprehension of the size of an unabridged dictionary. An everyday dictionary of Mandarin uses perhaps 1500-2000 hanzi, the KangXi has 47,035 ;-) Anyway. Robert Ullmann 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked him editing anonymously from his IP address. Not good, most of what he does is helpful. Robert Ullmann 07:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll unblock now - thanks for the reminder. --Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I misread what you wrote. Please unblock if mine was too long, unwarranted or whatever. --Connel MacKenzie 07:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(User Talk:Gliorszio, I keep misspelling it ;-) Don't really know what to do. There are users—who mostly make very good contributions—but whose attitude is "what I am doing is obviously right, so I don't need to discuss it". When the user is also shaky in English, but won't answer in (e.g.) Japanese either, what to do? (I can't write Japanese nearly well enough.) Leaving the block(s) in place until I at least get yelled at... Robert Ullmann 07:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Glossary of Canadian English words

Hi Connel. Just to let you know that as the page has now been transwikied to Wiktionary (from Wikipedia), I've deleted it from Wikipedia. I see the version here is up for deletion. As, at the moment, I've left a soft redirect on Wikipedia forwarding to the Wiktionary page, please let me know via my Wikipedia talk page if it is deleted, so I can remove the soft redirect and its ensuing redirects. Thanks, Proto 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Military lexicon

There is an occasional need to refer to military terminology such as refusing the left flank, but least I stub my toes with some of your arcane limited rules, I thought I'd ask if such were 'handled' by some guideline herein or new biz or what. See W:Battle of Issus for incidence and example. I'll need a few minutes to save it out. Best regards // FrankB 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right in assuming that may seem sketchy; the term refers to a military tactic 2200+ years old? It might be difficult, at first, to show that phrase is used in English. (Obviously, it is.) Other than using the heading ===Phrase=== and wikifying each component headword, I'd think if you used {{military}} instead of {{idiom}} at the start of the definition line, you should be fine. That will probably be quite difficult to summarize briefly; please resist the temptation to be as verbose as you might be in Wikipedia, for the same concept.

Said another way: military terms should be no problem at all, in the main namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be at refusing the flank, and while that reference is 2000+ years old, the term is modern, in current use ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. Excellent catch. The entry refusing the left flank should redirect to refusing the flank if there is no difference in meaning. --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed Appendix:Military slang closely myself. There seem to be a lot of items there that would have some difficulty in the main namespace, if added without references and/or citations. --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User test templates

Test templates are subst:'ed on Wikipedia, and I do that here out of habit more than anything. If it's not practice to do so here, I'll stop. :). As for importing of Wikipedia test templates, I wouldn't know anything about that. I just checked first to see if the templates existed, and they did.--Shanel 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Subst'd templates I personally think, should follow the convention that they are always or never subst'ed. Templates that are subst'ed, should (IMHO) 1) identify what template it was that was subst'd in a <!-- comment --> 2) render only the portion that needs subst'ing (e.g. a pagename or date field) and 3) use a subpage of that template for the "rest" of the text (especially exotic CSS style directives.) Obviously, that doesn't work for preload templates. But many people just don't understand templates. Fewer still understand what subst'ing is...so leaving clear traces of what it was that was subst'ed, gives people a chance to track down the template, and read the Template Talk: page description of how to subst them. I don't know that test templates have date parameters, so offhand I would guess that they'd be better off not being subst'ed. That would also match general practices here a bit better. --Connel MacKenzie 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Odinism

It provides details on word origins--and a good bibliograpghy.

I did not mean to trump your change, but the "odinic Rite" article is simple an advertisement for one group. My earlier edit was an attempt to provide diversity, but you nixed that one.

--Mig-17 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the heavy handedness. Thank you for the explanation. --Connel MacKenzie 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be capitalized? --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, it seems I may not have expressed my concern very well. The "About tinWiki" page indicates a copyright attributed to "AboveTopSecret" which, besides conflicting directly with the attributive non-commercial license of the site, seems like it is perhaps not a good site to link to. (Is it durably archived, by the way?) Fantastic logo, though. --Connel MacKenzie 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think their copyright means that it cannot be freely reproduced throughout the web, as wikipedia is. One problem right now is every wikipedia artricle comes up a dozen times on mimic sites.

It also is interesting that they do not allow people to copy from wikipedia. Articles have to be started there.

They are fun to write for, however. You should try it....--Mig-17 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose

you would be so kind as to look at what I just messed up about the formatting on iridium and either fix it or tell me how to? <smiles sweetly> --Dvortygirl 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Um, you would be better off asking someone artistically inclined, I think. I don't see any good combination. The only good thing I did was add {{-}}...but it should probably be tagged with "rfc". --Connel MacKenzie 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The elements template doesn't use "clear: right;" or 1em margins, so it doesn't play nicely with images or the sister-project boxes. Robert Ullmann 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The immediate problem Dvorty was referring to (I think) was the boxes floating right into/through' the two column Derived terms section. But yes, some kind of fixing is needed for the elements template. I doubt that is the only problem at play. --Connel MacKenzie 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism 12/2006

Just to let you know on my page I keep a list of vandaliz. You might want to check it out. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. However, w:WP:DENY dictates that such a page must not exist here. --Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wanted pages

OK, I've fixed 494 of the top 500 ...

It will no longer be swamped with Mandarin pinyin, and the single Hanguel syllable blocks will go away as well, they are only linked if they exist. Robert Ullmann 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Connel MacKenzie 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Sir James Paul

Hi Connel. Sorry, I don't think he meant to recreate the deleted pages. I don't think he noticed that I've already deleted those pages and was only giving his input on why they should be deleted. I don't think he should have been blocked, so I unblocked him. --Dijan 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do think he is being actively distruptive, on all WMF projects. Creating talk pages for deleted pages, not tagged, saying they should be deleted? Glory lists for vandals? --Connel MacKenzie 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you know him better. I was just basing it on the two deletes that I've done recently. If he continues doing so, please do what you think is best.  :) --Dijan 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why did you block me? --Sir James Paul 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like a troll to me. SemperBlotto 08:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's my user page?

What happened to my user page? John Kamer 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind this, user page was inappropriate and deleted ages ago. Troll. Robert Ullmann 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It was blanked by AAHBSW (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) then apparently deleted (IIRC, we were experiencing a lot of vandalism to non-existant user pages at the time.) Considering the content of your original user page, perhaps you'd be better off creating a new one now. --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Or not. --Connel MacKenzie 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FTW

• Are you being rude to me? Was that question ment in a serious way? --Sir James Paul 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm sorry if I offended you, I just do not like the sysops here. I feel like I was blocked 2 timess for trying to help out. To answer your question, no. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I said have a nice week, as in have a nice rest of the week. I end every comment with have a nice week and god bless. I believe in being friendly to all users. If I ever make a mistake, instead of blocking me please tell me. It is not vandalism. --Sir James Paul 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

prophet

Please engage in the discussion page for prophet before making further reverts. "Prophesize" is not a word. MamaGeek 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand our criteria. As long as it is attested, we're supposed to have an entry for it, with whatever prescription is necessary, spelled out in the ===Usage notes=== section. --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spamgourmet addresses

Thanks for the suggestion. Their FAQ answers most things, but is there something on the net which explains how you can turn an address of the style they seem to require into a nice one like the one you display? --Enginear 22:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely separate account, using its own gmail filtering. (gmail's filters work OK - but they have the horrific error of displaying messages they catch in the spam folder, as HTML.) If you click on my "E-mail this user" link, I'll send you a "gmail invite" so you can create your own (or fifty) accounts. --Connel MacKenzie 01:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

Just wanted to say thanks for giving me the WT:PREFS link! I'm new to Wiktionary (I mainly edit Wikipedia), and I'm sure will make my life a lot easier. (I'm a bit slow — I should've click on 'my preferences' at the top!) :-). --Jatkins 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a well-kept secret. The "My preferences" atop does not link to the Wiktionary-specific preferences page at all, at this time. (Note to self: I really ought to link it in.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish

Do you have a project here that mostly works on spanish translations? I know quite a bit and i could use that to contribute.

Bearingbreaker92 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TheDaveRoss (currently on wikibreak for the semester, back any day now) is the contributor who has done the automation tasks with regard to Spanish.

I don't know that any projects are organized by groups of contributors. Each person dedicates their time and effort as they please. AFAIK, there is no big push to organize groups or tasks. Instead, most people's interests overlap many, many different areas. This helps to keep things interesting (so that we [hopefuly] don't lose as many contributors to boredom.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood your question at first. Category:Translations to be checked (Spanish) is what you are looking for, I think. --Connel MacKenzie 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I found that on my own. I've done alot of work on wikipedia, and I'm surprised theres no groups here organized to get specific tasks done. Anyways thanks for the help.

Bearingbreaker92 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

200.88.192/18

That Justice - Eductation & Development thing was posted from 3 different IP's in 200.88.192/18, which is a Verizon pool in the Dominican Republic.. I see you blocked one of them, but I'm not sure how effective that will be. Hopefully they'll get a clue & go away. --Versageek 19:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your change to CP

Hello, Connel,

I see you deleted the Swedish definition of CP. Cerebral palsy was incorrect; it should have been Cerebral pares. Mind if I change it back?

By the way, I don't know what the "WP:" links are that you have in the first paragraph on your page. If you could explain what they are, other users and I will know whether we should put our comments there. Thanks. --DBlomgren 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It was supposed to be under ==Swedish== as an ===Initialism=== then?

The WT:WT shortcuts I have listed atop my page defy explanation.  :-) I used the shortcuts, as the longer names are a little too long to have the them listed there. They are respectively: Vandlism in progress, Beer Parlour, Information Desk, Grease pit, Tea Room, Requests for deletion, Requests for cleanup and Requests for Verification. Those are the most frequently used discussion pages here. --Connel MacKenzie 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, I have no idea why I made that mistake. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ǥuđa- and *haglaz

Sigh. More. Now "Proto-Germanic" ... Robert Ullmann 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The appendix also has Proto-Uralic, IIRC. --Connel MacKenzie 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WT:FWC Protection?

Why in the world did you semi-protect Wiktionary:Featured word candidates? Surely that's a page that should be open to anyone to edit. - dcljr 18:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One too many rollbacks of nonsense, I guess. I don't remember specifically what it was...certainly related to RCpatrol somehow, though. --Connel MacKenzie 23:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming back

I'm going to start to edit here again but I am going to revert only stuff I know is vandalism. Merry christmas!--J&ME$^P&UL 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations

If I may bother you with one more question again. Is there a sort of process that can be run to determine which pages need translations for spanish, other than just clicking through each single one looking for missing translations?

Thanks Bearingbreaker92 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll write a one-line program for that when I get back in a couple hours. --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• See now, if I had a brain, I never would have created /todo6. Now someone is going to request it for French. Then German. Then Dutch. Then Japanese. Then Russian. Then Mandarin Chinese. Then Italian... And doing it this way, I'd have to update each friggin' one monthly.

Because this relies on the XML dumps, it is, of course, already outdated slightly, and therefore slightly inaccurate. It also means that I can't do it simply on the toolserver. Argh. I also don't currently keep my parsed copy of the XML dump on my webserver, so I can't easily make an interface for just any old language.

Anyone have a few extra 300-500GB drives laying around they'd like to "lend" me? --Connel MacKenzie 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that a few translations were already done. Also, theres some parts that cannot be translated. There is probably a better way to do this, I'll discuss it somewhere else on the wiki and get other people's input.

Bearingbreaker92 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious ... how big is the parsed copy you use? The XML (uncompressed) is 324 MB, and it takes my (slow, bought for the really big screen size ;-) laptop about 4 minutes to rip through it each time I want something. If the space was a problem I'd keep it in bz2 and decompress on the fly, but that would double the CPU on a pass. Robert Ullmann 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Parsed into my MUMPS database, it is about 204 MB and takes almost 30 seconds to traverse the full-text. The decompressed bz2 is 396,220,069 bytes before I parse it. The internal compression is mostly invisible. The MUMPS learning curve is quite significant (relatively speaking.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean real, actual MUMPS? I haven't seen that since the '70s (PDP-11s ;-) ... wow! Robert Ullmann 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Until something better comes along, there are a lot of systems that rely on it. Healthcare and finance backbones live and breathe MUMPS, still. It is weird to occasionally edit a routine that is over thirty years old. Haven't touched a PDP in about 15 years. (But then again, I think the last PDPs I touched are still running without having been rebooted more than once or twice, in that time.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

blanking

I would ask you not to blank perfectly valid etymological entries as you did at haglaz (formerly *haglaz). Dbachmann 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this again. The content is where it belongs, at Appendix:Proto-Germanic *haglaz. Robert Ullmann 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted yet again. Blocked Dbachmann one hour while I cleaned it up; protected *haglaz and haglaz. He says he is a WP sysop, how can he be this clueless? I just don't get it. Robert Ullmann 13:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On WP, they call that w:WP:POINT. I'd believe that being a WP sysop tends to encourage such misbehavior; their policies revolve around "notability" not "attestation." Some Wikipedians "get it" (the fact that these are very different projects) while others don't. It is sad, but I strongly agree with the block. --Connel MacKenzie 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"misbehaviour"? gentlemen, you have removed a valid entry, throwing around your weight as admins. At best, we are experiencing a 'content dispute', although I haven't heard any arguments forwarded as to why my material was removed, nor did anybody try to look for a solution on talkpages before all-out deletion and block threats. "misbehaviour" seems to mean "anybody questioning that our word is law". I very much agree with the "attestation" clause in CFI, and I did cite academic dictionaries that do have the entry. Mr. Ullmann uses his admin buttons to enforce his opinion that my material "belongs" on Appendix:Proto-Germanic *haglaz, without contributing to the pertinent discussion at Wiktionary_talk:Reconstructed terms. This is blatant abuse of admin privileges to enforce not policy, but his personal taste. I call blatant abuse, and I hereby request review of Mr. Ullmann's actions. If he is not interested in discussing the matter, he has no business imposing his whim. Dbachmann 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree on every point you raise above. The community consensus previously reached (last year or the year before) was to keep the 'proto' forms (against my objections). But the only circumstance for keeping them was in the Appendix namespace!

Your "content" wasn't removed it was moved to the correct place. I do not understand how you reach the conclusion that Wiktionary properly categorizing and compartmentalizing your data (copyright suspect, at that) to the correct place, and therefore promoting your proto forms, could possibly be considered a removal.

Your blatant disregard for the Wiktionary community, is unsettling. The Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion represents the most pored over, reviewed and re-reviewed text we have here. The Wiktionary community has arrived at its criteria without your help. Simply saying that you don't agree, therefore we should all bow down to your POV is absurd.

Your misbehavior has been rather extreme. After your entries were corrected, you've broken them again. And again, with copyright-suspect sources. I do not take copyright vandalism lightly.

Your assertion that he is "asserting his whims" is completely unfounded. He has followed Wiktionary practices flawlessly, while you have repeatedly, disrespectfully flaunted the Wiktionary community's rules and practices.

--Connel MacKenzie 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

I was just looking around at the Wikiversity Main Page and came to Wiktionary and noticed two different logos. The Wikiversity has a blue building with pillars while Wiktionary has a graduation cap. Could someone fix this please? --Yorktown1776 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I get it right? --Connel MacKenzie 20:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users

I'm troubled by two users at the moment.

User:Sewnmouthsecret - All his entries have to be looked at. At least half are badly formatted, some of the more technical ones seem to be copyvios (but I have only proved one so far). I would like to block him until the New Year. Or do you think it better to let him rip, and clean up the mess when we have more time?

He does seem to learn, maybe not as fast as we'd like ... but hey, compared to the ones who won't learn? I'll look at them as I have time. He did chase interesting quotes for some things. Robert Ullmann 15:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I was a newcomer here at one time. My initial edits were either deleted or fixed. The "Dvortygirl" method of encouragement toward better formatting might be more appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cem BSEE - He often doesn't seem to grasp that words have a meaning outside of his specialism (electrical engineering), and refuses to format or wikify anything. He hasn't contributed for a few days, so I think I shall just go through his contributions slowly in the New Year.

I'll take a closer look-see at Special:Contributions/Cem BSEE then comment. --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this guy. These are not helpful contributions. It is very hard to tell when he has identified a needed correction. He certainly isn't thinking with his "dictionary" brain when he is doing these edits. These are very time-consuming to check. --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Having noticed his talk page I am reminded again to temper my comments. Slow as it is, I'll continue reviewing them as I have time. (Let's hope another XML dump doesn't interrupt me before I'm done.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(and when not logged in he is 64.24.209.154 (talk)) SemperBlotto 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since they all need to be checked, should the IP be blocked, allowing only logged in users to edit (so that we know what to check!) but no more account creations for a month or two? Wait a sec...why is his company's address on SORBS? Hmmm. Bad juju...but only one listing. Interesting. --Connel MacKenzie 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. That's a large ISP in North Carolina (multiple /16s) so it should be listed on several SORBS as "dynamic". So any IP blocks are likely to be ineffective and disrupt other innocent editors. I haven't been checking these for potential copyvios, but the unformatted ones (especially) should probably be fine-tooth combed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a Happy Christmas! SemperBlotto 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You (all) too! Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! (I'll only be online intermittently for the rest of 2006.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation Project

[7] Take a look at that page. Please notice that its incredibly ugly, unformatted, and unfriendly right now. I just wanted to get the point across of what should be getting done. If people like that, I would need help getting it pretty, I dontk know the code for like colored boxes and stuff. Then I could make it a generic template for any language.

Anyways, just tell me what you think.

Bearingbreaker92 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of WT:DW. (Ugh, another thing getting neglected!)

I assume you are thinking of moving it somewhere like Wiktionary:Project-Spanish cleanup or somesuch? I don't like the user list thing: it implies that one must join the Spanish cabal before making any improvements. Maybe a list of Spanish entry mentors or something? Nah, probably best to remove it.

Each section must be in English and Spanish. You are describing how someone is going to be able to help, in detail, right? So each section needs befores and afters with en: and es: explanations.

TheDaveRoss is one of the regulars here who is artistically inclined. He may be available over this winter recess, so I implore you to leave requests on his talk page as well.

A link to Annabel's translation tool is desperately needed, with instructions on how to use it (in that context.)

For now, you should probably link to my "todo6" page, and as your page solidifies, my list can be moved to a subpage there. Would that list be more usable if broken up by every hundred entries?

More comments as the coffee enters my bloodstream... --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

About the list of users, I dont want to to be like "Oh write your name here or else you cant help".

I was thinking it would be more along the lines of knowing who works on it, incase you need to ask someone about it.

I'll put more detail into it, though im gonna need someone who can sift out the pages with a bot or something.

Bearingbreaker92 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I threw in that Spanish translation request page. That would take away from the giagantic main translation page, dont know if they want that to happen or not. Another thing i was thinking about. Rojo and roja mean the same thing, red. But rojo is masculine and roja is feminine. Does there really need to be two pages or can roja just redirect to rojo.(Male is superior to female, so it would be redirected in that way.

Basically I updated it. Worse or better?

Bearingbreaker92 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't roja a word in other languages as well? I'm pretty sure that in Japanese, it does not mean red. So, in short, yes, the stub pages are needed, never redirects. (Well, OK, "almost" never.)  :-)

Now, which "gigantic main translation page" do you mean? We have quite a few, these days. --Connel MacKenzie 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah thats a good point, never thought about the other languages. Im talking abou this page : Translation Requests. By having only that language being requested on that page, then it would be faster and easier for requests to be filled.

Bearingbreaker92 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh that one.  :-) OK, well, it is low enough volume, that the majority of requests are filled immediately, or within 24 hours. I think a bot or two could be thrown at that page: whenever a request lingers for more than an hour, determine the language of the request, and ping volunteers with that Babel listed. It would have to be a separate opt-in list though. Better archiving there (retain only a dozen or so recent requests) is also needed. --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, this should really be in the pit, not my personal talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Primetime's listing on Wikipedia is being discussed for deletion.

Please see w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. I am sure you will want to add your vote to this, considering that you were the one who brought Primetime to Wikipedia's attention in the first place. Jesse Viviano 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. --Connel MacKenzie 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Can I set up a anti-vandalism bot over here with someone from wikipedia. He operates bots over there and will be able to do a good job. Merry christmas. --Sir James Paul 20:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too.

To your question: absolutely not. There are several anti-vandal bots already active: the more agressive mode(s) have been turned off, as the community rejected the potential for abuse out of hand. The admins here have bored the worst vandals into going elsewhere, much of the time. The normal vandalism levels are getting annoying, but automated anti-vandal bots don't help with that at all.

--Connel MacKenzie 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

New XML dump for Christmas

Uh-oh. Nice treat but please remember to enjoy the holiday! Cheers! Robert Ullmann 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. I still have a lot or wrapping to get done... --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New numbers on the watchlist

Hey, what is the significance of these +/- numbers I'm seeing on my watchlist? bd2412 T 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of bytes added or removed, same as Special:RecentChanges. --Connel MacKenzie 01:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this was mentioned in WT:GP too... --Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip. But if someone simultaneously adds and removes 5 bytes of info, would it show up as nothing? bd2412 T 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in that situation it says "+0". Don't recall offhand. --Connel MacKenzie 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

TOW: transparent

Since you seem to be helping out with the WT:TOW, I'll recommend that transparent is a good candidate. There are three definitions given (and potentially more), but all the translations (and there are many) are given as a single block. --EncycloPetey 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Uh, oh. I need to do January, don't I? --Connel MacKenzie 07:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently. I should probably do some for WT:COW while I'm thinking about it. I've already set WT:WOTD through January. --EncycloPetey 07:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll blitz in the remaining 25 weeks all at once, then abandon it. I've seen maybe three words total, get all their translations cleared (and I don't think any of them were TOWs.) The WT:TR generate a fairly constant level of new interest, but none of the translators seem to be able to re-visit weekly. It would be really nice if I had the time to make the weekly announcements, compile statistics on before & afters and all that jazz. But I don't. I don't know how to promote it into people's weekly pattern of things to check. It's weird...there has to be a way for it to get critical mass, but I don't know how to go about it. The only way I see it as being remotely possible is to spam WT:TR, WT:AN, WT:BP and Wiktionary:Translation requests with the prior week's stats...but that is a nasty, manual, time-consuming task. (And might offend people, because it is a form of spam.)

Once upon a time, it was being published regularly at Meta:Babylon, but when I looked there earlier this evening it hadn't been updated in ages. Perhaps somehting like that sort of cross-lingual advertizing would attract more help. --EncycloPetey 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (typos fixed -- sorry, it's late)

Right. Chasing links to spam other sister projects.  :-) Well, that's too much effort for me to get to tonight. Maybe next month. --Connel MacKenzie 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that "WiktionaryZ" has been renamed to "OmegaWiki" to distance itself from WMF, the translator population here seems to be dwindling slightly. I had always thought there might be some way to get our (en.wikt:) translations all cleared, before starting an ugly, difficult and contested import of translations from OmegaWiki. Now that the license issue is clear (from OM to wikt:, but not the other way around) the technical issues seem insurmountable. And the only thing to help automation in recent history at all is Anabel's translation tool (currently using top/mid/bottom, instead of trans-top/trans-mid/trans-bottom.) Perhaps I should focus on that tool's integration for a while...maybe something else will appear suddenly to clear the massive TTBC backlog. I dunno. --Connel MacKenzie 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - The fact that I'm posting this here means I have the ability now to talk to you on your talk page again, though still not from work.

Yay! Death to filter content that doesn't identify what triggered the block (or at least the block rule triggered!) --Connel MacKenzie 07:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen.

By the way, thank you for your WT:BP comments on the non-English WOTDs. I think you've been doing a great job with the WOTDs - it certainly is a popular addition to en.wikt. A lot less glitches now, than at the beginning! --Connel MacKenzie 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GAHHHHHH!

transparent is a horrible nomination! It needs to have the sections split, and identified and such, first! Ugh, gah and ouch! --Connel MacKenzie 08:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

must...sleep...

remind me to finish them at some point, please. --Connel MacKenzie 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove my name as an alternate from WT:DW/WT:TOW now. Someone else can maintain the list, unless it tickles my fancy again at some point down the line. --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Hey, I've always been confused by how to use some parts of AWB. What would I do to leave messages on peoples talk pages about the translation project?

Bearingbreaker92 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AWB is a tool for repeating things, right? (As it requires IE, I steadfastly refuse to try it still.) It emulates normal browsing, repeating certain steps for you, in certain ways.

You contact anyone on their talk page, with an invitation, just as you did now, on my talk page. By searching Category:User es you can find the Spanish speakers...

--Connel MacKenzie 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

CommonsTicker failed to post update: en-wiktionary-org.ticker.wiki.20061231061528.pending

CommonsTicker was unable to post the latest update to the ticker page. This may happen if there is a temporary problem with the servers or the network, or if the page has grown verry big.

If you use "append" mode, please keep the page reasonably short, perhaps by moving old entries that still need attention to a separate page, which could be included in the main ticker page. Note that CommonsTicker will re-try to post the update on the next run.

If you use "replace" mode, please consider requesting a shorter interval (less days) to watch. CommonsTicker will not try to re-post the update, since it will replace the entire page on the next run anyway.

(this is an automated message) -- CommonsTicker 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)