User talk:Internoob
Contents
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Lua memory and Template:ja-r
Curious about this. Where the {{ja-r}} template is not used inline in running text, such as these Derived Terms lists, I've often preferred the format of {{ja-r|[TERM]|[KANA]}}: [GLOSS]
Was your self-reversion because you discovered that [[bracket links]] actually didn't have any Lua memory impact?
Yes, I reverted myself because I didn't see any improvement after I made a null edit and a hard purge. I did believe that having those links inside the template arguments caused the Lua errors. It's possible that I just needed to wait longer to see the improvement... I have been out of things for too long and I don't remember the details on how the caching works.
Hello, do you have a reference for this entry? Entry has been proposed for deletion on fr.wikt here.
BR
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
"eschewing authority" and "liberal" in low church
I'm using "liberal" to mean "nontraditional", "non-conservative" as well as politically liberal/accepting. Low churches also have less adherence to central authority. I'm not fighting your changes, but I AM explaining my original wording
Okay yeah, I can see that low churches might be nontraditional, but I don't think they are generally politically liberal. I am thinking of the Southern Baptist Convention, which usually has worship services that I would say are low-church, but I wouldn't call it liberal. I'll add in nontraditional to the definition because that seems to convey the right meaning.
Equinox reverted my edit to British Isles where I called the term obsolete. I would have thought it was obsolete because most of Ireland is no longer under British sovereignty, so the majority of one of the British Isles is not British anymore. Should the term be labeled archaic or not?
I agree with Equinox and those guys. As long as people still use the term, we can't label it archaic or obsolete. "Archaic" is for words that sound really old and aren't in common usage like "thou" and "quoth". "Obsolete" is for words that are so old that their meaning is no longer widely understood, like Category:English obsolete terms. So "British Isles" is neither because it is still widely used and understood. You might get away with calling it politically incorrect or proscribed, but I wouldn't bother since the usage notes already seem to cover it.
In cases where a legal idea is being described using a term that the law does not formally use, is it ok to note that its not a formal legal term. For example the term age of consent is never used by states/governments, although obviously it is a real concept in the sense that adults are not allowed to have sex with children, its not a term that appears in government/state usage ever, and Malke2010 criticized me for using the term on English wikipedia, pointing out that its not a term that appears in any laws. Its a real concept, but the term is not actually used by the governments, so I thought that should at least be pointed out in "usage notes". Another example is that the British Empire was not an actual legal entity the way the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were, there was never a constitutionally organized called the British Empire, it was just a way people informally described the combination of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later just Northern Ireland) and its colonies, dominions, and crown dependencies. Is it ok to note discrepancies like that between formal legal terminology and how its informally described?
Yes, if it's true, then it may be a good idea to add a usage note to that effect. However, I am skeptical about what you claim about the "age of consent" not being used by governments or in law. Here's a Government of Canada website that defines the term and here is Bill C-22 in the Canadian parliament that contains the term. It doesn't appear to be in the Criminal Code of Canada, however.
There are a few states and governments that use the term, but not many. For example, in Indiana the legal age for sexual activity is called "sexual misconduct with a minor" they do not use the term "age of consent" at all. Rhode Island, I remember reading, actually does use the term age of consent in its law, but that's pretty much the only time I've heard of it being used as a formal legal term. So what I'm saying is true 9 out of 10 times, that states and government do not use this term. I used to believe it was a legal and was criticized by Malke2010 and Flyer22 for using it on wikipedia without pointing out it was not a formal legal term. Also, statutory rape is not a formal legal term either. I found a source for my statement that the British Empire is not a formal legal term, Pax Britannica by James Morris, I remembered reading it when I was in middle school and looked up the quote that I remembered on google books.
What this amounts to then, is that some governments sometimes use the term. I don't really know what the Wikipedian guys say, but in any case we shouldn't just take their word for it. Also check out this Google query for "age of consent" on government websites: [1] Keep in mind that we are descriptivists and not prescriptivists, so we document the actual usage of a word, and not what some authority says the usage is or should be.
Is including the medical definition of pedophilia in the pedophilia entry ok? The medical definition is primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The popular definition is any sexual attraction to/interaction with a minor by an adult (i.e. someone 18 or older being sexually attracted to/sexually interacting with someone 17 or younger.) Equinox has objected to the medical, saying that we should only use popular definitions, or "real world usage". Equinox's criticism was stated https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ATea_room%2F2015%2FApril&diff=32765298&oldid=32765077 "[1] So are we defining things in terms of what they mean in practice, or in terms of what PaulBustion88 says they mean according to the medical establishment? jus checkin. Equinox ◑ 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)" SemperBlotto agreed with Equninox,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/April&diff=prev&oldid=32766787, stating, "*We should be defining terms with the meaning that they have in the real world. If a term has a more strict meaning in a the legal system of a particular country then we might tell people in the talk page but not make it part of a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)"My response was "*Equinox, if you had bothered reading the entry, you would have seen that the broader definition, of any adult sexual attraction towards/interaction with any minor, is also included. I'm only limiting the MEDICAL definition to a primary or exclusive attraction to children. That's what Renard Migrant and I agreed on as a compromise. The broader, "real word" usage is already included, and its the first definition, so what the problem?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)"https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/April&diff=next&oldid=32766787 However, Renard Migrant has stated he favors including both the popular definition and the medical definition, because they are different in their meaning and usage."PaulBustion88 has raised on my talk page (and not here, much to my chagrin) the possibility of having two definitions. A general-use definition, an instance of an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor, no matter what the ages are apart from those two restrictions, and a medical definition where we specify pre-pubescent. I would be in favor of it; I think these definitions are distinct in terms of usage and meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)" https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ARequests_for_cleanup&diff=32733249&oldid=32733177 Do you agree with Renard Migrant and myself that the medical definition should be included, as it is currently, or do you agree with Equinox and SemperBlott that only the popular definition should be included and the medical definition should be removed?
I'm going to agree with BoBoMisiu's comment here. The easiest way to convince people that your definition is valid is to give quotations of it. Other than that, I would like to decline further comment.
Hello. Dan Polansky is trying to have me banned or blocked from the site. Is there anywhere I have recourse to against him on the site or no? He keeps posting on my talk page accusing me of things.
I don't know what to do here. On the one hand, we've warned him for intimidating behaviour/harassment in the past, but on the other hand, users are allowed to publicly call into question the behaviour of other users in a constructive manner. I think the way you handled it on your talk page was appropriate.
Do you agree with my nominating the entry I created, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, for deletion?
Do you think my editing right now is good, bad or mediocre in general? Do you see any major problems with it?
My advice is to stay away from controversial edits as a newcomer. For many of your edits, hundreds of words get written on talk pages over them. Large discussions have to happen once in a while, but when your edits always have to be discussed and argued over, then it becomes problematic because it takes other editors away from building the dictionary. In the past, users have been blocked when they cause a lot of controversy and some of the grouchy administrators lost their patience. I don't want you to become like that.
So my advice is to find a book about a niche topic, e.g. church history, and add words from it that we don't have yet. Or add pronunciations and etymologies. If you think that an edit might cause controversy, then the best course of action is often to refrain until you become an experienced editor. If you can show that you've learned how to edit entries in accordance with WT:ELE and WT:CFI then we can add you to WT:Whitelist and that would be good. Hope this helps.
I've moved away from making controversial edits. For example, I stopped insisting on not calling Mormonism and Christian Science Christian, and accepted the popular use of the word instead of the theological use in those entries. I also, even though I prefer to limit pedophilia to the medical use of the term, have accepted that the popular would be included and also be the first sense defined, even though I was against that. Also, even though I prefer simpler language, I accepted what Equinox and KateWishing said and went back to "primarily or exclusively" for the philia articles and away from "mostly or only". So I'm deferring to consensus more now than I was before.
Great, that's good.
I have not socked on this wiki, but I used to have different accounts from this one, and Dan Polansky is demanding I explain them. Is this usually the prelude to a user getting banned, or is it possible he's just trying to make sure I don't ever use the old accounts again?
Here's an example of my taking out something controversial I'd done. I had removed reference to the religion as Christian, because it isn't theologically, but in popular use it is so I restored it,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness&action=history, I also did for that for other cults of Christianity, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=32776174&oldid=32774616, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history. I also abolished my entry about the Mormon Jesus, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&type=revision&diff=32774179&oldid=32773008. Here, I dropped my insistence on excessively simple words, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=gerontophilia&type=revision&diff=32776115&oldid=32773855. So that shows that I'm backing away from making controversial edits.
I'm trying to learn the French language and the Irish language right now. Could that be my niche topic, adding words from those languages? Or does wiktionary frown on excessive foreign words being added to it? I know it does have some foreign words, I've edited and created articles on some myself here.
We absolutely encourage foreign words. I was myself working on French and Haitian Creole before my long hiatus from Wiktionary. But if you don't know the language well, be sure that your contribution is correct by checking other sources before you add it. There are only a handful of Irish editors, so there are not that many people available for fixing mistakes.
Overall, Wiktionary has almost as many articles as Wikipedia, and a small fraction of the number of editors, so we can't check every entry for correctness. The responsibility is more on the creators of entries to verify that they are correct.
Since the Mormon Jesus is a separate entity from the Christian Jesus, was my idea of putting a definition for him in the Jesus article separate from the Christian definition ok, or not?https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&type=revision&diff=32769639&oldid=32694084
Eh, I think not. There are many different ideas of who Jesus was. Christians think that he is the Son of God; Muslims think he was a prophet of Allah; Christ-mythicists and conspiracy nuts think that he didn't exist; a lot of people think he was some kind of human moral teacher; Bishop Spong thinks that he was some kind of spiritual entity, the son of a God who doesn't properly "exist" in the normal sense of the word.... Better not to have a separate definition for each of these guys, IMO.
KateWishing on sexual philia articles I edited where I defined the philis as attractions that were mostly or only to the fixated object, changed this to "preferential", mostly and only mean the same thing in this context, and are simpler terms. Is there anything wrong with sticking with "mostly or only"?
Under the entry for Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, I noted that the official legal status of the colony, that of being jointly ruled by the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland and Egypt, was nominal, and that in reality the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland was the sole ruler of the country. Is it ok that I pointed out that fact, or is that to detailed for a dictionary?
Hello. Could you review my editing some more? Could you tell me if its good or not?
Hi Paul. I've had a look at some of your edits. I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wiktionary for the next few days because of other priorities, but I can give you a few pointers.
In leamh, I had to remove your contribution. Keep in mind that I don't know any Irish at all, so it's quite possible you know something that I don't know. There were a few things wrong with it from what I could tell:
- It seems to me like leamh isn't listed as a form of léigh on that page's conjugation table, but léamh is and it has a meaning "reading". So I assumed that your contribution was on the wrong page on these grounds.
- The order of language sections is the following: Translingual at the top, where it exists; then English, where it exists; and then all other languages in alphabetical order. So in particular, the Irish section you added would have to go above the Scottish Gaelic section if it were to return.
- You absolutely need to specify the part of speech of everything. It looked like a verb from the usage examples you gave, but then léamh is a noun and I don't speak Irish so I can't tell.
- The definition "reading" is not very helpful. "Reading" is a present participle. Is leamh exactly the present participle of the verb léigh? The present participle of some other verb that means "read"? The entry léamh is more precise in that it uses
{{verbal noun of}}and in general, words that aren't lemmas should use form-of templates in their definitions.
Cheers
Are you sure this is a good edit? How good is your Spanish? It seems to me that "golf pelota" should rather be "pelota de golf". (It's a good idea to include a {{Babel}} box on your user page so that people can see at a glance how far to trust your edits of languages other than English.) Is this natural usex with clear context? (I don't see what golf balls have to do with Lucifer.)
I believe that there is a specific kind of geometry Lobachevsky developed, called Lobachevskyan geometry. That definition, if I am correct, would be different from the definition of the term as "of or related to Nikolai Lobachevsky" as a person. Sort of like the difference between Freudian psychoanalysis and Freudian in the sense of "of or related to the man named Sigmund Freud", one is related specifically to a scientific theory, the other is related more broadly to biographical information. That's why I added the other definition.
The sense that's already there mentions his work on non-Euclidian geometry, right? It says, paraphrasing, relating to the person Lobachevsky or his work on non-Euclidian geometry.
But Lobachevskyan also can mean specifically "hyperbolic geometry". I think that sense should be in a separate definition, because its only tangentially related to "of or related to Nikolai Lobachevsky".
But the point is, that the first definition already says, "Of or pertaining ... to his work ... on non-Euclidian geometry".
Maybe it should be two definitions, but if so, you need to remove the part from the first one about the non-Euclidian geometry so that the definitions aren't redundant. So in that case, one would be only about the person and the other only about the geometry.
Could you review my editing, please? I want to make sure I'm not being an idiot again, so I don't get banned here like I did on simple English wikipedia and English wikipedia.
By all means. I will need to log off soon, but I'll see what I can do.
You said here,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=statutory_rape&diff=32726653&oldid=32726488, that pipelinks should generally go to lexically related words. At first I agreed with you, but now that I thought about it I don't. Because underage is a broad term. In the context of a statutory rape crime, it means a person below the age of consent for sex specifically. There are other ages of license that a person reaches, for example the age of majority that makes a person a legal adult, the driving age, the drinking age, the voting age, etc. All of those are about issues not directly related to sex laws. Statutory rape has to do specifically with prosecuting an adult for having sex with someone below the age of consent. Also, unless a different age is specified, people usually assume underage means someone under the age of majority, i.e. 18, but sometimes the age of consent is lower than the age of majority. So for that reason, if underage is going to be pipelinked, I think it should be pipelinked specifically to age of consent.
I thought that the way it was before in this revision was acceptable, saying "below the age of consent". It's fine either that way or with "underage" in my opinion. Wiktionary is not paper, so although definitions shouldn't be unnecessarily verbose, there is no need to make them especially succinct either. So you can replace "underage" with "below the age of consent" if you prefer.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it's sometimes better if the definition can be understood without needing to follow the links to other entries. So if you think that "underage" is ambiguous, maybe it's better to replace it in the text with "below the age of consent" rather than link it to what you mean to say. I don't think the ambiguity is a big problem though.
We generally like to link only to lexically related words because our idea is that if someone clicks a link, it's because they want to know what that word means, and not some other word.
Sorry, I did not know about the Texas Hold 'Em drinking age thing. That's weird. I had not read the second definition. Obviously, I should have. Now I understanding why that was mentioned in the etymology. Sorry about that.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Freud The entry on the name gives a definition for the famous Freud, Sigmund. So isn't it reasonable to have a definition of the family for the name Rockefeller, if it can be briefer and less long winded than what I wrote? How about this, "A wealthy family that included John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, and Nelson, Vice President, among other prominent people." Is that better since its shorter?
Hello Paul, thanks for your message. I need to explain myself. On WT:CFI#Genealogical content, our policy page about what words and definitions to include, it says, "Wiktionary is not a genealogy database. Wiktionary articles on family names, for example, are not intended to be about the people who share the family name. They are about the name as a word." So I think that the Rockefeller sense about the family itself would fall under that criterion.
Why is Freud an exception? (Also Einstein, Jefferson, etc.) I'm not sure, but it could be that the surname itself is commonly used in an idiomatic way to refer to one particular individual, and not just any old person named Freud. This kind of usage seems marginally acceptable in my opinion, but talking about the whole family of Freuds would probably run afoul of the WT:CFI.
John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, is almost as well known as Freud. Is adding an entry about him ok, as long I don't turn it into a geneology? It would be along the lines of Freud, Eintstein, Jefferson, because he's so famous.
It's a tough call. Place names, people names and company names have always been a controversial topic and I'm not sure how I feel about them. I say go for it, as long as it doesn't look like a genealogy and as long as what you add otherwise meets CFI. I can't guarantee that someone won't put it up for verification and/or deletion though.