User talk:188.143.99.63

Please let's avoid an edit war. Even if you have the very best intentions, your behavior is looking more and more indistinguishable from vandalism. It's not your own private website. Edits at this project need to be based on established community guidelines, and you need to give valid justification if your moves are called into question. Adam78 (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start edit-warring either, so I'm asking you to just leave it well alone. I've added the quotes, I think I have some right to remove them if I think they're not up to par. I've seen you and other contributors revert their own edits if they were dissatisfied with them for whatever reason. And if you're so keen on having quotes to every single definition, why not add some yourself? I'm serious, please do.
 * Also, you're making a personal attack by saying "your behavior is looking more and more indistinguishable from vandalism". What on Earth do you mean by that? This particular entry grew from 744 bytes to 2,859 thanks to my efforts. Is it vandalism that I have chosen not to add even more content? We can talk about this further, but don't revert it again, it's not your place. And stop getting personal about it, it's not your own private website either, so I don't see why you should. I have to say though, I appreciate that you have chosen to communicate before reverting again. In the hopes of peaceful future collaboration. --188.143.99.63 21:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't truly care about whether it was you or another person who added the content, since every time you publish something at a Wiki project, it becomes part of it. ("By clicking the “Publish changes” button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.")

If I revert any of my changes, I don't do it as if I had any special rights over it but because I believe that the resulting state is better in some way. (I'm saying "better" rather than "perfect", cf. perfect is the enemy of good. The comparison is not with the ideal form but the current alternative, i.e. not having anything in place of these quotes.) And I always try my best not to remove any substantial content that is truthful and relevant, especially if it is the result of another person's work and efforts (such as collecting quotations and translating them into English).

The other aspect of the issue is strictly professional. Quotations are expected for a good reason: They prove and substantiate that the given term can actually have this or that sense in real-life use, as well as illustrate and demonstrate how they are used and what they actually mean. It is especially important for less tangible concepts such as this term.

The ultimate question is not whether I personally revert this or that but which version is deemed more worthy with a view of this project. Adam78 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we finally agree. Not everything that is in red is a bad edit, and not everything in green is good. And no quotes are indeed better than bad quotes. So I removed the bad quotes (for various reasons though, not all were bad in the same way) and at the moment have no intentions on replacing them with others, because unlike you, I don't really care if every entry has quotes or not. (In theory, yes, but in practice, too few contributors and too many words, we're never ever going to get there). But if it is so important to you, I really would like to invite you to do so. Thus, everyone could have their way, and we'd all be happy. I don't think though that the musical definitions should be added back even then. I just copied that from here, but the English entry doesn't include them under whole, and I've come to the opinion that it's the same meaning as #1.
 * Then, there's the question of vandalism, which you have failed to address yet. Calling someone a vandal ("behavior indistinguishable from", same difference) is a serious accusation and if you make it, you better support it with good reasons. You never did, you just blurted this out as an indisputable fact. I have asked you in what ways did my actions resemble vandalism, and you have carefully avoided to answer me. At least a dozen admins are browsing through recent changes any given day, looking out for edits exactly like mine was. None of them blocked me for vandalism, none of them reverted my edit, none of them even asked me what it was all about. It seems they can distinguish my behavior from vandalism perfectly fine, which makes your comment sound much more like a personal attack. And then you have the nerve to say that I need to give valid justification if my moves are called into question? My moves were never called into question, you certainly never asked me why I made the change, you just went ahead and reverted it on the spot, then came here to call me a vandal. Now that might be suitable if someone writes "d*ck" in a page, but for regular, useful contributors, the diplomatic approach would have been for you to come here first, and say "I see you have removed a great portion of this entry. Seeing how active a contributor you have been in the past, I'm sure you had good reasons, but since it is a lot of seemingly useful content, I have to ask you about why you removed it." That would have been polite and civilized. You instead decided to make a personal attack, and guess what, if you purposefully offend people, they will get offended. You can't just go about calling people vandals, and then pretend it never happened. Just saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong" would have sufficed, would still suffice. --178.164.219.128 09:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing without logging in will always, invariably raise suspicion, you need to keep this in mind. Deleting a lot of content that are actually truthful and relevant does indeed look like vandalism, whether you personally like that content or not. Nevertheless, what I wrote actually started like this: "Even if you have the very best intentions, your behavior is looking". It's a matter of intention ethics and consequence ethics. Your intention is one thing, the result (consequence) is another thing, and the appearance may be yet another thing. Adam78 (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The content I deleted was neither truthful nor relevant, but up to this point you still didn't ask me about my reasons why I deleted it. You just chose to believe that it is a matter of personal preference, and don't care enough about the truth to actually ask and listen. Also, I've just checked, and there has been a peak of about 50 visits to that page yesterday. That means about 50 admins who looked at it, decided that it didn't look like vandalism to them, and left it alone. You're alone with your opinion about what this looks like, and you still owe me an apology for your inappropriate handling of the situation. And I think it does make a huge difference that I created said content, because just like you wrote above, a lot of contributors, you and me included, are squeamish about touching other people's stuff unless with a very good reason, for fear of disrespecting their work. Therefore, I think that everyone is doubly responsible to check and correct their own edits, and yes, even remove them if necessary, because if they don't do so, it has a great chance of remaining like that, even when it shouldn't. --178.164.219.128 12:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you only had wiktionary's best interests in mind (which I doubt), then you will be pleased to learn that I have replaced all missing quotes. If I ever needed to prove my good intentions (which I don't think I did), then I feel like I have proved them now. Now it is your turn to prove yours, because so far, your behavior reeks only of spite and malice. --178.164.219.128 18:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"so far, your behavior reeks only of spite and malice." Now I'm starting to understand why you don't want to log in. If I were you, I wouldn't like to be associated with this kind of introduction, either.

PS: Thanks a lot for adding new quotes. Adam78 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with logging in? Like everyone's using their real name here? And you see, I cannot be accused of being a vandal anymore, yet you still refuse to admit that you were wrong. You haven't retracted your first insult (completely uncalled for), but decided to add a second on top. Am I still supposed to think that you are insulting me time after time out of sheer good will? Of course I will think you spiteful, it's only natural. If you don't want people to think that, try not to give that impression. Be more polite, and look out not to hurt other people's feelings, because you might just come across someone who won't turn the other cheek. --178.164.219.128 21:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's suppose that it's true that "the content I deleted was neither truthful nor relevant" (which I still disagree with). In this (theoretical) case, don't you think it was (would have been) an act of vandalism on your behalf to insert this content in the first place? (Of course, I cannot even know if you and the person who inserted this content are the same; I need to rely on your own account.)

Don't forget that your argumentation hinges on the belief that your deletion was justified. However, I still refuse that, and as long as I do, I can rightfully claim that deleting truthful and relevant content (which I believe it was, even if it's not as good as the current content), especially in great amount, looks like an act of vandalism. You cannot refute it unless you can prove that the content you deleted was indeed false or irrelevant. But I hardly think you'd be able to prove that, otherwise another editor could have deleted it long ago.

As a rule, you shouldn't expect much good faith from others as long as you're zigzagging between various different IP addresses like a little imp. It is just like a red flag. I don't have the entire Internet Protocol in my mind (nobody does), so your IP address looks the same to me as any other set of numbers. Your IP address looks the same as that of any other anonymous editor; it looks the same as the IP address of all those people who do indeed commit vandalism. Hence every time you make an edit in an article, you force your fellow editors to check what this particular little imp has been up to. Maybe it was a good-willed imp; maybe it was an ill-willed imp. Maybe it was a competent one; maybe it was an ignorant one. Maybe it was someone we know; maybe it was someone we don't know. And so on, and so forth. We cannot know all these things because you chose to deprive us from this information by not having logged in. All we know is the following: This person did not wish to spare the others from the extra work of checking his/her edits because this person did not take the trouble to distinguish himself/herself from all malevolent or ignorant editors. (Am I really telling you something new?) Adam78 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear, I woke up in a good mood today, and decided to make extra efforts to make peace with you despite the fact that you have gravely hurt me (okay, maybe not that gravely, this is just the Internet, but still, it hurt). Then, I have read your comment, and I can see that you, too, are trying to clear this up, which gives me encouragement. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, but I will address your comment first. I think this will be longish, and I would like to ask you for your patience to read it through.


 * You yourself have come to the conclusion that the new content is better, but I will go through it one by one:


 * adj/1 whole small shark: this sounds stupid in English as well as in Hungarian, but the worse thing is, 10 times out of 10 when someone says "egész kis", they will mean quite a... and not whole small, as in e.g. "egész kis tömeg gyűlt össze". If the quote is so much untypicial of actual usage of the word, then that makes it a bad example. The new sentence "the whole world" is one of the most typical expressions in which to find the word, therefore a much better quote.
 * adj/3-4: I have mentioned these before. I just copied these meanings automatically, without giving them much consideration. But the English entry for whole does not include them, and now I'm thinking, if we include this, we might as well give an extra definition to meaning "fél óra" and for that matter, any and every unit of measurement. Not a good idea.
 * adv/1-3: Both of these could well serve as an example for the other definition, too. How do we know that it's I'm not entirely sure and not I'm not quite sure? How do we know that the door opens quite easily and not very easily? This latter especially was so ambiguous, that before adding it, I read through half the story hoping that the context will make it clear what the author meant. It didn't, and in the end, I just translated it like that because that was the definition that I was trying to find a quote for. Now if even I, as a native speaker, cannot be sure of the exact meaning of it, then that makes it a bad example. New quotes, respectively: I know she's going to cry, this rephrases it in another way, and thus makes it evident that the meaning is in fact entirely and not just quite. Considering that the room has no windows, this adds extra information which makes it clear that while the speaker has spent better nights in her own room and with the window open, she considers last night's sleep satisfactory.
 * usage notes: I try to be careful with adding these. Wiktionary guidelines advise against adding usage notes that cannot be referenced. While I'm not sure I agree with that, and I think it's okay to add notes whose veracity is dead obvious for anyone who's grown up speaking the language (see e.g. greetings), for less obvious cases like this, I think that they are right. What if the difference between egész and egészen is not that clear-cut, what if I am just stating my own impressions? I tried to find some article about it afterwards, but I couldn't, so I decided to remove it altogether. No information is better than misinformation.
 * noun/1: This sentence actually has nothing against it, but after clicking publish I noticed that has its own entry. I'm not saying it excludes it from here, but if another kind of usage can be found, than that would show that it's not just used as a one-off set expression.


 * As you can see, this is a way too long explanation to give in the edit summary, even in an abridged form, so what was I to do? I decided to go ahead and delete it, wait for any questions to arise, and if and when they do, give my full explanation. What I wasn't prepared for, is that someone would cry vandal without asking first. I think you should always ask first. I believe communication and diplomacy resolves a lot of disputes and prevents a lot of misunderstandings in the first place. Now you might say that I could have done my own bit to prevent misunderstanding by not simply removing content but replacing it at the same time. I didn't do this for two reasons: 1) my failure the first time around to find good quotes made me doubt that I could find better ones the second time around. I have come to the exact same conclusion as you, i.e. there are words that denote, I am going to quote you "less tangible concepts" and these are a pain in the neck to find good quotes for. My solution to this was that after editing this entry (and, in particular), I shied away from trying to tackle basic concepts like these, and kept to simple words with very precise and distinct meanings, especially physical objects, which have grown to be my favorites to find quotes for. 2) The second reason is a more personal one, which is none of anyone's business, but to show my good intentions, I will now share it anyhow. I am trying to quit editing wiktionary, and I use the word quit intentionally, because it has become somewhat of an addiction. The way I see it, it is an addiction for most of the regular contributors here, you can just see it from the sheer amount of time we spend here, and the passion with which some conversations are carried, about what? The meaning or etymology of a word? It's important like life and death to them. And while there are certainly more harmful addictions that a person could have, it is still bad for me. It eats up my life. It deprives me of my spare time, every minute of which I now need more than ever. But I am confident in myself, I have given up more than one bad habit in my life (no, I'm not talking cigarettes, alcohol or drugs), and the last time I tried to stay away, I managed to go two and a half months, actually I would still be away, had I not accidentally discovered that I can add pretty pictures to entries without having to upload them (which I'm not allowed to do).


 * You might also say, why didn't I explain myself so far? Well, the reason is simple: you never asked. No one did ask me one question. If I go ahead and try to explain myself without anyone asking me, wouldn't it look like that I myself feel guilty, that I think that I have done something wrong, and am now trying to talk my way out of it? I still cannot see what is so wrong with my first edit. My intentions were pure as snow, I acted truthfully, and the result was a better though shorter entry. I refuse to feel guilty about it, not even one bit, and I feel outraged at the fact that I have to explain myself without anyone asking me, like I were some common criminal. I've only decided to do it now because I don't want to leave this place with a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm willing to do my part to make peace.


 * "In this case, don't you think it was an act of vandalism on your behalf to insert this content in the first place?" No, I don't, why? You do? You said that you yourself sometimes revert your own edits, and when you do, do you really think that it was an act of vandalism to insert it in the first place? If you do, you are much too harsh on yourself. A harmful entry only becomes vandalism if it was done on purpose. That is why, when someone accidentally inserts a couple of letters in an entry, and it is obvious that they meant no harm, they don't get blocked for vandalism. People make mistakes, and the amount of mistakes they make is proportional to the amount of work they do. I have added several hundred quotations by now, and it is statistically impossible that there won't be a couple of problematic ones among them. You always have to take the big picture into account. That is why no one but you jumped on it, when I removed them, I think. And that is why it is important after all whether or not someone reverts their own edits, because it makes it much less likely vandalism. Why would anyone in their right mind vandalize stuff that they themselves created, and devoted time to? And why be selective about it, and not remove all of it? Makes no sense. You have to take all of these things into consideration before jumping to conclusions, but you didn't. You just believed what you wanted to believe. I also don't think that the amount makes any difference. Someone can leave a page completely intact, and just write "d*ck" in it, as I have said before, now that is vandalism. Someone else may encounter a huge bit of completely unreliable etymology, unsupported by references, and remove it, and that will be a useful edit. Nothing to do with size.


 * Last but not least, for some reason you seem to be pretty p*ssed off about IP users in general, using words for them which I don't care to repeat, though unfortunately I will have to, later on. Why so much hate and mistrust? They can be as useful contributors as someone who is logged in. They are not the devils you make them out to be. And I am not "zigzagging" between different IPs. Dynamic IPs are just like that. Your ISP changes them regularly and you yourself have no control over it. And as a rule, I should expect good faith from others independent of that, because wiktionary explicitly tells you to do so here. That page makes no mention of "unless of course they are editing from IPs, in which case they must be the devil incarnate and you better look out for them." There are however exceptions, and I quote: "Once you've made a personal attack, the target will probably assume bad faith." Which is why you should never have started this off with a personal remark, because from then on, it was very hard for me to assume good faith.


 * Now, my comment has already become quite a book, and if you've made it this far, then I very much appreciate the time you devoted to read it all through. I will try to keep it short with my questions:


 * 1) When you encountered my edit, you basically had three options: a) leave it to the admins to deal with it. It is their job after all, and the above example proves that you are clearly neither experienced enough to spot an act of vandalism, nor have the expertise to know how to deal with it when you do. They also know how to connect the dots between ever-changing IPs. You could even have tipped them off about it, and let them deal with it. b) try to handle it yourself, but in a polite and diplomatic manner. Ask first before shooting, and ask politely. c) revert it and make a couple of personal remarks and accusations to go with it. You had free choice, and you chose to go about it rudely. If I want to believe that it wasn't out of spite and malice, and believe me, I do want to believe that, you will have to give me a very good reason. For now, if I want to assume good faith on your part, I can only think that it was a mistake, which you later regretted. Which brings me to question number two.
 * 2) When you realized (if you did, but that is what I want to believe) that you have started this off on the wrong foot, why didn't you say so? That is what decent people do when they unintentionally hurt someone. They say, "I'm sorry". Why didn't you? Are you just too proud to admit your mistakes? You shouldn't be. In all other respects you seem to me a highly intelligent person, and it strikes me as odd that you should think yourself infallible.


 * Just in case you think my reaction is out of proportion, here's a complete list of false accusations and unnecessary personal remarks that you made:


 * "Your behavior is looking more and more indistinguishable from vandalism": I still don't know though what my other acts of vandalism were. "More and more" to me implies at least three, but you've never given one example. "More and more" also gives me a hint that you can identify me simply by my edits after all, despite your claims to the contrary stated above. Out of everything this was the most abusive bit that you have said to me.
 * "It's not your own private website." I don't even want to comment on this, it sounds so rude.
 * "You need to give valid justification if your moves are called into question" Now you're trying to make me look bad. If someone had asked me to give valid justification, I would have, but no one did. This is a completely false accusation, the second one at that.
 * "Whether you personally like that content or not" Personal remark number two. And this comes after I have asserted at least three times that it was a matter of quality of content, but you just ignored it completely, because it doesn't fit your theory. It sounds like you want to believe that I removed it out of personal preference, like you want to believe that I am truly a vandal.
 * "If I were you, I wouldn't like to be associated with this kind of introduction, either." Personal remark number three.
 * "you shouldn't expect much good faith from others as long as you're zigzagging between various different IP addresses" Why not? What is so wrong with me?
 * "little imp" No comment.


 * Reading all of these comments through in one bunch, that you yourself have made, does it still surprise you that I have concluded ill will on your part? Awaiting your answers. --178.164.219.128 10:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cat got your tongue? You know, in the adult world, you will have to learn to take responsibility for your mistakes. Good luck growing up, but don't expect me to wait it out. --178.164.219.128 15:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You ignored what I wrote to you about red flags and stuff, especially the end of that paragraph. (Being anonymous with dynamic IP is one red flag, removing a lot of fairly good content without providing better content is another red flag, reverting the article in the matter of minutes is another, ignoring the reference given in the summary is another, providing an offended reply in the summary is another.) I miss congruence. Anyway, I'm not going to explain things any further. When you think the time has come, just come back and react properly. Bye. Adam78 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How did you manage to do that? I've been meaning to quit for a long time now, but no luck. I keep coming back. Canonicalization (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The second reason is a more personal one, which is none of anyone's business, but to show my good intentions, I will now share it anyhow. I am trying to quit editing wiktionary, and I use the word quit intentionally, because it has become somewhat of an addiction. The way I see it, it is an addiction for most of the regular contributors here, you can just see it from the sheer amount of time we spend here, and the passion with which some conversations are carried, about what? The meaning or etymology of a word? It's important like life and death to them. And while there are certainly more harmful addictions that a person could have, it is still bad for me. It eats up my life. It deprives me of my spare time, every minute of which I now need more than ever. But I am confident in myself, I have given up more than one bad habit in my life (no, I'm not talking cigarettes, alcohol or drugs), and the last time I tried to stay away, I managed to go two and a half months"


 * We should start up a support group. :) --178.164.219.128 18:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

So basically, your answer is that when you see red flags, you feel entitled to act like a jerk. Well, that is an answer to be sure, only not the one that sheds the most favorable light on you. --178.164.219.128 18:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)