User talk:23.123.141.140

Wiktionary conventions
Hello anon,

Your recent edits to and  suggest that you are unaware of one of the basic policies of Wiktionary, which differs in important ways from Wikipedia. Whereas Wikipedia articles about a certain subject may describe in depth what something should be, Wiktionary entry content is only concerned with how individual terms are used. Wiktionary is descriptive, describing how terms are used, and not prescriptive, describing how terms should be used.

As the terms and, as English, are indeed used in reference to both manga and anime, the term entries here at Wiktionary make reference to both manga and anime. Whether that is “correct” is not a concern.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Haha, still at it again dude? I would like a link to that basic policy. Otherwise, the universal use of "shonen" and "shojo" in regards to anime remains subjective (to say the least). Some ignorant people (including anime moderators and administrators) use it that way, and some who know better refrain from it. There are too many factors in the creation of anime that complicate the meaning of those terms, such as direction, music, script changes from the original manga, character design, etc.


 * But of course, being the considerate person that I am, I relented with the adjective meaning to please the newcomers. Unfortunately, a particular user is adamant in twisting the terms away from the Japanese origins to cater to the weaboos. Oh well, fuel to the flames for an edit war, I guess.--23.123.141.140 05:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ask, and ye shall receive: What Wiktionary is not
 * Again, Wiktionary is descriptive: entries are written based on a description of how terms are actually used. Wiktionary is not prescriptive: entries are not written  based on a prescription of how terms should be used.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that usage notes are in order. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * After a tedious run-through of that list, the matter still remains subjective. It employed the phrase "clearly widespread use". Are those terms used as nouns by people to some extent? Sure. Clearly widespread? Not hardly. Anyway, the block was certainly a low move. I guess, the fact that any frequent user can issue these things without warning to massage their e-friends egos would signify the general integrity level of the site.--23.123.141.140 19:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @anon: Insults generally won't get you anywhere. You've really missed the mark when it comes to who I am and what I care about.  Your primary sin, as far as I'm concerned, is removing verifiable content from entries, multiple times, with no attempt at discussion: i.e. edit warring, with an added dose of apparent prescriptivism.
 * If you have a specific qualm about the phrase “sufficiently widespread use” as in item 2 of WT:NOT, you could try reading one of the other pages linked from that very item: specifically, the WT:Criteria for inclusion. The extract below makes it clear that this is much less subjective than you seem to think:

Number of citations For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary.
 * I am interested in Wiktionary growing and developing. I would like to see you become an involved and competent editor.  As part of that, you would be well served by becoming more familiar with Wiktionary conventions and policies, and by being more circumspect and self-aware in how you present to other editors.  Alienating the community is not a good way forward.  Engaging the community respectfully and discussing issues when disagreements arise (as they inevitably will) is a much more effective long-term approach.  (And I include myself in this advice, as I know I don't always live up to my own ideals.)
 * @suzukaze: By all means, please add usage notes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jesus, your reply was so delayed I thought you'd given up already. For one, I didn't personally insult you, nor did I have any intention of "getting anywhere". Simply put, if frequent users are capable of blocking non-members like there's no tomorrow, I'm just not going to be a part of it. A month has passed since my block expired and I still haven't given a crap. Note:I also love how you see it as an insult and yet, sneak in little implications of how I am a moron to "basic policies", far from a "competent editor", and have committed a "primary sin" (Oh no! Have I sinned in more ways than one, Father?!)
 * As for your source if I'm not mistaken, I have not found three Japanese citations of 少年/少女 アニメ. The reason for the dispute was whether Western misconceptions should be kept to a minimum with regards to Japanese terms, and citations for respective languages is off-topic.
 * But anyway, this circular exchange has gotten tiresome so if you're going to respond, at least try to cut out the condescension, or maybe just don't reply altogether.--23.123.141.140 00:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * your reply was so delayed -- I replied two days after you. That isn't very long.
 * I didn't personally insult you -- Nor did I say that you had. Your general tone was, and is, derisive and dismissive.
 * if frequent users are capable of blocking non-members like there's no tomorrow -- Admins, not just frequent users, have blocking privileges. We reserve these for cases of disruptive editors.
 * sneak in little implications of how I am a moron to "basic policies" -- I never called you a moron. Your editing makes it prima facie clear that you are not familiar with Wiktionary policies with regard descriptivism and how entries are constructed and curated.
 * far from a "competent editor" -- Nor did I say anywhere that you were “far from competent”. Re-read the thread.  I stated that “I would like to see you become an involved and competent editor.”  Your past edits to the  and  entries were not competent.  That is a simple statement of fact with regard to the edits.
 * and have committed a "primary sin" -- By “primary sin”, I was referring to the core issue I had with your edits: i.e. your main transgression, your principal mistake, etc.
 * As for your source if I'm not mistaken, I have not found three Japanese citations -- Herein lies what is probably the core confusion: the entries you were editing were for the English terms and, not for the Japanese terms  and .  There is adequate evidence in published English texts for both the collocations  and .  (For that matter, there is adequate evidence even for the Japanese collocations  and .)
 * Again, I would like to see you become an involved and competent editor. As part of that, you would be well served by becoming more familiar with Wiktionary conventions and policies, and by being more circumspect and self-aware in how you present to other editors. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the time gap within previous responses was merely hours in length, it is relatively quite a delayed response, especially considering the shallowness of the issue.
 * And the same can be said of yours as well.
 * I was more sort of implying that what goes on beneath the decision-making on who's right and who's blocked is anyone's guess, but congratulations on answering the technical question.
 * Yes indeed, "implications" is the keyword here. The simple point you've seemed to miss, though, is that you choose to be subtly derisive of my incompetence and dismissive of the main issue, so there's no reason why I shouldn't respond similarly.
 * I would recommend you to reread it as well. As for my edits, I was competently challenging a debatable definition and ended up willing to compromise before you blocked me without warning.
 * Indeed you were, although you might want to look up the primary definition of sin, Dr. Dismissive ;).
 * Show me some valid Japanese evidence, then (if those 少女/少年 向けアニメ wiki pages are all you've got, then I win). As for the English terms, I'm sure it'd be plausible if there were tweaks to the meanings, or just the removal of the adjective section or whatnot. But of course, judging by the much more messy definitions in some of the history pages, one can tell you've done all this just to waste my time for your own amusement. After all, if you truly care about "Wiktionary growing and developing", you'd be discussing the main issue at hand with the definitions instead of all this extraneous B.S in the bullet points.--23.123.141.140 11:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already provided google links, and you are surely capable of googling for yourself. My main issue regarding Wiktionary, which you consistently miss: whether or not a term P is used in fashion X in language A has nothing to do with whether translated term Q can be used in fashion Y in language B.  You insist on Japanese sources showing specific collocations in Japanese, when the issue at the start of this thread was your edits to the translated English terms.  Japanese evidence is wholly irrelevant when discussing the usage of the English terms.  You continue to fail to grasp this key point.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)