User talk:Aabull2016

— Kleio (t · c) 02:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations and exact spellings
Hi. Your citations are really helpful, but could you please add them under the appropriate spelling? For example, a citation with tusseh should go at that entry, and not under tussore or tussah. After all, such a citation only demonstrates the existence of the particular spelling that it uses. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your message. I have tried to group citations together regardless of spelling as I believe this provides the best overview of the use and history of a word It seems unhelpful, for example, to place citations for "lustreware", "lustre ware", "lusterware" and "luster ware" in four different entries, requiring users to flip back and forth or open four separate windows to make a comparison. I would have thought it would be generally more useful to choose one form as the primary entry providing and refer to it from the other variants. I realize that in a case like "tussar"/"tusser"/"tussah"/"tusseh"/"tussore" the variants may be phonic as well as graphic; however, I would have thought it was still clear that they are variants of the same lexical item, and not synonyms.


 * I'm very new as an editor and you've clearly got lots of experience. I absolutely don't want to tread on any toes! I definitely welcome discussion, and I recognize that I have some work to do to learn the details of how Wiktionary entries are (intended to be) structured. I most definitely want to contribute to creating more order, not more chaos!


 * They are absolutely variants of the same item, which is why we (usually) have a main entry for the commonest form, and other entries as shorter stubs like "alternate form of whatever". But the point of citations is to prove that each individual form exists, so putting every form's citations under the main form isn't really helpful, and isn't our convention. Make sense? Equinox ◑ 23:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I do understand if it's an established convention, and I will follow it in that case.


 * However, I don't agree that it makes sense. I believe the usefulness of the citations is not limited to proving the existence of a particular form or spelling, but also (and more importantly in fact) of demonstrating the use and shades of meaning of the item over time. If the citations are spread around among the different variants, it prevents the user from having a global view of the different ways in which the item has been used. In the vast majority of cases (e.g. -ize/ise variants, items written as two words, hyphenated, or as single compound words, etc.), the demonstration of the existence of variant forms is of little interest as they are entirely predictable, whereas citations using different variants can be crucial in demonstrating a particular use or context.


 * By way of example: the term "night cart" is spelled with a hyphen in the later citations, but without a hyphen in the earlier ones. If these citations are distributed between the entries "night cart" and "night-cart", the user loses the historical view. The consultation of "night-cart" does not allow her to see that the term was used as early as the 18th century, and the consultation of "night cart" fails to show that it was used by an African writer as late as the 1960s.


 * Do you think it would create problems to repeat citations in some cases, and include them both under the variant and as part of a broad view under the main entry?


 * What you're reminding me of is the OED convention of including all forms (sometimes going way back to Middle English, which we treat as a separate language, i.e. pre-1500 or so) under a single heading, with a large etymology section listing when and where the various forms were used &mdash; which is pretty reasonable. However, bear in mind that the OED doesn't actually publish all of its citations, so you can't drill down so deep; you just trust them on this. My feeling is that, ideally and ultimately, it should be possible to take a particular form/spelling (say, tusseh) and view only the citations for that spelling; it should also be possible to take a "main form" (say, tussah as representative of tusseh/tussore/whatever else) and view the citations for all of its forms, in date order, as you suggest. We don't have the technology yet to sort the citations in those various ways, and to be honest very few of our users are interested in working with citations: most people want to do neologisms, translations, appendices, or whatever. I would like to ask you to follow our conventions for the time being (since you say you'd prefer to "create more order"), but feel free to raise questions at WT:GP (technical issues about how the wiki works) or WT:BP (general discussions), because what you are suggesting might be something we can aim towards in the future. I'm not convinced it's practical yet. Equinox ◑ 01:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. Ending your discussion comments with the four tildes ~ is a good idea, because it leaves your signature (name, and the date when you posted). Thanks! Equinox ◑ 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks so much. I'm definitely here to contribute, not do my own thing regardless of how the wiki is organized! Yes, I do see the OED as a model, along with the Robert, the Trésor de la langue française and other major European dictionaries. I definitely like your suggestion of introducing alternative sorts for the citations. Since I have absolutely zero technical knowledge, I would depend on others to figure that out in the future.


 * Please do continue to give me a nudge if I go astray (or appreciation if I do something right!). Thanks for the tip about the tildes. Aabull2016 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey! A year later, I'm glad you have stuck around. Seeing the addition of significant "classical lit" cites like Faulkner, rather than some subliterate drivel dug up on Usenet, feels good. (Ahah, my latent prescriptivism is showing. Not really. I just think that long, old-established words should be cited according to their lifetimes...) Sometimes I wonder if we are just messing around with words temporarily until the vote that everyone really wants, which is "shall we get rid of all this boring dusty book stuff and just make a massive Pokédex". Then I wake up screaming, etc. Equinox ◑ 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, and I really appreciate your encouragement! Wiktionary does seem to have become a bit of an addiction. I suppose there are worse ones. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the value in citing texts that have stood the test of time. It's also important to me to get beyond the Webster citations (mainly copied - occasionally miscopied - from Johnson) of venerable white male preachers and politicians. The language has been put to marvelous use by such a diverse range of writers since. Aabull2016 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
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. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

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) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

. Indentations are trickier (at least as far as I know), but they can be accomplished using whitespace tricks (like chained  ). It is possible to make line breaks and indentations a feature of a template, but when it is an arbitrary number it can become quite complicated (what happens when you want to quote e e cummings!?). Since our purpose is not so much to ensure typographic fidelity and more to ensure lexical fidelity, I am of the opinion that some typographic features can be sacrificed in order to keep the interface usable. You (and others) may disagree there, and certainly there are ways to accomplish most anything.
 * As for suggestions, certainly bring them up. The best thing to do would probably be to add them to the talk page of the templates, since they will be seen by more people there than on this talk page, and they can be discussed more broadly. Probably the place to start is the talk page of  since that is the most relevant to the types of materials we have been discussing, although  probably gets the most use. - TheDaveRoss 23:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in compiling a list of troublesome formats or sources, that our templates cannot currently handle. DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For now, I think perhaps the best approach is for me to watch the results of wrapping for a while and raise any issues as I find them. That way I don't have to go searching for examples, which can take forever as there's no way (as far as I know) to directly search for quotes that use the templates.
 * So, first item I've noticed in the newly wrapped citations under Chinook and Chinaboy is that the chapter is presented in the same way as an article from a periodical or a piece of short literature from an anthology: before the title of the book, and followed by "in". The formula should be date - author - title - (publishing location: publisher) - either: [chapter name] or "Chapter" + number. (May I request that the word "Chapter" be capitalized?) Aabull2016 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, the location of chapter is awkward, I have made a note on the talk page of the template for discussion. As for capitalization, I am more ambivalent, I think I would personally prefer "ch. #" or similar, but I have no strong opinions.
 * As for finding quotes as examples, you can find all pages which use a particular template by using the "what links here" special page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:quote-book). - TheDaveRoss 14:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. One of the main issues I'm finding at the moment is chapters numbered with Roman numerals, which are currently interpreted as chapter titles rather than numbers, yielding results that I believe can be puzzling and not just unattractive. I've started simply changing the Roman numeral to an Arabic one - how would you feel about making that change as you go, when you encounter this issue? I don't think it's important to preserve the type of numerals used in the original text (and in any case, this can sometimes vary depending on the edition). Aabull2016 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The dilemma with changing them is that there are books which include both types of chapters, using Arabic numerals for the main text and Roman numerals for the index or appendix or similar. I am loath to change them without knowing the details of the source. I might be overestimating the impact of such changes, so perhaps it is worth doing. - TheDaveRoss 15:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's important to be sure about that. For some time I've been substituting Arabic for Roman numerals in most cases, but of course I'm working with the source, so I can be sure there's no possible confusion. I was hoping to save myself the time it takes to check, but if you'd prefer, I'll keep on doing that and make the changes where I'm familiar with the source. Aabull2016 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed in the Ulysses quote in forcible-feeble that the Part category simply disappears when you use the template. Obviously, this is an item that will need to be fixed when tweaking that template.Aabull2016 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

distinguishness
Hi. To add an RFV, simply placing the template on the page is not sufficient; you must actually click the little + and create a new discussion. I was going to do that for you, but in this case, I don't see why you added the RFV template at all. Do the quotations at not seem to support the sense in the entry? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also unable to assess why you added to a translation table at unreasonably. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your feedback and explanation. I'm relatively new at this and would definitely have created a discussion if I'd known how to do it at the time. The reason I wanted to flag distinguishness was that no citations were provided and morphologically it is an odd formation, with the suffix "-ness" added to a verb rather than to an adjective as is almost always the case. I think it would be helpful to provide at least one citation. With regard to the translation table at unreasonably, I don't see an RFV there and I have no recollection of ever adding one. I certainly can't see any reason for having done so, so if I did, I apologize! Aabull2016 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed both. In any case, RFV is for when we doubt the very existence of a word, but you should always check Google Books first (where you can find some fine quotations for this word, and many others). Anyway, please tell me if you need any help with making discussions or anything else. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion at seraphic
Hi. I was wondering why you my edit to. Nloveladyallen (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nloveladyallen, thanks for your message, and sorry for not sending you a word of explanation. I wasn't sure why you decided to revise the quotations I had added. I believe Early English Books Online and Eighteenth Century Collections Online are by far the most useful references for Wiktionary users. The texts have been painstakingly character-recognized and edited to ensure that they correspond to the originals, whereas Google Books versions are simply automatically character-recognized, with, for example, long s mostly (but not consistently) recognized as "f". So I have systematically used those sources for early texts, where available. Moreover, I don't believe using long s in quotes is especially helpful to the vast majority of users and it can be quite off-putting to many. In any case, it's not possible to reproduce all the print conventions of the original texts. If you think it's important for users to have access to the original appearance of the page, then by all means provide an additional link to the Google Books (or other) equivalent source, but please don't replace the quotes I have already added. Thanks for your understanding! (Aabull2016 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC))
 * "I believe Early English Books Online and Eighteenth Century Collections Online are by far the most useful references for Wiktionary users. The texts have been painstakingly character-recognized and edited to ensure that they correspond to the originals, whereas Google Books versions are simply automatically character-recognized, with, for example, long s mostly (but not consistently) recognized as 'f'."
 * I didn't blindly copy-paste the Google Books OCR text; I manually typed out the quotes from reading the images. So it doesn't matter if other sources have fewer OCR errors, since I didn't use the OCRed text.
 * "Moreover, I don't believe using long s in quotes is especially helpful to the vast majority of users"
 * The entire quotations section isn't useful to the vast majority of users. Etymologies aren't useful to the vast majority of users. Pronunciations given in IPA or enPR aren't useful to the vast majority of users. Usefulness to the majority doesn't dictate what's included on Wiktionary.
 * "and it can be quite off-putting to many."
 * The archaic language in seventeenth-century quotes is also off-putting to many, but we still don't update it, because that would be unfaithful to the original. Granted, not reproducing long s is less unfaithful than translating all quotes into modern English would be, but it's the same principle.
 * Finally, if an argumentum ad verecundiam will help my case at all, prominent Wiktionarians like and  use the long s when quoting books that use it. Nloveladyallen (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for us to agree to disagree? As there does not appear to be a single accepted standard on this issue, rather than spending time editing the work other Wiktionarians have devoted their efforts to, wouldn't it be more useful to concentrate on entries to which no quotations have yet been added (of which there are very many)? Again, thanks for your understanding. Aabull2016 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't solve the problem, though. I think that my edit should be un-reverted. You don't. And I think we would both agree that a clear policy would benefit everyone. I'm going to bed now, but you can go ahead and start a discussion at the Beer Parlour, or I can tomorrow. Nloveladyallen (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes
I am enjoying seeing you taking my little rudimentary entries and bulking them up with some quality citations. Thank you! Equinox ◑ 06:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the positive feedback! Aabull2016 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I second that! Great work - maybe you should be an administrator --XY3999 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I sometimes dabble in citations too - my go-to list to work off is User:Visviva/Cobwebs. I remove any entries from those lists when I'm happy with them. --XY3999 (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words and the tip, XY3999! Very much appreciated. Aabull2016 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

wheel war
Hey. Please cease the wheel war with, and engage in civilised discussion with the friendly user --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this is really lame --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a wheel war- that specifically refers to admins edit-warring. Still, @Aabull2016: I think I need to point out that quotations are for demonstrating usage, not for artistic presentation of literature. Most quotes should be only one or two lines- just enough to show the term in sufficient context to get the meaning. For dictionary purposes, a sentence fragment from a random blurb that shows how you use the term is better than a paragraph of even world-class writing. This is a wiki- it's "the dictionary that anyone can edit". No one "owns" any part of an entry. You'll be lucky if some 8-year-old doesn't replace all of it with "poooop" when no one's looking. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that citations should be chosen carefully and kept to the minimum length that context will reasonably allow. However, I am far from alone in believing that carefully-selected citations from literary works, in addition to a wide range of other sources, are often very useful in illustrating usage and showing its evolution. Yes, this is a wiki, and an 8-year-old may well replace anyone's contribution with "poooop." That is precisely why it is possible to revert edits that constitute vandalism, introduce incorrect information, needlessly complicate in order to pursue a contributor's hobbyhorse, etc. etc. (Aabull2016 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * If you once more revert an edit on wheel, unwearied or unmannerly without prior discussion, I will block you for edit warring. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 12:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But please remain at the website, you're doing a great job. --Mélange a trois (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mélange a trois, I appreciate your kind encouragement. I definitely intend to stick around! (Aabull2016 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * I just wanted to add that I support my fellow admins' judgement here, but I do appreciate you as an editor, and I often take a look at your edits when I see them merely because they make me happy. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Awww, thank you Μετάknowledge, that's good to know. (Aabull2016 (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * For the record, I prefer the Aabull2016 version at unmannerly. I do not see why Sgconlaw should prevail over Aabull2016. Both should eventually engage in discussion, e.g. on the entry talk page, but Sgconlaw is an admin and should show higher standard, especially as far as reverts with no edit summary. Recently, I posted an incredible quotation to Beer parlour/2018/May, an example of the bad things that Sgconlaw is leaving behind. Maybe Sgconlaw should clean up the bad things he made before continuing with doing more bad things. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Dan Polansky. I have attempted to engage in discussion with Sgconlaw but to no avail. Perhaps it is time to propose a policy that would exclude this behaviour. (Aabull2016 (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Aabull2016 and, frankly I'm not sure how useful the discussion that has taken place has been. We seem to disagree completely on the issue, and essentially you (Aabull2016) have simply been reverting edits, apparently on the basis that you don't like them. That is essentially the reason why I stopped adding edit summaries for some of my edits – you were simply reversing them without giving any substantive reason either. That being said, I do appreciate your efforts for adding quotations to entries.
 * In turn, I encourage you to see why it is beneficial (1) to try and provide a quotation to the first edition of the work that it appears in; (2) to provide, if possible, a link to the precise page of the work if it is available online, as this helps to improve the verifiability of an entry (otherwise we are just taking the word of other editors that the quotations are correct, and I have found errors before); and (3) to provide precise imprint information for the work quoted from so that there is no mistake about which version of a work is being referred to.
 * As for the discussion at "Beer parlour/2018/May", I did take note of it and have been using the templates and  to place less essential imprint information in ellipses which are only visible as tooltips if a user at a desktop or laptop computer moves a mouse over the ellipses. If an entry with such templates is viewed on a mobile device, no tooltip appears at all. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, not cool. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Referring to point 2 - one of the best things about wikis is taking the word of other editors that [whatever things they do] are correct --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to "Assume good faith"; I don't think this policy can be read to mean it is undesirable or unnecessary to provide imprint information that will enable readers to more easily confirm the verifiability of information provided in entries. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, I have not systematically gone about to edit the contributions of others to suit my personal preferences. I could very well do this, and then cry foul when my edits are reverted. This seems to me to be a ridiculous waste of time. The only reasonable solutions are (a) to agree to disagree and leave the contributions of others alone, using our preferred format for our own contributions but not editing those of others, as I have consistently done, or (b) make a proposal for standardization that is to be voted on. If I am not mistaken, (b) has already been attempted unsuccessfully. Therefore, I would ask you to refrain from editing the contributions of others merely to suit your own taste. (Aabull2016 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * I can't see how it is very practical for one editor to check through the history of each entry to see if it has been edited at some point in time by another editor and then not edit that entry. I don't recall any formal proposal for standardization being voted on before; perhaps that should be tried. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * : It's very practical to limit your use of the templates to new citations rather than edit existing ones. Yes, if there has been no formal proposal for standardization and you feel that this format ought to be adopted as a standard, then you should make such a proposal. Otherwise, the best course is not to edit existing citations. (Aabull2016 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
 * OK, I will look into formulating a vote when I'm less busy. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on 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.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

admin
Hey. Wanna become an admin? I can start a vote for you... --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your confidence! To be honest, I've tended to do my own thing and not paid too much attention to the administrative side of things, but I'd be willing to consider it. Is there a page somewhere that outlines what's involved? (Aabull2016 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Sure, Administrators is the place with some more info. Notusbutthem (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail
Hello ,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)