User talk:Amedeofelix

Dunno how it is that no one's welcomed you yet, so, welcome! Below is our stock welcome message, with lots of useful links.

—RuakhTALK 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Our format guidelines (nicknamed "ELE")
 * Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
 * What Wiktionary is not
 * FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Thanks,

I knew some of that from using Wikipedia, but thanks all the same and especially for bits new to me. --Amedeofelix 16:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

UK
There are two set of spellings. US, and UK. You seem to be confusing political subdivisions with linguistic ones.

However,

Blind removal of such tags is unacceptable. Discussing refinements on talk pages is one thing, but you were not refining tags for accuracy, you have been blithely removing salient tags.

That is an adversarial tactic which makes it much harder for everyone involved to read a neutral, acceptable notation scheme.

Currently, Wiktionary does not have that scheme very well described, nor perhaps, universally understood. Instead of picking fights, why not try to actually help by clarifying such distinctions. Simply removing tags, as you have been doing, laced with provocative edit summaries does not help anyone.

This is not en-uk.wiktionary.org. Perhaps you should request that, on meta.

--Connel MacKenzie 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, Kenya (where I live) is not a Commonwealth country (we revolted in 1963 ;-), but we (mostly) use UK/Commonwealth English and spellings. On the other hand, Mexico (and Central America) use mostly US English and spellings. The Canucks are somewhat confused. Often they resort to Quebecois ;-)


 * The point is we have two varieties of English, called US English and UK/Commonwealth English. As Connel says, this has nothing to do with political boundaries or associations. The US spellings are tagged US and the UK spellings are tagged UK. Other countries use more or less one or the other, with the more-than-occasional local variation. Robert Ullmann 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The following is the exchange I had via email with Connel MacKenzie:

On 7/18/07, Amedeo Felix wrote: I can't even reply to your message on MY PAGE if you do not unblock me. You make a judgement about me and my motives and then you deprive me of making any statement to clarify my position. You make assumptions about me by stating what I did was meant to confrontational. I saw what looked blatantly wrong. There is not in English US & UK to me but English and variants such as US.

I'm waiting for an answer still. How come you didn't have the decency to reply to my Talk entries first? If you just change things back that someone edits, with good cause in their estimation, with no rhyme or reason they will of course change it again, and again, and again so long as no good reasons are given to counter.

Why have I been blocked and without being contacted? UP POV Pushing? What's that supposed to mean? To me labelling the form used ALL OVER THE WORLD APART FROM THE US is not a UK point of view - it's fact.

Amedeo Felix

On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:53, Connel M wrote:

Hello,

I am aware you cannot directly reply on your talk page while blocked. That is why I subject this particular e-mail account to an enormous amount of spam by listing it on my Wiktionary page.

I blocked you for one hour to assess your other contributions, explain your gross misconceptions on your talk page and to discuss your contributions with other sysops.

"UK POV pushing" refers to your penchant for favoring UK spellings; en.wiktionary.org is an international dictionary, not a British English dictionary. Using the (undo) button to restore your vandalism with no discussion, but only a snarky edit summary is a very clear indication of your motives.

You say here: "There is not in English US & UK to me but English and variants such as US." That point of view is inherently anti-Wiktionary. That goes against all the progress we have made, to make it an international dictionary.

Your POV is not welcome. It has been discussed many, many times. The broad majority of top contributors on en.wiktionary.org are British. While I am in the minority being American, I am not in the minority when it comes to maintaining that en.wikt is an international dictionary of English.

If you wish to help, you can discuss better labeling schemes, perhaps that even you might find acceptable. Currently the, and  tags are overloaded, distinguishing both regional variants and spelling reform varieties. While this is unfortunate, a better scheme has not yet presented itself.

But careless removal of the relevant tags is unacceptable, and will remain so.

Connel

On 7/18/07, Amedeo Felix wrote: In what way un-Wiktionary? I naturally assumed Wiktionary to prefer a neutral POV. I think as being American born and raised, and living many years in the UK that I have a neutral POV on English. I recognize what is "common", that is to say what is the original form and also the form used by the majority of English speaking countries, and what is "American" from my education and life experience in both the US & UK.

Riddle me this as well please: Why is there no uniformity across Wiki then? It's not UK for all non-American words/spellings, some say British, some mostly British, some Commonwealth English and still others nothing at all - which had nothing to do with any intervention on my part. Why?

Regards,

Amedeo

PS The bar will end then I take it in a short time. If so I shall wish to place this on my Talk page for others to see.

You are welcome to repost my comments on your talk page (I hereby release my comments - past and future - on this thread under the GFDL.)

You were removing tags. That is not NPOV; that is vandalism.

To restate what I said earlier: the conventions are not solidly established nor universally followed. What you were doing is in direct opposition to any possible clarification scheme. Yes, some entries say nothing at all, and that is very unfortunate. Some correctly say "mostly British" others incorrectly say "mostly British", etc. But under no circumstance is it correct to remove tags that clarify the distinction, when those tags are correct, nor when they are (possibly) slightly inaccurate.

Connel

There we go... I've entered statements/questions on several of what I consider offending entries, in the Talk sections, in hopes of getting some debate on agreeing a uniform approach to this matter. Hell, even if the consensus is to label spellings UK, British, Commonwealth... Look I happen to disagree with that, but frankly if there were at least uniformity in application that would be better than what exists currently. --Amedeofelix 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at some of your Talk pages and I see what you're getting at. If you want to change our practice though, you should bring this up on the Beer Parlour.  It's been discussed before though, so good luck....  Widsith 09:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Link please to this Beer Parlour? If was discussed before why no conclusion, or if there were why no implementation of a commonly agreed policy? --Amedeofelix 10:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Beer Parlour. Widsith 10:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comments
I'd just like to say that I agree with most of the one's you've found so far. That is, demeanor, valor, parlor and splendor should indicate that they are US spellings, while demeanour, valour, parlour and splendour should indicate they are particular to the UK spelling convention.

Offhand, I think using the normal tags and  are all that are needed. But a brief ===Usage notes=== section on each would also be acceptable.

I have an XML-dump-generated page User:Connel MacKenzie/US vs. UK which may be of interest for detecting other similar matches.

--Connel MacKenzie 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for posting the e-mail exchange. I'll have to re-read the others to see if they are relevant...probably not. Anyway, thank you.


 * Well thank you too. It's been and remains interesting.  I shall still endeavour to find out if there is a consensus or not in this issue, and shall in general keep using the site and adding to it as I am able. --Amedeofelix 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)