User talk:Hollow are the Ori

red wikilinks?
If you remove any more wikilinks simply because they are red, you may be blocked. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you defend red wikilinks so passionately? Please direct me to a wiktionary policy that states specifically that an account can be blocked for removal of red wikilinks? Anyway, surely the conspiracy theory article is better off without an annoying and completely unnecessary red wikilink for the plural version conspiracy theories? Perhaps the other editor who added that should have created conspiracy theories as a redirect to avoid this issue? Hollow are the Ori 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is Wiktionary policy to trust the few sysops we have to act responsibly. Removal of those wikilinks seems very much like vandalism, to me.  For every entry that Wiktionary should (and eventually, will) have, the links need to remain red.  Very few Wikimedia projects have policies against red wikilinks.  Red links are very important for garnering well-meaning newcomers.  Red links are very important for assigning priority via Special:Wantedpages.


 * Please do remember, that the various red-link policies and practices are not mine. Although I occasionally argue against some of them, they remain the Wiktionary community's best approach.


 * DO NOT enter redirects for English language entries, where stub entries belong.


 * --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks inside definitions
How should I go about trying to convince you that wikilinks generally don't belong inside of a definition? Though in my interpretation it's ok if the links are included inside a (see also: X) type caveat. Wikilinks excessively visually emphasize some words but not others which is a POV decision and corrupts abstract comprehension. Definitions should stand on their own, if someone doesn't know a word or concept inside a definition they should look that up separately, comprehension is multi-step process not a clicking contest. Everything important you want to wikilink can be done so inside of a "Usage note" or "word history" section or within the wikipedia article on that subject? Hollow are the Ori 04:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is not me that you need to convince to such a systemic change, but the entire Wiktionary community. Such a fundamental change would take probably over a month of discussion on the Beer parlour.


 * The spelling/symantic differences are precisely why all headwords (for multi-word terms) and inflected forms (such as plurals) are always wikified.


 * Key terms of a definition are wikified. Terms within example sentences are never wikified, but the headword is bolded.  Most of the terms in the Etymology sections are wikified.  All synonyms, antonyms, alternate spellings, related terms and see alsos are wikified (unless a newbie entered them incorrectly.)  All translations are wikified, and uncommon languages are also wikified.


 * I do see numerous benefits to wikifying key terms in definitions. I do see the disadvantage that you indicate, but it seems tremendously outweighed by the benefits.  I think if you were to make that case in the beer parlour, it would be a very difficult uphill battle all the way.  One of the greatest strengths of Wiktionary is that key words are wikified (because it is so easy to do so.)


 * This dictionary serves many different levels of users. Professional linguists may balk at key terms in definitions being wikified, but the majority of readers love them.


 * --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New block

 * In response to your e-mail address to "Colonel"...

"Served your time"? You seemed to have misunderstood why the block was in place.

The block is a drastic measure, so that you do not harm the data collection here. The limited duration, obviously now, was a mistake. You aren't "serving time" only to return, starting the same nonsense all over again. The limited duration block was in hopes that you'd see reason during the intervening time; not that you'd return with a renewed sense of false justification, pushing all the harder for an invalid point of view.

I personally do not see any justification for an unblocking at this point in time.

--Connel MacKenzie 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)