User talk:Kitty9992

If you should ever need to tell me something, always remember to type in ~ ~ ~ ~ so I know who you are.

Welcome
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! Atelaes 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken or incorrect block
You were blocked earlier today (~2AM UTC) for supposedly "inserting false information"; this was in error, and the block removed.

Do note that we don't use redirects the way (e.g.) wikipedia does; another form of the word gets an entry, anywhere from a "soft redirect" to a full entry. So marshmellow was deleted.

There is some debate about whether "marshmellow" is an alternate spelling or a misspelling, but it either case is worth referencing.

We're sorry if this upset you, please continue to contribute, and ask me (or Atelaes as above, or others) if you have any questions. Robert Ullmann 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

articles
Robert, why is it that no one ever warns anyone before deleting any Wiktionary articles?Kitty53 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To say that no one makes a note of an article they're deleting isn't quite accurate. It really depends on the situation.  For example, plenty of articles are noted at WT:RFD or WT:RFV before they're deleted.  However, when an entry is written in incorrect format (and especially if its written by a new contributor, who is likely to simply write the article and then never return), it is often simply deleted.  I'm assuming that you're making this query specifically because of the two entries you wrote which were deleted (marshmellow and neugeborenes).  In the first case, it was a redirect entry for a misspelling, which as I mentioned earlier, we don't keep as a matter of policy (although, it looks as though another editor has recreated it as a soft redirect, which is more acceptable).  For the second, it was simply incorrectly formatted.  It didn't have a definition.  Is it the plural form of neugeboren?  If you like, take another shot at writing the entry, and have a more experienced editor look it over, and make sure it's been properly formatted.  Having an established user in the history makes an entry less likely to be deleted out of hand.  Hope this helps.  Atelaes 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit of background on some of the differences between the 'pedia and wiktionary: on the pedia, articles are usually lengthy blocks of prose (as you know, short ones get tagged as "stubs", even if essentially as complete as they reasonably could be). They are judged by "notability", by whether someone might be likely to look up a given topic by a given title.


 * the wiktionaries are different: a lot of entries (not "articles") are very short, they document one word, often just one form of a word (e.g. marshmellow ;-). The criterion is not notability, but whether a word exists (or existed). See WT:CFI. Very, very different. Because an entry can be very short and be complete, and because we need to encourage new contributors, we don't block creation of entries by IP-anons or new users, as wikipedia does.


 * Partly as a result of that, we get lots of stuff that must be more-than-speedied: just deleted out of hand by a sysop as tosh (SemperBlotto's favourite deletion comment ;-). So sysops can, and do, delete bogus entries on sight. OTOH, as you have noted, there are mistakes, and entries are restored just as routinely. Mind you, most people are utterly unaware of most of this; that any given sysop will be happy to undo a mistaken deletion, and that if formal process is desired the proper path is to add the entry to RfD and question the deletion.


 * A large part of the problem (including the instant issue) is that people from the 'pedia assume the same rules apply, without realizing they are making an assumption.


 * Also consider this: the English Wikipedia has 1,491 sysops, with 2,223,298 articles, 1491 articles/sysop (near perfect square at the moment, fancy that!), while the English Wiktionary here has 73 sysops, and 672,759 entries, 9215 entries/sysop, and only some of those sysops are really active. The flip side is that a single sysop can routinely monitor RC for a few hours at a time, and we have 24/7 coverage. (we are on every continent except Antarctica ;-)


 * We are both smaller and larger; sysops have a lot of leeway; but mistakes can be corrected just as rapidly. Robert Ullmann 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

German
Hi Kitty53,

While your efforts are appreciated, it would really be best if you stick to languages of which you have at least a basic understanding. -- Visviva 08:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Recreating articles
We're not really very bureaucratic here, so I don't think we have any strict rules for this sort of thing. Entries can be recreated in modified form if they have been previously speedily deleted (this was true on Wikipedia too, the last I checked); however, there is some risk that this will be regarded as bad-faith behavior and lead to re-deletion and blocking. In the case of neugeborenes, the article had most recently been deleted simply as the result of a move (since redirects resulting from a page move are generally deleted), and in cases such as that there would never be any problem with re-creation. Note that recreating entries that have previously failed WT:RFD is very likely to lead to speedy deletion and blocking. In general, if you want to re-create an entry that has previously been deleted, it's a good idea to contact the deleting admin first; that helps to avoid any misunderstandings down the line. -- Visviva 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC

Hello
Hi, Atelaes. Why is it that sometimes, Wiktionary users get blocked when they did nothing wrong?Kitty53 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, generally users don't get blocked if they haven't done something wrong. They certainly shouldn't be at least.  Sometimes, unfortunately, users may get blocked without knowing what they did wrong, as admins will often simply block a problem user without leaving a message about why they were blocked.  If there is a specific instance of a user being blocked and they don't think they've done anything wrong, I'd be happy to look into it.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, looking at Connel's talk page I now see exactly what this message is about. And I have to say that it is probably best to go with Conrad.Irwin's advice.  A number of very large discussions have happened as a result of this block, and we generally consider the matter to be closed.  If you are blocked again, then perhaps another discussion will be merited, but for now, it would be appreciated if the matter could simply be dropped.  If you still feel confused about the matter, feel free to ask me more specifically, but I would request that you stop berating Connel.  Rest assured he's suffered more than enough grief over this matter.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am sorry to hear that. I hope that it hasn't soured your opinion of our project here too much.  The thing about Wiktionary is that, while we can be a little rude to newcomers, people who establish themselves get a bit more respect.  It's sort of like a hot tub, a little painful at first, but quite cozy once you get used to it. :)  Again, any questions or concerns, feel free to ask me.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Please do not create redirects. While they are popular and useful in Wikipedia, they are a problem here. Wiktionary is case sensitive, and entries should only exist at the correct spellings and capitalizations. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

immature
Hey, thanks for the ja translations at immature. However, remember that translations should be linked (I have since linked your translations). Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And I appreciate your linking the new translation I added. I always, always ALWAYS keep forgetting to link translations I add! They always remind editors that new words are ready to be created! Right? Thank you, Atelaes!Kitty53 00:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They do indeed. And we actually have a bot which uses them to create entries now (which is pretty cool).  See Category:Tbot entries (Japanese).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Me Too
Hi Kitty53!! I know just how you feel when you say how frustrating it can be to be blocked. It happened to me just yesterday. It burned me up so much, you should have seen me. Anyway, I just thought I stop and say hi and maybe talk to you. So I guess I'll see you around(user: papaSmerf)


 * Thanks, Papa Smerf! By the way, you forgot to add four tildes (a tilde looks like this: ~) to the end of your message, which is necessary when leaving a message. Either way, it was nice of you to say hi!Kitty53 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kitty53. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kitty53~enwiktionary that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)