User talk:Péronnelle

Welcome Message
--Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors. (Missing informations.)
Any chance of using more meaningful edit summaries, instead of this every time? Equinox ◑ 19:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

??

 * ?? --Péronnelle (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

??

what the hell rua, ive done nothing wrong!!! how is a "disruptive edit"?? --Péronnelle (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are using the same broken edit summaries that are used by a well-known vandal/disruptive editor who has been annoying us for years. I'm going with w:WP:DUCK on this. —Rua (mew) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Péronnelle, are you the editor who for a long time has been anonymously editing Indo-European language pages with the comment "Errors. (Missing informations.)"? — JohnC5 22:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a checkuser would be useful here. —Rua (mew) 22:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . — JohnC5 06:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Geographically, not a match. The problem IP geolocates to Le Mans, France. The IPs for this account aren't even in the same country. I suppose they could have moved, but that's not something that technical evidence can determine. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be ok then. The problem IP has always been in France and still is, judging by recent edits. —Rua (mew) 10:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

i know who user is, he is from french.wikt. . i didnt know his edit summary was bad. so ive made mistake by choosing what i thought was standard edit summary. ? im still offended more than hundred edits were undone because of edit summary --Péronnelle (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

--Péronnelle (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You have to realize that we have been battling the questionable edits of one anon for a while now, and the general policy concerning this anon is to block and revert on sight. One of the anon's hallmarks is the "Errors. (Missing informations.)". This phrase is in no way standard on en.Wikt and is, moreover, ungrammatical (information is not countable in English, so the pluralization "informations" is marginal at best). If you are indeed not this user, then I apologize for the trouble, but several administrators flagged you for that edit summary because it corresponds so strongly to a bad user. — JohnC5 09:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

im sorry. i wont use that edit summary again. may i ask you to reconsider the indef block please?? and what about the reverted edits??? --Péronnelle (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I don't see much cause for keeping you blocked, but I'd like a second opinion. ? As for the reverted edits, the world of semantic categorization on en.Wikt is far too confusing for me to judge. — JohnC5 10:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok to unblock, and I'll see if I can redo the edits. —Rua (mew) 10:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've redone most of your edits. Some of them I have left, because I thought it was better that way. If you want to know the reason for a particular case, feel free to message me. —Rua (mew) 11:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you. you've left . you don't like it? --Péronnelle (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the description of the "Fingers" category, it's for terms that are related to fingers, not for names of fingers. It seemed a bit silly to remove it from the Body parts category, since it clearly is also a body part. I would be in favour of modifying the Fingers category so that it becomes a category for finger names, a subcategory of body parts, but that is a relatively big step because then all words that are not names of fingers would have to be removed from the category, in every language. —Rua (mew) 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * i see. well, there are 1500 entries in CAT:Northern Sami nouns, and 3000 CAT:Northern Sami lemmas, i.e. a good amount but not too many. i think this would be a good testing ground for devising a truly coherent topical categories tree and naming system. not have adjectives, nouns and verbs bundled together for no reason (blind-deaf-mute in same category, but not "to blind"-deafness-mute), not have hyponyms, meronyms, synonyms, "terms related to a topic" mixed, etc. not have "jargon" categories mixed with topic categories. and if the system works well apply it to other languages. --Péronnelle (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're definitely encouraged to suggest changes in WT:BP. Our category system already works the same for all languages, so any changes would need to be made for all languages as well. —Rua (mew) 20:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)