User talk:Sesshomaru~enwiktionary

Hi
I contribute heavily to the English Wikipedia and Dragon Ball wiki. It's my first time on wiktionary and I'm interested in learning the ropes; where is there a list of policies, guidelines, userboxes, etc., on here? Regards. Sesshomaru 23:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some good places for you to look at: Entry layout, Beer parlor, WT:RFV, WT:RFD. If you have software-related questions or issues, the Grease pit. To see what’s needed in Japanese, Category:Requests (Japanese). —Stephen 10:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand what you mean by userboxes or failure boxes. You can link to Wikipedia by using Sesshomaru on Wikipedia . —Stephen 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing like that that we have are language boxes as described at Babel. For example, (speaks 3 languages besides English). You can use , which just places the box in the article. If you put  , it adds the link to the sidebar at the left (this is something new and is not in wide use). In most cases, all you need to put is  (for the word in English Wikipedia) or  (for the word in, for example, the Spanish Wikipedia). —Stephen 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I wouldn’t change the . I believe it is under consideration and will eventually be encouraged or removed. If we decide to keep it, we’ll probably change the base template so that all you’ll need to type will be  . But leave it as is in the meantime so that everybody can decide if they like it. It should be okay to create whatever tables and boxes that you like on your userpage as long as they don’t entail writing templates or uploading graphics. You can link to the graphics that you like in the Commons, however. Really, no one here does that though. We only use the Bable boxes. —Stephen 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
We do not include redirects for different capitalizations of words (your Zero Gravity). This is to avoid confusion with German words that are always capitalized. User:Robert Ullmann is currently running a bot to delete old ones from several years ago. Thanks. Nadando 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He just runs it off of his main account. We can't delete them all at once because it would flood recent changes and deletions can't be marked as bot edits. Nadando 21:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Special:Randomredirect. I don't know what Robert Ullmann is using though- you should probably ask him. Nadando 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the box is fine the way it is. Nadando 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think that both boxes are fine. We use the Wikipedia template to show that there is some kind of article on wikipedia with the same name, regardless of whether or not it is a disambiguation page. Nadando 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, it looks rather bad to have two 'pedia boxes right next to each other which say nearly the same thing. Either one might be useful, but we should have only one. I would personally prefer the redirects. In any case, one of them needs to go. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Then please do not undo my edits as if they were unconstructive. I was told by an editor here that both boxes were fine. If there was such a rule saying otherwise you'd think I would know by now? Sesshomaru 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two links to -pedia seems pointless to me. SemperBlotto 11:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From reading that discussion, I think that the editor you were talking to meant that either way is fine; I don't think they actually meant that having both is ok. Policy on Wiktionary is a little more fluid than it is on Wikipedia.  Oftentimes, policy is not written down anywhere, but is simply known by experienced editors.  While this is not ideal, Wiktionary is in a constant state of rethinking its policies and practices.  This allows us to be far more dynamic and respond to problems more easily, but it does create the problem of new users having difficulty finding their way around.  However, in general it works out ok, as we have a much smaller editor base and can communicate these things to each other in a way which could not happen on Wikipedia.  Please feel free to ask me or any other experienced editors here (most of whom are admins) any questions you may have, but please don't assume that since something is not written down, that it is not policy, or that Wikipedia policies apply here, as they often don't.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not appreciate the reverts. You and the other person did not give any reason for doing what you did and frankly that pissed me off. We have to decide on which to remove, but blindly reverting will not solve anything. Thoughts? Sesshomaru 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To begin with, I would advise not assuming that you are on even par with editors who have been here for years. SemperBlotto probably has close to as many edits as all other users combined.  Please, take some time to get to know our policies before you engage in controversial edits.  Also bear in mind that our blocking procedure is not nearly as formal (nor as drawn out) as on Wikipedia.  If one of the admins consider you a nuisance, they will block you, as we simply do not have time to deal with nuisances here.  Generally, if there is a policy which you disagree with or need clarification on, it is far better to simply ask an experienced user, and if you are unsatisfied with their answer, to bring it up on the Beer Parlour than to engage in edits which users have told you are not allowed.  There you can get the attention of the community at large.  However, rest assured that bringing this double 'pedia box thing up will be a waste of your time, as I can tell you that it is simply not allowed.  Also, I apologize for my revert on superman, I have reverted my reversion of your edits (try saying that three times fast :-)).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One other thing. On Wiktionary, it is not as simple as vandalism and non-vandalism.  There are a million and one edits which are not vandalism, but are not correct, and are so reverted.  We have very strict formatting conventions here, and any edit which does not follow them is generally reverted.  This is the reason why your double 'pedia boxes have been reverted.  We recognize that they are not vandalism, but they are not consistent with our formatting guidelines.  Hope that helps.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you have not heeded my advice to lay off of controversial edits and engaged in edit wars with experienced users, you have been blocked. It is a short, half hour block to give you some time to step back and think about this.  Please, listen to other editors when they tell you what is and is not allowed on Wiktionary.  If you continue to persist in these edits, the next block will be longer.  Please, if you want to adjust the policy, start a Beer Parlour discussion.  However, the policy right now is that we do not allow two 'pedia boxes right next to each other.  Also, blocked users cannot edit their talk pages as they can on Wikipedia.  If you would like to contact me, click on the email this user link on my userpage.  I'm sorry that it has come to this.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion regarding *which* box to use in any given word; each situation would need to be judged in situ. However, there is a clear bias in Wiktionary practice to have *at most* one link to a relevant en.wp article, one which is not merely a misplaced dictionaray entry in the encyclopedia. - Amgine/talk 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * btw: I'm currently available in #Wiktionary (IRC), if you'd care to talk with me. - Amgine/talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand the reason for the punitive blocking. You claim that there is a policy which says "one -pedia link". Might I ask where it is? If it exists, why hasn't Nadando or anyone else informed me? And I would like to see my concern answered. Sesshomaru 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, a lot of policy on Wiktionary is not written down. This is one of those cases.  If you'd like to get the attention of the wider community, please feel free to start a discussion on the Beer Parlour.  This has already been confirmed by Amgine, and I will ask some other users to confirm it.  Please do not continue to engage in this fruitless edit war.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we've been having an extended discussion on irc about your duplicate boxes. Though of course only a small percentage of us (users and admins) are on the channel, everyone involved agreed that the duplicate boxes are not acceptable.  Please choose the one you want, and then you can go on to edit other articles, which would be most welcome.  Thanks, -- ArielGlenn 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the thread. Can I at least make an edit to batman? It will be similar to what I did to superman. And yes, I'm asking you because I'm afraid of getting another ban for being bold. Thoughts? Sesshomaru 05:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please feel free to go ahead with batman. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template
Seeing as you haven't got one of these, it may help clear the air slightly: I attach our standard welcome for 'pedians. Conrad.Irwin 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conrad.Irwin 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Why is Wiktionary more strict that Wikipedia?
Hey, its a question that people often ask and it has to do with several factors. For example we have ~10000 pages for every sysop, wheras Wikipedia has ~1500, this means that vandalism or unwanted edits that get made can go for a very very long time without anyone noticing. Secondly, because we have strict layout guidelines (so that Wiktionary can be, and is, parsed by external sites and ourselves to extract useful information, we need to maintain a much higher degree of control over our entries than Wikipedia does of its articles - simply beacuse layout on Wikipedia really doesn't matter that much. We also do not have so many policies, in particular the Three-revert rule was rejected by the community as being needlessly formulaic, this means that we rely on much more personal approaches to dealing with problems - which we find works better in the long run; at least this way you can be sure that you were blocked because someone felt it necessary rather than because you "broke the rules" - which although admittedly less pleasant is far more effective. Though I can't comment on the ban as I didn't make it, it seems to me that your edit summaries and the number of reversions of people much more experienced here than you did not mark you out as someone who understood the way Wiktionary has to work. I hope to see you around, and hope this helped to clear things up. Conrad.Irwin 09:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really stinks doesn't it. I am new here too, and I just happened to pass by your talk page. Unfortunately, as I have noticed, Wiktionary is VERY different from Wikipedia. In fact, they do not even have an official No personal attacks policy. Seeing that edits only happen around ten to twenty every hour, things pass rather slowly, unlike Wikipedia, where an edit is made every couple of seconds. This is both good and bad. Good in the sense that it is probably easier to handle, but bad in the sense that the community is less developed, and there is not a lot of hard policy to guide users, and it is almost completely clear that the "experienced" users have established a pure bureaucracy over consensus, taking advantage of the fact that there are no real rules, just supposed consensus developed over time. I mean, when you were blocked, the user even said since you were "edit warring with experienced users", you were blocked. It is ridiculous, and probably why I will stick with Wikipedia, where people at least have reasons to prove you wrong. Hope to see you on the other side (with everybody from the Avatar WikiProject). parent5446 03:30, 24 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 Sesshomaru. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sesshomaru~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 00:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)