User talk:Willy2000

Using Google Translate as a source
I notice that you are creating entries based on Google Translate for languages you don't speak. Please stop doing that. Google Translate is unreliable. You should either use your own knowledge or serious print dictionaries. --Vahag (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The entries you are creating are poor stubs of low reliability. Please stop creating these in languages you do not know immediately., should we block if he continues? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up his Yiddish and Maori creations, but most of the rest in his contribs are beyond my abilities. Would you please clean up/patrol those that you can fix? Thanks —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Willy, it appears that you are still ignoring messages left on your talkpage, and creating problematic entries. I have blocked you indefinitely, but I will unblock you if and only if you respond here to affirm your understanding. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You made the right call, Metaknowledge. --Vahag (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Μετάknowledge: Blocking for a year should be more than enough. The user should still be exposed to the temptation to edit Wiktionary in an acceptable manner. In fact, even a month could be okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed it from infinite to 3 months. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that we should change it back to indefinite, or at least a longer block than 3 months, because Willy proceeded to try to evade his block by editing as new IP, and continued to make the same bad edits that he was warned about repeatedly (see my talkpage for details). This is an added offence and demonstrates his unwillingness to listen. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think extending to indefinite does not help anything. If, after 3 months, this user account continues in blockable edits, they can be blocked again, for another 3 months. My point is, for many users, 3 months gets very similar effect as indef, with the difference that 3 months leave the door open for future editing. Blocks are to prevent edits, not to punish for unwillingness to listen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about punishing him. I want to prevent bad edits from getting into Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, anyone who thought Willy would change has been proven wrong by his latest spate of edits. I have blocked him indefinitely; if another admin wishes to reduce that, they can do so if they give justification here, but I ask that they not reduce it to less than a year, because this takes quite a while to clean up. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just deleted 6 of the 7 Tsonga day-of-the-week entries: following the ts Wikipedia links led to nonexistent pages, but there were entries for the months, and there's a template showing a calendar for each month. This calendar is obviously the source for the day-of-the-week entries, because the day names are truncated to save space on the calendar, and the entries created here use those truncated names. After checking around online, and doing Google Books and Google Books searches, there wasn't a shred of evidence for any of those entries except for sonto, which was short enough that it wasn't truncated in the calendar template. I don't know the language, but it looks like Tsonga capitalizes day and month names, so the remaining Tsonga entries will probably have to be moved. The level of sheer stupidity/carelessness in evidence here argues against shortening the block. We could set conditions and they could sincerely think they were complying with them, but we wouldn't be able to trust them to get anything right. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that William should be indefinitely blocked. --Vahag (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

 * , I don’t know about you, but I find this reasoning highly convincing. Please lift his prohibition right now. Hell, make him a bureaucrat while you’re at it. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 09:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, what he needs is a bot. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * what if he is an automaton? He never responds to anybody, which suggests that he is one already. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No way. Wikis aren't a reliable source, and you don't know the languages you're working with so you can't spot problems when the data isn't as simple as it looks. You're driving blind at high speeds, and you've already had a number of serious accidents where you created entries that had to be deleted because the words don't exist. When you do this, people have to go back and check your entries to weed out all the crap, which is just as much work as creating the entries from scratch. You're wasting time that could be used by those people to create their own, much better entries. The fact that you think you're making good contributions while churning out a high percentage of crap demonstrates that your judgment can't be trusted. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)