2. Are we missing a sense of head or heads that reflects the use of "heads" in this usage and in similar phrases: "heads of liability", "heads of damage", "heads of claim", "heads of charge"? This seems derived from the sense "heading" which we have for head, but seems to have a life of its own at least in UK legal writings. DCDuringTALK17:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have to say, I am not particularly famliar with UK legal jargon. Generally, U.S. and UK usage is very similar, but I have not heard "heads" used in this wayt at all, nor does it (or any of these phrases) appear in Black's Law Dictionary. Cheers! bd2412T18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. You're a lawyer, right? I was looking at this entry and wondering whether it was correct. It says "The substitution of a different person in place of a creditor". But is it always in place of a creditor, or can it be in place of another party? I was reading an article where an insurance company sued on behalf of its client; it didn't seem to me that a "creditor" was involved there. Equinox◑23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Technically, the insurance company's client is the creditor with respect to another party who owes the client money due to a claim covered by insurance. Subrogation typically involved a "creditor", but that term is not limited to anyone who has extended credit; instead, it goes so far as to cover anyone to whom a debt is owed, even if the debt is the assumed damages for a cause of action. bd2412T00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
BD, can you shed any light on the meaning of [[disallowable]]? At least half the uses seem to be in legal contexts, and we're trying to figure out, on WT:RFV#disallowable, whether it means "able to be disallowed, able to be forbidden" or flat-out "not allowable, not allowed, forbidden", or both. Does it have one meaning or the other in legal dictionaries? - -sche(discuss)02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
So far as I am aware, the only legal context wherein this term is used regularly is in tax law, where certain deductions are "disallowable" in the sense of being able to be disallowed. Cheers! bd2412T17:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The entries you've created are a bit too encyclopedic. They describe the phrase but they don't actually say what it means. Can you fix this please? —CodeCat02:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think they are encyclopedic at all. The phrases are various forms of a popular nonce phrase intended to convey exactly what is set forth in the definitions. bd2412T02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you deleted this definition in 2010 with the explanation of correction, I have just come across a reference to the term in the singular, and I am not sure whether that makes a difference to this action. From an enWS POV, I will just link to the plural. I will have the whole work transcluded in a few days if that is of usefulness. Thanks. — billinghurstsDrewth07:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
That sounds fine. The singular gets about 19,000 Google Books hits to the plural form's 26,000, so it is actually about an even alternative. bd2412T20:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
When adding English terms with multiple words, can you please use head= instead of sg=, inf= etc.? Those older parameters are deprecated now. —CodeCat17:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Since we keep all historical revisions publically-visible by default, it's not enough that the current version isn't a copyright violation; we also need to hide the old copyright-violating revisions. (No?)
For the five word phrase, "While sitting at a desk"? No. Such a brief and descriptive expression is never subject to copyright in the first place, even if it is directly copied. Compare just about any quote we have ever used as a citation for a word. There is no copyright violation to hide. bd2412T19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah, O.K., thanks; I was going based on your RFD edit-summary (in a section called "A bunch of copyvio", you struck one as "struck rewritten", as though rewriting were sufficient to address copyright violation), and failed to look at the actual def in question. Sorry about that. —RuakhTALK20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
(One way in which it's imperfect is that my -ves-detection code missed [[bookstaves]], which probably means it also missed some words that aren't in the category. Another way in which it's imperfect is that it includes some French forms that don't include lang=fr. But hopefully you find it useful. If you do, I think I can generate the corresponding list for -ies. -es might be harder, though.)
Many thanks! I don't necessarily need all "-es"; the endings that indicate those plurals, so far as I have seen, are only "ses", "xes", "ches", "shes". It doesn't matter if there are false positives, as I can weed those out easily. Cheers! bd2412T01:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
There turned out to be a lot of uncategorized -ies plurals, so I put them at User:BD2412/-ies rather than overwhelming your talk-page. Feel free to delete that page once you're done with it. -es plurals I'll try to do sometime this weekend. (BTW: there are many more -es plurals than just those in -ses/-xes/-ches/-shes; consider e.g. "whizzes", "hajjes", and "penes", and perhaps "aegides" and "glandes".) —RuakhTALK06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted myself. It didn't occur to me that "ass" could not rhyme with "brass" and "glass" in regional pronunciations. bd2412T17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there. I didn't even notice the RfV for the Ido word arbuto. It is a valid word. Ido Wiktionary has it as a valid word as well. [1] I'll see if I can come up with any other sources for it, but for now, that's the only source I have. Razorflame20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's my understanding that a word removed for lack of verification can always be restored when verification is available. bd2412T22:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, other Wikimedia projects are specifically not acceptable as sources (that would become quite circular). But if the Ido Wiktionary cites any printed dictionaries that have the term, or works of literature that use it, those would verify it... - -sche(discuss)05:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, and thanks for closing so many old discussions. Just in the past few weeks, we've knocked over 100k off of RfD, and about 20k off of VfD (which will go down much further when those closed discussions are archived). bd2412T19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I notice you've been using the header "deletion discussion" when archiving RFVs. Going forward, wouldn't they be better titled "verification discussion", "RFV discussion", or something similar? Especially if there are or later arise several threads on the same talk page (and especially if one is an actual deletion discussion, i.e. RFD or RFDO), "verification discussion" would make it easier to spot, looking at the TOC, if a term had been RFVed before. - -sche(discuss)04:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure, no problem. Note, however, that for the vast majority of pages, this discussion is the first thing ever put on the talk page. Cheers! bd2412T14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey man, I'm taking out a hot lawyer, 28 years old, on a dinner date tonight. She works in employment law, which I find really dull, but will be naturally prepared to feign interest in it. Do you know any good employment law jokes? Or any particularly cool questions to ask them? Any tips (except the generic seducing-hot-girls advice)? -WF
#: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''; posted after vote closure date. --~~~~
#: [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose'''; posted after vote closure date. --~~~~
The vote end date is a necessary evil, IMHO, to make votes closable. Getting a better picture of support and opposition by editors who did not notice the vote at the time it was running is worthwhile, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wondering why you closed this as kept — at the last count, 3 editors (including me as OP) supported deletion, 2 supporting keeping, and 1 supported exporting to an appendix. Thus only 2 out of 6 explicitly supported keeping the page the way it is now... so it seems like an odd result. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
We're not bean-counters; we have to weigh the quality of the arguments provided for each position. The arguments for deletion were sparse (yours was "Not phrasebook-worthy, IMO"; Furius gave none; and Mglovesfun merely said "straightforward, no need for me to comment further"); the arguments for keeping pointed to the specific utility of having this phrase. Even -sche's proposed move articulates a use for this remaining somewhere in the corpus, and does not support its deletion altogether. I can't read that as a !vote to delete, since it does not seem that such an appendix will be made, which leaves this evenly split between those clearly expressing a wish to have this material removed from the corpus, and those clearly expressing a wish to have it retained in the corpus. I grant that I probably should have closed this as "no consensus to delete", but that distinction is of little moment to the outcome. bd2412T15:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I counted three to one favoring keeping (=restoring) in the discussion. If we add Equinox's lean keep and Ungoliant's implicit delete, that's four to two. How much consensus do we need? Or are you accepting votes in the unargued previous discussion? DCDuringTALK16:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
My perspective on these things is that a change from a previous determination requires consensus in favor of that change, and for that I look to the comments of all participants in the discussion to see if a clear consensus is expressed, collectively. Here, we have eight editors commenting in the discussion, and even those who said nothing (Shinji indicating that the entry had been deleted, and Ungoliant noting that this was a previous deletion), they could have expressed support for restoring the entry, but did not do so. Even giving little weight to there participation, I do not see a clear expression in favor of restoring the entry from Equinox (or Mglovesfun for that matter), and therefore I can see no clear consensus in favor of a change to the previous determination. bd2412T16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have a complain on behavior of user Ivan Štambuk, his dictatorial behavior is unacceptable, an example of his arrogance and self-righteousness can be seen on talk page of vonj. Person like him does not deserve a position as admin on Wiktionary. It is not on him and him alone to decide what is a proper Serbo-Croatian word and it's proper meaning. Please take this complain seriously for the well being of Wiktionary. 95.178.199.12213:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, a while back you asked me to let you know when User:Conrad.Irwin/oldanonpages has been updated, and although it still has not been updated yet, you might be interested in some of the pages under Special:AllPages when you do an open search for user talk pages, which gives you pages such as this one which consists nearly entirely of old anon user talk pages. User:Conrad.Irwin/oldanonpages is more convenient and nicely ordered, but this is almost the same thing. Sorry if you knew about these pages already--I just discovered them myself a few days ago. Haplogy (話) 09:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Aunts and uncles are (with or without "grand" as part of the construction); others, not so much. There are also variations like -ma and -pa or -mom and -dad instead of -mother and -father, -folks instead of -parents, and -kids instead of -children. bd2412T21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I see that the order has been changed and individual points split out from long sentences, which is probably for the best, but the core substance of the proposal remains the same. You have improved it, yet without changing its meaning. Thanks!` bd2412T15:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Great! On a different subject: do you think you could add my another user to AWB page as per request above? (I think the request got easily lost.) Or do you think I should go to Beer parlour? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would say that "the" is essential to the cadence of the phrase, and it used in an adjectival position, just as "trendy" or "in style" would be. bd2412T21:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think "the" is part of the phrase, but I agree with SB that it is a noun. Take "neurology[noun] is the new black" and compare phrases like "steel[noun] is the new iron[noun]", "chairs[noun] are the new couches[noun]", etc—those make sense. Now contrast phrases like *"steel[noun] is the new strong[adj]", *"chairs[noun] are the new wooden[adj]"—those don't make grammatical sense. I can even find some citations like this:
Monica Cooper, Pears Come in All Shapes and Sizes→ISBN, 2007), page 23:
The grits bar is the new potato bar like the new black is red. Forget the pasta bar, too.
"The grits bar[noun] is the new potato bar[noun] like trendy[adj] is red[noun]. Forget the pasta bar[noun], too." ... that doesn't make much sense. But sub in a noun like "the newest/current fashion/fad", and it does... - -sche(discuss)21:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I can also find a few citations of "ugly[adj] is the new black", "scandalously young[adj] is the new black", but I'm not sure even that supports having an adjective POS, because "ugly is the new fad" 'works' just fine, AFAICT (subaudi "being" if you like—"being ugly is the new fad, the new trendy thing"). - -sche(discuss)21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
That is only the result of parsing the expression. "Over the top is clearly an adjective, even though a noun sense of "top" is being used in the phrase. Certainly you can't be arguing that "new" is a noun in this context, although it is also inherent to the phrase. If you were to say "steel is iron" or "neurology is black", you would exchanging noun for noun, and making a direct comparison. But no one is saying that any of the things described are actually "black", but that they are trendy; that is the meaning of the indivisible phrase. bd2412T22:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't think "over the top" is equivalent because it starts with a preposition; it doesn't matter that there happens to be a noun somewhere within the phrase. Although in a way that's exactly the point you're making, I suppose. Bah. Still, "black" is the grammatical head in "the new black", but not in "over the top". Equinox◑01:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello BD2412 -- Are you sure that your new sense 2 is really distinct from sense 1? In each of the citations which you added, "contempt of court" is simply used as an attribute of some other noun (either "decree" or "order"). So, in each of these citations, the concept of "court order" is still not really part of the meaning of the term "contempt of court" itself -- rather the concept of "court order" is provided by the other noun. It seems to me that in each of the citations, "contempt of court" is still being used in the manner of sense 1 and that sense 2 is not really needed. Respectfully -- · (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I can definitely tell you that I have heard it used in the vernacular sense as a thing in and of itself, in the sense of "the guy did nothing wrong but the court issued a contempt of court anyway". The phrase can be used to refer to the order itself, although I grant that it is hard to find citations that exclude the qualifying "notice" or "order" or the like. Here is one that says "There have been unconfirmed reports that the Lahore High Court has issued a contempt of court to the telecom companies for charging higher rates to international incoming callers", although it is from a blog. bd2412T23:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello BD -- Yes, OK. I did a little digging too. This usage does indeed exist. Mostly it seems to be an informal usage in the Western world, but there seems to be some official usage in Indian and Pakistani English. Turns out there are also rare official countable usages that are variants of sense 1. See what you think of the most recent changes to the entry, which include the addition of the new citation you found. -- · (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I hope that approach wasn't used elsewhere. Incidentally, my finding it shows the benefit of keeping the "wanted" special pages relatively clear. There are fewer than 1,000 wanted templates, I found that page only because that page is useful. Other special pages are clogged with junk and can't be so used. DCDuringTALK15:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I know your field is IP, whereas this is a finance term, but perhaps you're better positioned to work out what it means. It seems to refer to some kind of legislation preventing the use of a certain tax loophole, but it's just mystifying to me. Any ideas? Equinox◑17:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Tax is (thankfully) not my field, but this refers to the Anti-stuffing rule, which basically says that a corporation can't acquire loss property (i.e. property that will result in a loss of revenue, and therefore reduced taxes) solely for the purpose of reducing taxes in a particular period. The practice itself is "stuffing" (i.e. you know you're making a lot of money this year, so you "stuff" your company with some bad assets to bring down the revenue on paper, and then unload those assets the following year when your other revenues are down and the income from selling the bad assets will not inflate your tax bill). That's probably not very helpful, but it's the best I can do. bd2412T19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
You need a lot of improvement. Your definitions are not informative, and some of them seem to be at the wrong capitalization. For example, umbrella corp is probably capitalized in-universe, and that definition is probably not dictionary material in the first place. bd2412T16:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
May ask you your opinion? On fr.wikt, I removed the mention of the "date of inclusion" of a word in the Petit Larousse (the most famous French dictionary), for the following reasons:
if this date is given, then it can be concluded that this dictionary includes an entry for this word.
if giving this information is allowed for a word, we cannot forbid it for other words
and the nomenclature of a dictionary is protected by law (at least in France, I don't know for the US), because the selection of words is a real work, this work has value and must be protected.
many people use this dictionary mainly to know whether a word is French or not (if present, it's French, is absent, it's not French); this is absurd, of course, but it's a fact...
this information (included or not?) can normally be found only by consulting this dictionary (by its very nature). If it can be found in Wiktionary, then Larousse will sell less copies.
A French Wikipedia specialist finds, curiously, that including this information should not be systematic (I agree, but I disagree with the reason), because it would be ad for a dictionary, and other dictionaries may consider this as unloyal (??).
I don't think that there is a copyright concern with providing the date of inclusion. Under Article L 122-5 of the Intellectual Property Code of France, we may quote another work so long as the quote is short and the author and source of the quote are clearly identified. In this case, we are doing something less than quoting; we are merely providing a single snippet of information, a date. There is a difference, of course, between stating that a word can be found in Larousse and saying when it was added to Larousse. In fact, if we identify all of the words added to the 1889, 1905, or 1924 editions, I think we are in the clear because those are in the public domain in France, author Claude Augé having died in 1924. How much of the French corpus postdates 1924? bd2412T03:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I probably was unclear. The question of quotation is irrelevant in the issue I want to address (and anyway dictionaries are a very special case). The precise issue is according to the US law, is it allowed to provide for all French words the information "this word is absent/present in this dictionary"? and, if not, why (nomenclature protection, this is what I feel, or another reason)? This issue is also relevant here (en.wikt) and might lead to a new policy rule, after discussion. Lmaltier (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Quotation was the closest analogue I could think of. I need more information - specifically, are there words that exist in earlier editions of the dictionary but not later editions? Because of their age, we can copy the 1889 and 1905 dictionaries verbatim, and therefore can take the lesser step of listing all of the words contained in them (whether that list is individual or in the entries for the words). This is probably the case with the 1924 work because it was published at a time when works subject to copyright had to be registered and then re-registered periodically, and later re-registration periods were frequently ignored, causing works to fall into the public domain as late as the 1970s. For this to apply, it needs to have been available for sale in the U.S. around the time of its original publication, which a popular reference work like this probably was. If that is the case, then at least every word in those three editions can be noted in their entry as having been in those three editions. The works are in the public domain, and anything at all can be done with them.
This leads to my second question, which is: how much of the corpus is found only in later editions? If the proportion is small, then it does not seem to me that merely indicating the mere fact of the presence of the word in the dictionary can be a copyright violation. French copyright law might be screwy that way, but I doubt it would be a violation under U.S. law. bd2412T12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. But I assume that indicating the presence or not of all words in the current paper edition could be an issue? And if it's allowed for one word, there is no way to forbid it for all other words... Lmaltier (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It depends. If you are indicating only the date when a word first appeared in this dictionary, and most of the words appeared in the public domain versions, then the only words that would matter for the current paper edition are those that never appeared in a previous edition. I don't know what proportion of words that might represent. bd2412T17:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
You mean it might be allowed to publish a book with the complete nomenclature of a commercial paper dictionary (without definitions), according to the US law? It would be another way to give the same information. You surprise me (but I'm not a jurist). Lmaltier (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The key point I am getting at is that for the public domain versions, you can publish a book with the complete nomenclature of the dictionary with or without definitions. You can do whatever you wish with it. I am struggling to understand the applicability to this for the part that is not public domain, unless for some reason the French language developed most of its words after 1924. bd2412T20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
w:Old Saxon was never spoken in England- the Saxons there spoke w:Old English. Also, the spelling of halywercfolk is extremely dubious: "y" was the same as "ü" in modern German, and k was almost never used. It's obviously a rather transparent compound of halig + weorc + folc, with -ig sounding like -y and -c sounding like -k (though in other words it could sound like -ch). It looks to me like the more foreign-looking elements of the orthography were converted into more modern equivalents. I should also mention that I was unable to find this in the comprehensive Bosworth-Toller dictionary, so it's conceivable that it might even be a made-up word. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
All words are "made up" to some degree - however, this comes from Black's Law Dictionary, which I have always understood to be fairly conservative in what it includes. bd2412T13:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
What I mean is, it includes words as used in English, regardless of how their original language spelled them. Also, terminology referring to Old English/Anglo-Saxon was not well defined yet 1910. --WikiTiki8913:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
In other words, the header should be changed to ==English== and the term should probably be RFV'd. And then in addition, we can try to figure out what the original form of the word was in the original language and add that. --WikiTiki8913:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
It also identifies Latin words as Latin, but that doesn't mean we should add them as Latin. We should add them as English words borrowed from Latin. --WikiTiki8916:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
But they're not linguists. Old Saxon is very definitely the ancestor of Low German and Low Saxon spoken only in what is now Germany and the Netherlands. According to Bosworth-Toller he cognate for halig in Old Saxon would be helig. Also, this shows halywerc folk as a variant of "haliwerk folk", and says it's from an earlier Haliwares folc. That would seem to make this at least Middle English, as apparently confirmed by this. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I'm not involved in that part of the project at all, save for having made a stray nomination here and there. I have no idea how the actual selection process works. bd2412T21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Another admin, Kephir, is harassing me. He removed comments I made on another user's talk page, here and here. When I asked him not to do that, he deleted the message on my talk page, claiming it was vandalism here. There are many other instances of harassment of me by this editor. Could you PLEASE get him to stop? Purplebackpack8922:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think CFI is basically a strong guideline. These are the things we should include. The area of what must be excluded is not quite as sharply drawn. bd2412T17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please take a look at Special:Contributions/89.110.20.161. They put quite a bit of effort into adding what looked to me like mostly encyclopedic bloat to eternity and sempiternity, including an unformatted etymology for sempiternal at sempiternity and incomprehensible stuff like "The gradient of total potential energy, down which matter flows as the river of time" to eternity. They also changed the etymology at aeon to make it less historically accurate and more in line with their analysis, and replaced citations of usage with an explanatory paragraph from a philosophy text in one of the entries. Before I could leave a message explaining my reverts, it deteriorated into a revert war, and I blocked them for a day to let things cool down.
Because I was a bit grumpy from it being way past my bedtime and because their last edit-comment was rather annoying, I thought it would be a good idea to have someone else look at everything in case I overreacted in the heat of the moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
The IP additions were definitely on the loquacious side, tending a bit towards poetry ("the river of time"? really?). The etymology for sempiternal/sempiternity could probably stand to be corrected and included. bd2412T21:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for your tireless RFD work, above all closing nominations and archiving them. You have made the RFD page hugely smaller; as a result, RFD feels like a well administered process. This you have done over an extended period of time. Thanks again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would heartily second that, and add that you've been very good at keeping the closure process low-key, fair and evenhanded, in spite of the often contentious atmosphere of the discussions themselves. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Why should I be banned for interacting with Kephir? The comments I make to his talk page neither violate policy nor prevent him from editing, so I don't really see the need to forbid them. By contrast, his bullshit blocks of me both violate policy and prevent me from editing, so those do need to be forbidden. A two-sided interaction ban would set the uneasy precedent of legitimizing Kephir's actions of deleting posts with inappropriate rationale and being rewarded for that by not having to interact with a particular editor. It also seems to equate my posting on his talk page as equally egregious to his bullshit blocks. No, the only thing that needs to be banned is Kephir's bullshit blocking and deletion of comments as vandalism when they ain't. And that either needs to be done with the removal of rights or by you telling him the community won't stand for it. Purplebackpack8915:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is exactly why you both need an interaction ban. You have a habit of thinking everything you do is proper and justified, and everyone else is in the wrong. And it's this that gets on Kephir's nerves (as well as others'). Banning you from interacting with Kephir is the only way to stop you from harassing him. If the ban was one way, then nothing would stop you from continuing to pester him off the project. —CodeCat15:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, User:CodeCat, but there are things I feel I should comment on, about Kephir and about any other things. You act like there is some inherent harm on commenting. There isn't! How does my commenting on Kephir's talk page prevent him from editing in mainspace? It doesn't! Does commenting on somebody's talk page damage articles? No! Do you even have to take time to read the comments? No! Kephir has overreacted grossly to the comments I have made, none of which did any harm whatsoever. He was not justified in tagging them as vandalism, he certainly wasn't justified in blocking me for any length of time primarily on the basis of commenting, and the only thing that is causing harm here is Kephir's bullshit blocks. Purplebackpack8916:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
As for the claim that I act like everything I do is proper and justified, if I don't get why a person did something, I ask. It is wholly "proper and justified" to ask somebody why they did something, particularly when it's something controversial like changing a high-profile template or editing other peoples' comments. People shouldn't get angry for another person asking why they did what they did. Purplebackpack8916:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there is an inherent harm in commenting, especially when you don't get along well with an editor or if the editor is not interested in talking to you. That's why Kephir removes your posts, and he is fully within his rights to do so, it's his talk page. You are arguing this on principles, in terms of "this should be ok, so if someone else makes a problem out of it, it's clearly their fault". But you totally do not see the reality of how your behaviour affects other editors, it's like you are just completely blind to it. And because of this, you are unable to connect the cause and effect: you see Kephir's behaviour towards you as unprovoked and a sign that he's just out to get you, while totally missing the fact that you have caused him to act that way towards you. And because you seem to declare yourself innocent, you don't see how further interactions and now, setting up a vote, is only making the situation worse. This is also the problem that I think many other editors have with you; you're so focused on your own crusade and principles that you totally walk over other people and ignore the effects that your behaviour has on them. Until you can recognise this, things will not get better for you on Wiktionary, they will only get worse, I am pretty sure of that. —CodeCat16:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Kephir is within his rights to remove them, but tagging them as vandalism is wrong because they clearly aren't. And let me turn the tables a bit: how would you feel if I claimed everything you posted on my page was vandalism? What would you do? I seriously doubt you would be particularly happy if I reverted everything you posted on my talk page. You'd probably even consider it disruptive.
Furthermore, I haven't heard one thing out of you that says that Kephir was wrong to block me. If you think Kephir's actions in blocking me were appropriate, that's just lunacy, because a) he's an involved admin, and b) you shouldn't block somebody for making talk page comments. Purplebackpack8916:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Clearly not vandalism to you, maybe, but clearly he sees things differently. What makes you right and him wrong? Do you see what I mean here?
And no, I would not be happy if you called all my comments vandalism or if you reverted everything I posted there, but calling it disruptive would hardly cross my mind. It would just be a failure of communication, so I would look for other ways to get through, such as asking other editors what my options are. I certainly wouldn't consider starting a vote at all, that would solve nothing whatsoever.
I'm not taking any stance in whether it was right or wrong for Kephir to block you. As far as I'm concerned, you've both misbehaved, so I'm not picking sides. As for whether the block was appropriate, it may be true that it wasn't right for him to make the block singlehandedly, but at the same time, if he considered your posts to be continued harassment, then it's not surprising that he'd block you just like he'd block an editor harassing anyone else. As for blocking people for making talk page comments: we do that and have done that in the past, with User:WritersCramp for example. —CodeCat16:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
To a certain extent, User:CodeCat, Kephir seeing it differently isn't particularly germane. Even if he considered my posting on his page harassment, there are several more productive ways he could've handled it. Two that come to mind are asking me to stop on my talk page and discussing it on a third editor's page or a community noticeboard. The reason it is a vote is because of what he did, not why he did it.
Please consider this to be us asking you to stop posting anything on Kephir's talk page (or interacting with him otherwise). bd2412T17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion related to the interaction ban is still open and waiting for an uninvolved party to close it and enact. I'd also note that, had it been in effect, you would have been prevented from the effective revert of my edits you made at Template:archive-top with this diff. Purplebackpack8914:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Precisely. I proposed it; I can't close it. Consensus seems clear to me, and the sooner it goes into effect, the better, as far as I'm concerned. bd2412T17:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The fact that it's still open has led to Kephir reducing it to absurdity with a ridiculous counter-proposal that I should be indeffed. It's as if that was his solution to everything. "There's a drought in California" "OK, block Purplebackpack" "There's unrest in the Middle East" "OK, block Purplebackpack". It's Kephir's one-track mind on me that necessitated the need for the interaction ban. Purplebackpack8923:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm trying to decide whether to create this, but I don't know enough about legal terminology to make a good decision. I realize that it's an important specialty in the legal profession that lots of people spend their entire careers in, but does it have enough of its own terminology that we'll need a separate category to keep track of it all? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We have someone from the company instructing us about the way our entry for this term should read. I did my best to explain how Wiktionary deals with such things, but, as always, your opinion/corrections would be very helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
These are not lists I have constructed - they are from glossaries of terminology on Wikipedia. I am trying to make sure that anything we have there as a definition, we have here as an entry. Cheers! bd2412T15:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm just curious where you got the second definition from ("Software that is released as open source only in exchange for payment."). I've never heard of it. --WikiTiki8918:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I see now. I googled the "ransom publishing model" and I'm satisfied that it does exist. But I think our definition is a little oversimplified and not necessarily true in all cases. --WikiTiki8920:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if we should actually have all these as separate entries. I'm just pointing out that by our current policies, we don't seem to be able to create that entry with 6 "greats", unless it's a redirect. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
The next line says "Each attested repetitive form that has more than three repetitions" shall have a hard redirect, which is what I created there. bd2412T14:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
