User talk:ZH8000

Reverts

I hope you are actually checking these translations first before removing them. Some of the ones you removed were actually correct. —CodeCat 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to remove valid translations, you will be blocked. —CodeCat 13:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And some you have re-undone are actually more than wrong, such as gsw: Strossburi. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Then why is it used on the Alemannic Wikipedia? —CodeCat 13:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It is an arbitrary work by a socketpuppet of: User:Chickensire, User:Laibwart, IP 67.1.226.194, IP 65.129.128.18, IP 75.164.99.113. It can be correct, but also wrong. And often they are wrong. There is no source at all for this socketpuppet edits. Probably just simply based on his/her expectation (by an user from USA). Why do you accept unsourced edits, at all? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Because Wiki... is no valid source! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And because in WP article it says that Strassburi is Alsatian – only. Unfortunately, gsw refers to many different Alemannic dialects, an old and very well known flaw by the classification system. I do not know whether Strassburi is correct for Alsatian. Any other gsw dialect I know does not say it that way!! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Even so, you can't just remove potentially valid translations. You should take them to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is probably a philosophical question. Formally you are eventually correct. However, what do you prefer: a dictionary full of errors and wrong contributions, just because you accept any unsourced contribution, especially by approved vandalists, and most readers are not able to recognize them, or a dictionary with less content, less faster growing, but also with less potential errors. It is always a question about quality vs quantity. Always. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what RFV is for. Also, if there is a vandal, why did you not report the vandal on WT:VIP? —CodeCat 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, again. I do not "have the nerve" (can you say so in English?) to check every edit by a approved vandalist. I do not like to spend my precious time for highly potential wrong edits. As I said, it is a question of attitude (and time, management, and resources). IP was reported and approved on en:WP. Again a question of time/management. I do actually not really appreciate redundancy within the same system (WP). So in other words: If you like to keep these edits, please go ahead, I just tried to weed the weed with the potential, but acceptable drawback to remove also valid contributions. As I said it is a question of approach. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Babel

Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)