User talk:Koavf

User talk:Koavf Archives

Archives from 2005 to present
001 71 topics (2005-06-23/2022-03-30) 139 kb
Current discussion

Deletion of Latin verb forms

Hi Justin! Thanks for going through CAT:CSD; it was getting surprisingly full. Three entries I placed in there - sepele, savabar, aufugero - contained a deletion message requesting to delete all the other entries listed there. These are all bot-created non-lemma forms so there is no need to tag them individually. Could you please delete all these pages as well? Or, if not, restore the three pages I linked so another admin can take care of them. Thanks! This, that and the other (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I gotcha, boss. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf, This, that and the other How did aufugero get its deletion message? https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=aufuger shows 1 exact match and 13 conjugated matches attested across various authors. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, Daniel.z.tg: I undeleted it so it can be reviewed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Alright, I reviewed the page. The contents of that page are indeed nonsensical. Both aufugero and fugō exist, but it should be aufūgerō < ab- +‎ fugiō instead like fūgerō. The robot made a mistake in not knowing it's an iō-variant but I think it was acceptable to delete the if there was no desire to spend the effort to fix the robot-created junk.

As I found the correct lemma aufugiō, I will fix and rescue aufūgerō like another user did for https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aufugerat&diff=prev&oldid=49932756 . I will run WT:ACCEL on the non-lemma forms. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf You deleted aufugero before I got to start WT:ACCEL. I will now cancel my plans to do WT:ACCEL until consensus is reached. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Tell me when to delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete? Good thing I realized there is no consensus. I thought I fixed the contents of that page with my https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aufugero&diff=prev&oldid=73492253 edit. I will start a RFV for more input. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's not "bot junk", then sure, please do make an RfV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Italic#aufūgerō Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Auto-patrol

Hi. Are you aware of WT:WL for discussing these? Equinox ◑ 18:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: I'll post to there. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection request

Hello, can you please temporarily unprotect Module:usex/templates and Module:usex, since I need to edit them (asking as online admin). —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: Please make the edits in the next few minutes; I'm about to go to bed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: Actually, sorry, I need to get some rest now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you unprotect for an hour or so, so that it restores the protection after that time even if you aren't available? —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:sa-sc for Eastern Nagari

Please note that, at least for most words, {{sa-sc}} cannot detect whether an Eastern Nagari entry is in the Bengali or the Assamese script, and therefore |sc=Beng is not redundant. A case in point is অন্ধো#Sanskrit, which you recently and I think inadvertently changed from being described as a Bengali form to being described as an Assamese form! --RichardW57 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57:, why is অন্ধো the only entry in Category:sa-sc cleanup (redundant sc param)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ignorance and imperfect coding. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Neat. Can you fix it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava made an asymmetric fix this morning. It treats as-Beng as redundant (and therefore in need of attention), but does not object to Beng, because that is not automatically derived. This will confuse editors, and means my update to the documentation of the template needs to be reviewed. Perhaps Beng and as-Beng should be explicitly detected as not redundant. I've also discovered that the head line template was silently jumping to assumptions about which version of Eastern Nagari is being used, so the Bengali and Assamese script spelling always need different lemmas. --RichardW57 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hm, that leaves me unsure of the long-term solution, but thanks for updating. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I fear that the long-term solution has not been worked out. I would favour merging Bengali and Assamese-script entries where possible, as I do for Pali. This then raises the question of what to do for inflection tables, as -r- and -v- may appear in the inflections but not the citation forms. Automatically adding tabular footnotes would be one method. For Pali, I nowadays resort to different tables in such cases (alphabet v. abugida), but Pali differences can be extensive. For {{sa-sc}}, intelligent handling is more complicated, for it is currently just a template, but the intelligence would probably have to go in a module, and module use is bad news for long pages. I had hoped to involve @Svartava in discussion of the matter. In the medium term, I think I do need to make us the treatment of Beng and as-Beng more symmetric. The preference for Assamese is encoded by "as-Beng" preceding "Beng" in the list of Sanskrit's scripts in Module:languages/data2, and there's no protective comment. I think we need special logic for a tie in script detection, especially in the case of Sanskrit. If we don't hear, I intend to change {{sa-sc}} to accept 'Beng' and 'as-Beng' without flagging an anomaly. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If what is needed (short term) is intelligence, can you add a nocat option and add in nocat=yes to this entry? That would at least solve the problem of it being in that tracking category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

অন্ধো is already out of the tracking category. I think there's no hurry to change things - there are very few Eastern Nagari Sanskrit lemmas at the moment. There was an agreement to hold back on the mass production of Bengali script Sanskrit lemmas, not that I was party to it. Tomorrow night is soon enough. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava has now discontinued the tracking category. That leaves only the underlying problem of people forgetting to specify the Eastern Nagari variant in the head line. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57, Svartava: Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"mainland United States in the Americas"

The terminology "mainland United States in the Americas" [1] is unique and easily visually confused with "United States of America"; I would suggest that Wiktionary avoid this terminology. Further, it is not immediately evident that Alaska is part of the "mainland United States"; the usual grouping is "continental United States" referring to the 48 states. Very confusing wording. Changed here:[2] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a particularly easy and non-clunky way to refer to the Lower 48 and the District, but not the freak states and territories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The term lower 48 is used to cover the contiguous states of the USA and DC as well. I'd bet that continental US does include Alaska. DCDuring (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring Oh, you're right, I should have said 'contiguous United States'. Check this out: Continental United States. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to exclude lots of islands, like Manhattan, Staten Island, Block Island, Nantucket, the San Juan Islands, etc., by the silly qualification WP has. Terms like "mainland US" are not terms used to satisfy some narrow definition of mainland. A lot of contributors get hung up on whether the component terms are actually "properly" used in such expressions. Imprecision of that kind is so common as to be beneath notice. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Whitelist issue

By doing things out of order (i.e. whitelisting Inqilābī and Quercus solaris), you've created a situation where I'm not sure how to proceed. Somewhere along the way, the text got edited and I didn't realize they had already been whitelisted. @Equinox and I both voted against Quercus solaris for autopatroller; I'm not sure of his reasons, but I'm against their rambling usage notes and I'm troubled by an exchange at Talk:neuropathy (see history), and they've continued to write them after hearing our complaints. I'm not sure if this warrants removing their autopatroller status. Ultimateria (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: If you think he can be trusted to have his edits assumed to not be vandalism, then he could be autopatrolled and if not, then I support removing the right and giving an apology (i.e. I would give the apology, not anyone else). If the whitelist is a policy, then it should be listed as such, but the page is ambiguous about process and whether or not it's actually binding. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to consider them "on probation" and just keep an eye on their edits. I see what you mean about the whitelist; the text could be more explicit. I'll consider improving it. Ultimateria (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Didn't I already comment on this in April? See above on this same talk page. Yes, I think Quercus is causing significant unintentional damage: look at the history. Jesus. Equinox ◑ 01:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: You did not comment that in April. What is your point? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Er, consider it "commented" now then. Equinox ◑ 07:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. I was not aware of this discussion of me until now. I make a lot of unassailably good edits at Wiktionary; 95% of my edits around semantic relations and ontology components are unassailable, in the sense that they are both terse and indisputably directly relevant. As the exemplar of that class, I would point to the countless (short/sweet) syn-cot-hyper-hypo-derived-related edits, as well as the usage notes that I created at mesial § Usage notes, and diphosphate § Usage notes, and phytoncide § Usage notes, and idiocratic § Usage notes, and allergenic § Usage notes. Anyone who would think that those usage notes are counterproductive has a vision of lexicography and of language reference works (such as usage guides) that is probably unintentionally damaging to Wiktionary's purposes. (For example, anyone with such a vision could never work on AHD, which [quite usefully] provides plenty of more-than-one-line usage notes as editorial advice for writers and editors; and I suppose that a book like GMEU might simply cause their head to explode with its thousand-page length.) Regarding the 5% of my edits that others might consider miscalibrated (the exemplar here for that class is cast steel § Usage notes), I have recently developed a way to sequester that 5% (i.e., what I detect as possibly belonging to that 5%) so that they don't trigger whatever minority of people are triggered by them, that is, those people will be spared what is (apparently?) the feeling of great horror and affront that they feel upon seeing them. That new sequestering method is at User:Quercus_solaris#Valid_insights_but_sacrificed_to_terseness; it is still just a new brainstorming experiment at this point but seems promising. For the rest of you, as calibration in deciding just how horrible or loathesome you think I might be, just know (1) that the boundary-case 5% are outputs of the same analytical cognitive process that produces the main 95% class (e.g., aforementioned, mesial et al plus syn-cot-hyper-hypo etc); (2) that I work in gigs that put me into real-world-evidence contact with every single confusion, conflation, and semantic bumble (or cognitively adjacent one) that I try to address in my Wiktionary edits (yes, that's what causes me to even go to Wiktionary's entry for mesial in the first place), which means that anyone who thinks that "such a bumble is hypothetical and not realistic" merely shows that they don't and haven't worked in such gigs, or else just that they perhaps have but just weren't particularly good at them (I know such ones; I've had to spoonfeed them in my gigs); (3) that even the 5% class represents a class of analytic integrity that is inherently sound, notwithstanding that most people may not be able to see the soundness (in that connection, see User:Quercus_solaris/Converting_the_energy_of_light_to_an_electric_signal, which is directly relevant to it, although not everyone may be able to see the relevance). Lastly, I am not big into wiki bureaucracy and did not even remember what autopatrolling even is, and trying to look up that useful 101-level information at WT:Autopatrollers was fruitless because it isn't even explained there (good thing Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Autopatrolled is a vastly better piece of documentation that actually explains anything to non-initiates; but oh, I guess such actually-useful documentation is exactly what a few Wiktionarians most hate, so there we go). I have no problem with not being an autopatroller on Wiktionary as long as any new dictionary entries that I might create there are not unduly deleted or slashed. And so far in my Wiktionary editing experience, that problem hasn't arisen, which is good. Basically I think what happened is that (as I here duly admit and apologize) I too hastily responded too grouchily to a handful of times when User:Equinox objected to a specific edit/addition. The only reason I was so defensive is because I thought that the edit/addition was not misplaced and needed due defending, but I sometimes failed in achieving due diplomacy about it. As I proved recently, I am improving those aspects, as exemplified by both this recent collegial edit and by my sandbox development of the new sequestering method now beginning testing. I suspect that Equinox would portray me as some evil ogre (à la "Jesus", what a "horrifying" history I have, and so on), but I leave it to others to form their own independent judgments about how horrifying of a menace I might pose to Wiktionary's clutched pearls. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, there's no reason why your new entries would be deleted. Again, sorry for all this kerfuffle and thanks for your understanding. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I also just reencountered, and just had to point out here (because HIGHLY rleevant), a good example of the fact that whether my "boundary case" usage notes are good or bad certainly depends on the eye of which beholder is beholding them. The example is marked at User_talk:Quercus_solaris#Bringing_down_the_outhouse. Sadly, the very usage note that one Wiktionarian took the time to thank me for was later deleted by someone else who thought it stank. But that's barnyard calibration for you. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

PS: Regarding the guesstimated 95% to 5% split: Better data, per edit count stats for me, as of today: "Live edits 6,245 · (99.7%) / Deleted edits 21 · (0.3%)". How those stats could jibe with the notion that I am doing "significant" unintentional damage to Wiktionary ("Jesus") is inexplicable. Less than 1% is the norm, and no one has absolute zero. I realize that no one here cares. I'm just defending my editing record, on the record, for my own sake. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris In a thread about your tendency to excessive verbiage that was already fairly long, you've contributed 6,361 bytes compared to 2,277 for everyone else so far. Your 5,146-byte initial post alone more than quadrupled the volume. Being concise is hard. It requires deciding what to leave out- "killing one's children" as one writer described it. It's nonetheless very important- your writing accomplishes nothing if no one reads it. Walls of text are deadly, especially in a concise format like a dictionary. The strongest, best formulated and most watertight argument can be blown out of the water by 5 characters: tl;dr. For your own sake, not just Wiktionary's, you need to work on your pruning skills.Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR: This reply is more than one line long, but it's fine if none of the present conversants here reads it; I've written it for my own sake. Chuck is of course right about the nature of tl;dr. I do well know the nature of tl;dr, and as 99.7% of my Wiktionary edits show, I'm quite capable of pruning. Pruning is part of what I do for a living and I do quite fine with it there. And this new tool is an excellent example of my pruning skills, because with it, I've just developed a way to never annoy anyone like Equinox or Ultimateria ever again (because now with a whole new level of pruning), while also (a) still building and saving some interesting analyses nonetheless, (b) getting to the root of what our discrepancy was, and (c) devising a complete solution to it. It's fine if none of the present conversants here reads it; I've developed it for my own sake, and it is a success. But the other part of what I do for a living is detect the things in documents from other people that need to be changed before publication lest they be nitpicked/dinged by readers, and either (a) change it for them or (b) explain to them how (which way) to change it and why it needed changing. But you can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it, and that is why for part b I explore analyses that are deep enough that they take more than one line to express/explicate in words. The only reason the other person needed the edit (in the first place) is because they didn't know what they didn't know. I work out and capture such analyses not only for the person with the problem but also for any other audience that may ever explore the analysis, or even just need its results/upshot, even months or years later, even though the other person at the time usually couldn't digest the whole thing (because it was too long for them to read, and they didn't; but they needed its results/upshot, though, which I provided). The second audience, if they care too, can trace the correct output, and the entire problem, and its analysis, and its solutions, along with me (as they are reading it), or (if they don't read it, and yes, it is true, one can predict that they will not), they can nonetheless just ask me for its upshot and I can give it to them (having worked it out and captured it once), and all of this is a success, and is great for my own sake. It's especially great when I get asked the same question again later by another person (or the same person who couldn't remember the answer), and in that respect it is the polar opposite of inefficient, and of unnecessary, and of unuseful, and of misguided. My apologies to anyone else along the way who had to read more than one line (or more than 5 characters) because I couldn't do the whole chess game in my head even before the first and second moves like Magnus Carlsen would. I'm not that good, as I freely admit. But I'm good enough that I've blown some things out of the water in my time, even some things that other people couldn't see or didn't read. One thing I love about Wikipedia and Wiktionary is that the history is forever and is easily available for anyone who might ever someday care and have time for it, notwithstanding that most people at most times don't. This particular piece of it is a success, even though I am probably the sole person reading it today. If any of today's conversants here have read this far (unlikely), you probably won't be subjected to reading more than one line of my thoughts ever again, as tools such as this new one should obviate most occasions for that from now on. Which is great for your sake, and for mine. So again, good job, self. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Re User:Ilovemydoodle

Hello. Thanks for your e-mail. I have some annoying net issues around here until Monday, related to extreme weather/storms, and my ISP is killing me every 5 minutes, so I can't respond as quickly or often as I would like ("hallelujah!" - the rest of the editors). Anyway: I think "Ilovemydoodle" has been basically a net drag on the project, and I believe that fully blocking 'em at this point was justified. (Even Wikipedia has done this, and their standards are much more rigorous than ours. Not that I did it on that basis! WP is extremely different from us, as you must be aware.) I'm not sure what I can tell you beyond the talk pages and the user's (IMHO rather bad) edit history. But if there is a local admin consensus against me, then fine. It was good faith (or perhaps I should say self-defence), but I'm just one guy on a small project. Later, Equinox ◑ 09:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: Thanks kindly. I don't think there is a consensus otherwise. I'm frustrated by how this is playing out, but not because I think you were rogue or clearly inappropriate. Tricky. Stay safe and good luck with your net issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a synonym

Afro-brasileiro will stand for a generic way to say Afro-Brazilian. EG. Ritmo e culinária afro-brasileira ("Afro-Brazilian rhythm and cuisine"). On the other hand, "brasileiro negro" doesn't have that same meaning, it sounds more like: "black brazilian man/boy". It will be very very uncommon to hear something like "ritmo brasileiro negro" (black Brazilian rhythm). Jesielt (user talk) 23:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

the word negro, alone, would be a good synonym. you can say "ritmo negro" meaning "Afro-Brazilian rhythm" Jesielt (user talk) 23:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And what about the use at w:pt:Afro-brasileiros? Note that we only have an adjectival entry now, but it seems like this would be a perfectly appropriate noun form as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe it's a variation of the adjective used in European Portuguese... All I can say is that it sounds really weird in Brazilian Portuguese. I'll start a discussion on the wikipedia page. Jesielt (user talk) 00:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Good deal. I'm actually more accustomed to European Portuguese by personal experience, but my Portuguese is not great either way. Obrigado for the post. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

WF

Any particular reason why you keep blocking him? You're making it hard for me to keep up with his usernames. As far as I can see his recent contributions have been fruitful and positive; am I missing something? This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Blatant or confirmed sockpuppets created for the purpose of vandalism or block evasion." His main account is blocked (whichever one you even want to consider the main one--by default, I guess we consider that Wonderfool) and he's just creating other accounts to evade that block. Additionally, as "the block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary" and he always ends up resorting to harmful shenanigans, his sockpuppets should be blocked. How am I making it harder for you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

After a decade of WF being tolerated by broad community consensus and hundreds and thousands of good edits (along with a tiny percentage of bad ones), you've suddenly discovered that he's a block evader? How perspicacious of you! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I haven't. @Chuck Entz: which rules do and don't apply to him? It's helpful to know if I'm allowed to block him for deleting the main page again or not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're after a rule, how about: Leave him alone unless he is actively being stupid? It's not like the entire Wiktionary community isn't onto him or anything... This, that and the other (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

So you're recommending that I, as an administrator, ignore out blocking policy? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that you, as an administrator, should respect a decade of "broad community consensus", even if that runs counter to the way you read the policy. Sure, he wastes our time with BS at certain intervals, but no-one made it your job to start chasing his coat-tails around the wiki all the time. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question: should I ignore our blocking policy or not? Please explain to me how else to read the policy which says that you should be blocked for creating accounts for the purpose of vandalism or block evasion. If you think that I'm acting inappropriately, feel free to nominate me for being desysopped and make your case that one person should be allowed to do whatever he feels like while everyone else has to follow the rules that are basic to all WMF sites. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well if you want to fuss about the detail of policies etc, the part of WT:Blocking policy that you quote is not policy; it is "a non-binding explanation of the policy, and guidelines showing how the policy is usually applied" (emphasis mine). As for other WMF sites, Wiktionary is its own wiki and is allowed to follow its own customs and practices. As Chuck astutely observed, it is astounding that you, as an admin, were not aware of this local custom/practice until a few days ago. This, that and the other (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"the part of WT:Blocking policy that you quote" and yet, I quote two parts... I'm confused as to why you're posting here if you're not even paying attention to what I write. Also, your bad faith assumption is wrong. Please stop posting wrong things here, thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the part you quoted twice (the second time in part, without quotes): "Blatant or confirmed sockpuppets created for the purpose of vandalism or block evasion." It is merely a guideline.

Moreover, I'm disappointed to learn that you feel I am acting in bad faith. I am intending to act for the betterment of the project by ensuring a productive user is allowed to contribute in the unique, particular, and somewhat unorthodox way the community has seen fit to allow. Your actions this week have tended to suggest you were not aware of this local custom, which is what led me to my assumption. However, if you had been aware of it for some time, I apologise for the assumption otherwise.

I'd also add that I concur with what Chuck and Theknightwho have written below. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't act like you didn't come here with some rude "Oh you just found out about Wonderfool--what an ignorant jerk" attitude. That's offensive to us both. You could have been respectful when you posted here and you chose to not be. No one made you act like that. Even if you made that wrong assumption, there was no reason to have the tone you had and it's just silly to act like the only way you could have responded was the way you did. That said, I'm in favor blocking sockpuppeteers who manipulate multiple accounts to vandalize Wiktionary and I'm in favor of applying our blocking policy. You evidently disagree. If you think there should be a change to the policy, I propose you make a vote. If not, I don't see what there is to discuss. What are you trying to accomplish here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

What I have been trying to accomplish from the very outset is to suggest to you that appointing yourself as the project's WF police officer may not be in the project's best interests. You're not compelled to take up the anti-WF mantle - this was a choice by you (just as it was my choice to come post here to defend a sockpuppeteer), so I take it you consider this choice to be in the project's best interests. That's where we disagree. (I think we also disagree on the level of weight to be put on the project's blocking policy and its accompanying guidelines!) In any case, Chuck has written a better response than I ever could. Please consider what he has to say. This, that and the other (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think of my proposal? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the well-established status quo before you got involved, so I don't feel obliged to make proposals or votes. Anyway, in case anyone had forgotten, WF is more than capable of looking after himself. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What does that last sentence mean? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other "Wiktionary is its own wiki and is allowed to follow its own customs and practices." Considering that WF's account is globally locked, any admin on any wiki is completely justified in immediately blocking their sockpuppets, regardless of what the blocking policy on any given wiki says. Megathonic (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Still waiting for your answer: how do you propose we amend our blocking policy? "You can't use sockpuppets unless you really want to"? "It's okay to be a vandal and abuse multiple accounts if you only do it for a minority of your edits"? I'm happy to make a vote if you think that will help. Alternately, if you think the rules should stay the same, to whom do they not apply? Why is this one person allowed to do whatever he feels like? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should amend the rules to allow WF to "live". CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Which rules do you think he should be able to break? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism ones. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagreed. I would be happy to have him back on the project legitimately if he would just follow the process with his Wonderfool account. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

He does do legit work. He also does stupid edits so that he can get blocked and come back. We revert them quickly. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"I would be happy to have him back on the project legitimately if he would just follow the process with his Wonderfool account." I don't see why the rules don't apply to him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I do feel like you should inform him of this new development. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Already done: User talk:Wonderfool. It's also not a new development in as much as, this is just our blocking policy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, I personally was more able to keep track of all of the usernames because Wonderfool userpages where made into redirects to User:Wonderfool and I had a tool set up that specially colored redirect links (compare w:Help:Link color#Redirect and w:Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects). With that said, Koavf deleted it yesterday and others have deleted some of the various userpage redirects under each of the accounts (recent deletions by Koavf [3][4][5][6][7][8], by Fytcha last November [9][10][11][12][13], and others [14][15][16]). Personally I think these deletions are unnecessary and honestly make it harder for editors to easily know when they are looking at the edits of a Wonderfool sock. I would propose instead for the userpages for the sockpuppet accounts in general to be turned into redirects to WT:WF as soon as the account is identified or after a block if Wonderfool is trying to use the page for some other purpose. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to redirect all those user pages. If you want me to undelete any particular page, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf why did you delete User:Wonderfool? We don't delete blocked users' pages, even permablocked ones. If anything, that page makes it much easier to spot new Wonderfools accounts in any case. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I deleted it because it had been deleted by User:SemperBlotto and was recreated and used as a sandbox/toy for various Wonderfool sockpuppet accounts. His rationale for deleting per the log is just linking to Wiktionary:Sysop deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with the others on this thread. Wonderfool is one of the most prolific genuine contributors to Wiktionary, and is the biggest contributor of English audio files by quite some distance. The status quo might be strange, but on a pragmatic level it works.

Your suggestion of unblocking the WF account works in theory, but you’re forgetting that WF revels in his notoriety: if we unblock him, he’ll just try to get permablocked again. Theknightwho (talk) Theknightwho (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

So do you think that the rules don't apply to him then? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that we need to take a pragmatic approach to the situation, which is the most important thing here. Theknightwho (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry for the sarcasm of my first reply. Such responses are rarely helpful when emotions are involved- they raise the temperature just when things need to cool down. It looks to me like you hadn't really thought much about the current arrangement until WF did or said something that offended you, and that offense colored your reconsideration of it- nothing devious or hypocritical, but not entirely rational either.

As to the matter of hand: I've always viewed the situation with WF as a sort of work release: a conditional easing of specific rules for the benefit of all, contingent on good behavior. That means we don't block WF accounts for merely existing, but we do block and revert when WF does something against the rules. We're temporarily setting aside enforcement of the block-evasion part, but not any aspect of all the other rules.

When dealing with WF, it's important to avoid setting yourself up to play the part of the pompous, rigid authoritarian caricatures that you find in comedies like the Marx Brothers or Animal House, because he has trouble resisting the temptation to play against it. I think he also feels he has to say or do something outrageous every once in a while to keep his anti-conformist cred. If you're not confortable dealing with the subtleties involved, you're better off leaving such matters to others- just revert the obvious bad stuff, and block when it seems deliberate and blatant, but otherwise stay out of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that. And why does he personally get to ignore the rules? Do you think this approach should be project-wide or just particular to him? And, no, I did not start because he did something that offended me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think this whole lot of WF nonsense should come to an end...as you said perhaps he should go through the appeals process if he wants to edit again. Can someone explain what I'm missing here though? Like, I thought block settings could stop people from making new accounts after they get blocked, how is WF not stopped by the system? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It only applies to the last IP addressed used and only lasts for so long, so if someone creates multiple accounts over multiple IP addresses over multiple decades, then the software will not capture all of these hundreds of accounts. Additionally, there is some conservatism about using CheckUser tools to 1.) protect users' privacy and 2.) because some CheckUsers are not motivated to be proactive about stopping Wonderfool sockpuppets. The broader conservatism about CheckUser is common across the WMF projects and is expected for all persons with those elevated privileges. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf How about this other idea about WF. Instead of permanent bans, his bans can be limited to 24/48 hours. This has since a long time ago become the norm in the video game community. Permanently a heavily engaged player's account tends to cause them to make a new one right away and not remember the momentary frustration. Temporarily banning a player for just a day or two has a greater probability of having them wait out the ban and reflect. I do not support the lessening of consequences for one person and "tolerating" putting them above the rules or false consensus formed by WF being so persistent that most of the community has become too tired to deal with him. I just think this idea would be more effective. With the current policy of permanent bans, it is also very annoying reviewing his contributions as they are all scattered across a multitude of accounts necessitating checking of pages like WT:WF before even starting to piece things together. If notoriety is a concern, revision deletion can be used. Having his contributions in one account where we can see them would also save us the effort of detecting each WF account and figuring out the patterns that characterize them. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Daniel, everyone needs to follow the rules. Why should someone be rewarded specifically for breaking them? Wonderfool would be very much welcome to edit if he would just abide by using one account. He chooses to engage in shenanigans that waste everyone's time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I support blocking WF any and every time a new sockpuppet of theirs is discovered. On the spot. I also contest that there's "consensus" for WF to continue with their sockpuppetry: Anyone who disagrees with that assessment is welcome to create a vote on rescinding their permablock. If WF wants to edit again without being continuously blocked, they can go through the appeals process like every other user. Nobody should be getting special treatment, regardless of how many positive edits they contribute. Megathonic (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I get exhausted by special pleading and it's nice to see someone trying to hold others to the same standard without being an authoritarian. It's really not too much to ask. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• A genuine question from Wonderfool: what exactly is the appeals process, and how would one go through it? Pcawdp (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is the only topic where I'll interact with your sockpuppets and I'm glad you've asked. The typical method for asking for a global unlock would be via m:Steward requests/Global, but since your account is SUL blocked, please see https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/. I would 100% support you editing again with a single account, as you have many constructive edits here apart from your sockpuppet shenanigans. If you're sincere about wanting to be a constructive member of the community and will abide by local and global rules and need some help, feel free to email me. Assuming good faith here, I'm glad that you asked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wonderfool again. Sorry for the changing usernames. I'm not actually looking for a global unlock, as the other projects don't care about me (If I did actually ask for a global unblock, there's no way it would be supported, anyway). It's just you who blocks, and I completely understand why you do so, too. I guess this deadlock can be only be solved with a range block, which I'd also fully support Crockacrits (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please go thru the process. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Is there such a thing as a local unblock? cf (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think so, as it's an SUL issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  If WF makes a serious, genuine attempt to have their account globally unlocked, but it gets rejected and they exhaust all appeal routes, there could be a discussion opened on whether we'd tolerate WF creating a single, designated account from which to edit, and they would not be blocked provided they only edited from this account and abided by all the rules. This would be technically outside of policy, but it could be a workaround as long as people are in very clear agreement. I don't know what the atmosphere on this would be. If the discussion looks promising, consensus on this matter would ultimately need to be established by a formal vote; I don't think anything less would suffice. This is all hypothetical and I don't know whether it's feasible. Just throwing an idea out.

  But if WF isn't going to make a good-faith attempt at going through the global unlock process, then I'm not interested. Nor am I interested if they're just going to edit again until they get bored and inevitably vandalize like they've done countless times before. Megathonic (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf If I'm completely honest, I don't see what all of this is achieving. It's very clearly not working, and I don't even see much consensus for continuing to rigidly block WF like this, given that several people have advised you not to do it. It's all very well to say that we should apply the rules rigidly, but you haven't even tried to address the concerns that others have raised: you've only shot back with leading questions. Theknightwho (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  What do you propose I do differently? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf It would be good for you to address the pragmatic concerns that others have raised on this thread. So far, you've just asked why we think WF should be exempt, which (a) is a leading question, and (b) doesn't actually address what we've said. Theknightwho (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have asked questions that others just ignore. What do you want me to say? Be explicit instead of vague. If you have an actual proposal, I'm willing to entertain it. In fact, I think I'm already doing what you've asked me to do and you're not paying attention. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf If I read over the thread above, I see a repeated pattern of you evading legitimate concerns raised by others on this thread, which (to me) is concerning because in some cases they point out that the outcome of your actions here has a not-unreasonable chance of making the situation worse:

  1. I'm saying that you, as an administrator, should respect a decade of "broad community consensus", even if that runs counter to the way you read the policy.

     Your response: That doesn't answer my question: should I ignore our blocking policy or not?

  2. What I have been trying to accomplish from the very outset is to suggest to you that appointing yourself as the project's WF police officer may not be in the project's best interests.

     Your response: And what do you think of my proposal?

  3. Your suggestion of unblocking the WF account works in theory, but you’re forgetting that WF revels in his notoriety: if we unblock him, he’ll just try to get permablocked again.

     Your response: So do you think that the rules don't apply to him then?

  4. How about this other idea about WF. Instead of permanent bans, his bans can be limited to 24/48 hours.

     Your response: Daniel, everyone needs to follow the rules. Why should someone be rewarded specifically for breaking them?

  That's only a selection, but I find it pretty unfair that you keep asking a question which implies others are playing favourites, especially when they have already answered it by saying that we need to apply the rules selectively to WF for pragmatic reasons: it's the worst kind of leading question. Ultimately, what's important here is that we get the best outcome for Wiktionary, and that may seem unfair to you, but you also need to read the room and see that consensus may not be entirely on your side here. At the very least you need to stop being so aggressive about it without broad support, which you don't have at the moment. Theknightwho (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think right now there's "no consensus", as opposed to consensus for either blocking or allowing WF. Given the very, very limited number of people who visit talk pages, the discussion here cannot be taken as representative of Wiktionary as a whole. Megathonic (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Megathonic I agree, which means that militantly banning him on sight is not a good approach right now. I have no issue banning a WF account if he does something WF-ish. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Using sockpuppets is WF-ish. You're coming in here now to justify this behavior after Wonderfool evidently seems to want to abide by our policies. Why? Read the room. As soon as Wonderfool asks how to follow the rules you decide to chime in to say, "It's actually totally cool to not abide by them". What??? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sure.

  1. This is an example of what I just wrote: not answering a question I asked. If there is "broad community consensus", then it should be memorialized: I'm not interpreting the policy, it's very explicit that you are not to use multiple accounts. If the community decides "We will overrule global policy and allow one user to have multiple accounts", then that's a conversation to have I suppose. What you call some kind of consensus could just as easily be others abrogating their responsibility. Note that Wonderfool has had 700 or so sockpuppets and I have not blocked most of them.
  2. Again, you not answer my question. I was chosen to be an admin because others trusted my judgement. If you don't, then you are free to propose that I be desysopped for blocking sockpuppets.
  3. And again: not answering my question. This is no different then any other appeasement. Why should we appease?
  4. How is this even a serious proposal? Per the point you just made, blocking any one account for 24 hours would just lead to him making/using other ones. In what sense is that a solution to anything?

  "I find it pretty unfair that you keep asking a question which implies others are playing favourites": but you are! Is anyone else exempt from the rules? Do you concede that the use of sockpuppets is in contravention of our blocking policy?

  "that may seem unfair to you, but you also need to read the room and see that consensus may not be entirely on your side here" lol, you need to. By definition, most persons are not going to complain about something that they find acceptable. There is a small minority making special pleading here, not a majority. Again, I sincerely don't understand how you think this is a serious statement.

  "you need to stop being so aggressive about it without broad support, which you don't have at the moment." Read our blocking policy. Do you concede that the use of sockpuppets is in contravention of our blocking policy? (These are genuine questions you are ignoring, by the way.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf Why did you respond by asking the same leading question again, when I explicitly explained already how it was both evasive and disrespectful? Nothing you just wrote actually addressed the concerns raised at all. Also, are you seriously claiming that we'd have to desysop you to stop you acting unilaterally? Are you for real? Theknightwho (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because I think you're wrong. You also just conveniently ignored all of my concerns. In the past few comments you have written both: "there's a consensus to do [x], read the room" and "agreed, there's no consensus that can be found in principle on an obscure user talk page". Which one is it??? "Also, are you seriously claiming that we'd have to desysop you to stop you acting unilaterally? Are you for real?" By definition, all admins act "unilaterally". I am applying our policy as written (again, you just ignored the question but I'll ask a third time: "Do you concede that the use of sockpuppets is in contravention of our blocking policy?"). I am calling your BS because you know for a fact that asking the community "Should this admin be allowed to block sockpuppets: yes or no?" will have a very straightforward answer. What you are relying on is admins knowing that Wonderfool is using multiple accounts, abrogating their responsibility to apply the rules that the community has decided on ("Do you concede that the use of sockpuppets is in contravention of our blocking policy?"), and get the benefits of Wonderfool's constructive edits. If you want to have a conversation here, don't just ignore all of my concerns and post other hand-wave-y responses that don't answer my very simple questions. If you're going to do that, just don't post here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Should I ask this on BP, with "this admin" replaced by Koavf, and "sockpuppets" replaced by Wonderfool? cf (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  If this conversation is to be continued, the next step should be to move it to the BP. However, I would replace "this admin" with a generic "admins" (so it applies equally to all admins). It would not surprise me if it eventually ended up as a vote as to what exactly should be done. In any case, there is nothing more that can be reasonably accomplished on this talk page. Megathonic (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. I highly recommend that anyone's who's posted in here post to the thread here. cf (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you actually want consensus about this: post on a centralized place to discuss it. Otherwise, you're just not being serious about this talk of "reading the room". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf Thinking someone is wrong is not the same as avoiding their questions and concerns. Obviously I know that block-evasion is in contravention of our blocking policy, and you already knew that I know that. As I have already pointed out, one of the things that makes your repeated leading questions so rude is the fact that you're doing it despite having already been given an answer to it, because you know very well that the people you've been responding to think we shouldn't be rigidly applying it to WF, but you're choosing to intentionally misconstrue why they're doing it. That's not calling anyone out on their BS - it's just obnoxious.

  Now that you've got an answer to your question, try addressing mine (which you still haven't done, despite you quite literally asking me what I wanted you to do). Theknightwho (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  "the people you've been responding to think we shouldn't be rigidly applying it to WF" AND I AM ASKING YOU WHY NOT. What you call a "leading question" is just me trying to figure out why you think the way you do. If you can't see past the tone or whatever hurts your sensibilities, I can't help you: I've had plenty of patience with what seems quite obvious to me to be special pleading. You disagree? Fine. Take it to a centralized place to get feedback and make a vote to amend our policies. See how that goes. The fact that you don't do that is telling: you know that the community does not actually think that one user is allowed to do whatever he pleases and we should all turn a blind eye. Again, in classic room-reading blindness, you are bringing up this dead horse immediately after Wonderfool evidently wants to follow the rules thereby emboldening him to break them. Thanks, I guess.

  "[T]ry addressing mine (which you still haven't done, despite you quite literally asking me what I wanted you to do)" Which questions? I looked back over the comments you've just made and there is no question that I did not answer. Is there one up above I didn't answer? Because I make it a point to answer the questions asked of me, especially if someone wants to understand my use of the admin tools. Look at all of your edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Only 6 and 8 have questions and I answered them. Say what you will about how you think I just brush off your posts: I don't. If you ask a question, I will answer it. So what questions are outstanding? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf I've given you several reasons already why not, and you've just repeatedly demanded an answer to a question you already knew the answer to, and now you're just trying to accuse me of being a hypocrite. This whole thing has been a massive waste of time, because you don't seem to be willing to to use a shred of empathy. I give up. Theknightwho (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  You wrote:"Now that you've got an answer to your question, try addressing mine"

  So I wrote: "So what questions are outstanding?"

  You can act faux outraged that I'm being a crazy person when I'm literally soliciting from you: "What do you want me to address?", but it's very pathetic and it comes after I just told you that if you're going to post evasive non-answers, then don't post at all. Blocked from my talk page for a month. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of the blocking policy: where does it address using blocks to keep admins who say things you don't like from posting on your talk page? I'd be interested to hear your explanation, since you claim to be championing strict adherence to that policy. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Causing our editors distress by directly insulting them or by being continually impolite towards them... Behavior which is counter to policy, productivity or community", and "to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary". This user repeatedly played mind games and only came here to post after the conversation turned toward something genuinely constructive (continually impolite), is only wasting my time with off-topic noise that doesn't answer questions and just raises petty grievances about tone (not productive), and emboldened Wonderfool by sowing this needless discord in public after Wonderfool expressed an interest in actually following our policy (!) (hindering the progress of the English Wiktionary). I'm happy to lift the block if you think I should or reduce it to 24 hours. And the "things you don't like" jab is bad faith: I told him to stop doing it or not post here. He kept on doing it. That was his choice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm actually surprised even reading this thread. While I normally edit other wikis, I happened to come across this by observing a minor incident at enWiki. Sockpuppetry is a blatant abuse of normal processes. Any known sockpuppet should be blocked immediately. In addition, Koavf, instead of having these sorts of discussions, it is best to quote and explain policy and then end the discussion. Sockpuppetry is simply not allowed; no discussion about the legitimacy of blocking sockpuppets is necessary. If Wonderfool wants to request an unblock, they're welcome to do that, but sockpuppetry is simply not allowed. Nythar (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Note also that this user is globally blocked. It's sad that this conversation is happening immediately after an apparent legitimate request to learn how to be unblocked. And then this happens. Preposterous. You may want to see this thread: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2023/July#Should_admins_block_Wonderfool_as_soon_as_they_know_it's_Wonderfool?. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf Can you at least admit that your view is in the minority here? Carrying on as before while ignoring the thread on the Beer Parlour is a bad look. Theknightwho (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Theknightwho They aren't ignoring the thread; they're choosing not to do what Dan P. did: hounding every person with a dissenting opinion and arguing until they're blue in the face. I'm seeing no consensus on the BP thread. Several are against blocking on sight, several are for it, and several have not taken either side. If you think there's consensus for allowing WF to keep editing like a normal user, then create a vote for unblocking them and implementing @Benwing2's proposal. Until then, I don't see a problem with Koavf carrying on. Megathonic (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Megathonic Oh come off it - you and Koavf are the only two in support of being this militant about it, and I really don't appreciate you trying to twist the facts like that. There's also the fact that Koavf's behaved pretty reprehensibly in response to other admins, and despite his bullshitting the other day where he tried to pretend those opposed to him were an extreme minority, I am far from the only person who has taken a dim view. Even if you think he's right for being so single-minded about this, you cannot seriously think he's been going about this in the right way. It's not like it's the first time he's behaved like this, either - cf. the 2 year block from Wikipedia. Theknightwho (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  lol, irrelevant. Get this noise off my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  How is this irrelevant? It's about your actions in regards to the banning of WF. In the BP thread, there are only 4 people who agree with you. The rest disagree with the action mentioned in the title, or are unsure. cf (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  How is it irrelevant? How is it relevant? Was I banned on en.wp because I abused mod tools to block sockpuppets? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest, I did not read that last part of the sentence. I have no clue what "the 2 year block" refers to, and I would like some clarification, TKW. cf (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I was blocked on en.wp for edit-warring over an article that had no sources. Feel free to check the log or ask any questions you have. Either way, totally irrelevant noise from a user who is here to agitate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @CitationsFreak Koavf is being outright dishonest there: here is the thread which explains that it was actually because he has a long-term habit of battleground behaviour, refusing to back down, and generally behaving like a bully towards other editors. You know, precisely what he's been doing in this thread. Theknightwho (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, @TKW! (TBH, I thought you were saying that Koavf's actions were an edit war, but with blocking, a "block war", so to speak.) cf (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not being dishonest. If you post another personal attack or invective here, I'll block you from my talk again and call a desysop vote. You know that this kind of behavior is directly opposed to our blocking policy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  No. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf So you're going to continue to ban a user despite having no consensus to do so, and despite being asked not to? I'm starting to think we need to have a vote about your tenure as admin. It's very clear that you don't give a shit about consensus. Theknightwho (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  lol. Says the guy who thinks he can personally override global banslocks from the WMF. Yes, please do escalate it and see what happens. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf Wonderfool is under a global lock, not a global ban, and is not listed at meta:List of globally banned users. Stop pretending that you have any kind of mandate for what you're doing. [Edit: that page even confirms that globally locked users aren't banned!]

  As @This, that and the other already pointed out, you seem to have a poor understanding of policy, and don't seem willing to accept that there are valid interpetations other than your own. Theknightwho (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Go away. I've told you so many times and you still just don't get it. You don't seem to understand our blocking policy which explicitly states that sockpuppets are disallowed. Why are you even an admin? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Our official policy only says that "The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary. It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed." The thing about the sockpuppets are in the guidelines, which are not "hard and fast rules". cf (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  And if a user was in fact indefinitely blocked for causing substantial harm and other methods to stop that person are not likely to succeed, it's cool if he just makes another account to evade that block? "Blatant or confirmed sockpuppets created for the purpose of vandalism or block evasion." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf How is that relevant when this user isn't doing things that are causing substantial harm? You seem to think the only thing that matters here is policy, but you're in the minority with that view, because what really matters is consensus.

  Do you concede that community consensus at English Wiktionary is the only thing needed to unblock WF? Because you justified your shitty attitude towards everyone else by appealing to a global ban which doesn't actually exist. Theknightwho (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  No. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  WF's made probably hundreds of accounts to evade various blocks. I would also like to point out that we usually revert it in the span of a few minutes, and sometimes WF even asks for one. cf (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf What I find particularly disgraceful here is that you keep continually saying crap like "why are you even an admin?" as though I'm some lone idiot, but you're the one with the minority opinion here and you keep revealing yourself to be misinformed over policy anyway! All of this crap you're coming up with is just an excuse to avoid backing down because you've become really personally invested in this, and it's obvious to anyone who reads this thread. Please, just have some dignity and stop. Theknightwho (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  GO AWAY. No one wants you here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Because I was pinged I will add my two cents. Personally I have not taken a side on whether WF needs to continue to be blocked, but I think if he is to be allowed to edit it should be done formally, hence my proposal. I understand that laws and policies are there to serve people, not the other way around, but IMO it's not a good look to make up what are essentially gentleman's rules that allow a policy to be ignored for particular people. And as for this discussion, IMO all of you need to cool it a bit and take it back to the BP, so the discussion remains centralized. Benwing2 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 The problem is that Koavf simply disengages and does what he wants anyway as soon as the discussion goes against him, which is something he has done for a very long time. While I completely understand (and agree) that we should have clarity over the WF situation, it is unacceptable for an admin to keep using the tools like this while there is sizeable opposition to him doing so. Theknightwho (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am officially and formally asking you to not use any admin tools at all without prior approval and consensus for every action you take, even if it is literally what our policies state. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf What do you think bad faith false analogies are going to achieve here? Is it some kind of ego thing for you? Have you had some kind of sudden memory loss regarding everyone else who's said you're taking the wrong approach? Theknightwho (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

One more attack and it's block and desysop vote. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Do what you like, but crybullying is unlikely to get you anywhere. Theknightwho (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

What part of cooling off do y’all not understand. Please don’t reply to me like you did to Benwing. The conversation went nowhere, and this is not a good look on either of y’all (TKW, you’re devolving into targeted personal attacks that you’re criticizing Justin for, and you yourself have had a history of this as well). The Beer Parlour discussion still does not have a clear consensus either way. Goddamn there’s so much energy being put into this user. He has so much power over this website it’s insane. AG202 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that it is sad that we're wasting all this time and he's either 1.) a troll who's rofling at all of this or 2.) a person who may listen to reason and sees all this crazy chaos (unlikely, but hope springs eternal). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to send another unsolicited comment your way, but it's worth noting that this isn't an isolated incident. TKW has continued directing personal attacks against me after being reminded that there's an interaction ban in force between us. There seems to be a troubling form of gamemanship going on here, whereby TKW alleges "crybullying," "manipulation," etc. when confronted over legitimate concerns, but actively disregards other users' attempts at de-escalation or setting boundaries. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Send away. I genuinely dislike any personality-based sniping and these endless rounds of garbage comments, but I will not stand idly by while admins act inappropriately and my personal rule is to not escalate. So if someone comes to me respectfully, I try to be respectful. If that person turns sour and surly, I will match that energy, if not always to the extreme of the other person. So I do agree that I've seen his behavior be inappropriate and ridiculous multiple times and this pattern seems to be the case whenever he's confronted with facts he doesn't like or questions he'd prefer to not answer, etc. A month ago, I had no opinion about the guy, but now I know that I have to have a particular mindset in any conversation with him, unfortunately. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who launched the second desyop vote. I won't deny that I didn't handle my initial conflict with TKW (documented in the nomination) with grace or perfect civility. But how I personally handled the situation should have no bearing on whether it was appropriate for TKW threaten to use admin tools in a dispute in which they were directly involved. This seemed a pretty unambiguous abuse of power to me and I'd hoped others viewing the "Admin shenanigans" thread would treat it as such. But the initial response to that thread was so hostile and distressing that I wanted to quit the project rather than following through with launching the second desysop vote. It was only when I learned that TKW had threatened/implemented retaliatory blocks against other users (User:Huhu9001 and User:LlywelynII) that I was motivated to stick my head above the parapet. It's telling that everyone who's sought to hold TKW to account thus far has done so independently in response to unrelated incidents. It's almost as if TKW's pattern of personalizing disputes and misusing admin privileges has independently earned the umbrage of several users. 🤷‍♀️ That certainly hasn't stopped TKW's supporters from making insinuations of shady collusion. I've been accused of such for doing something as simple as informing relevant parties that I've mentioned them in highly-visibly community-wide discussions.[17][18] I find it curious that it seems to be the same group of users showing up to defend TKW the most vociferously every time. I'll hold off drawing any more concrete inferences. The one thing that's clear is that bullies don't like it when their targets start organizing and pushing back. I use the term bully without hesitation now. I didn't contribute to Wiktionary for two months partially due to TKW threatening a retaliatory block against me in April. When I stated this on the BP, TKW's response was to not only blatantly ignore the interaction ban, but to mock me for having been driven off by them. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What a charmed life if that is some of "the most vindictive and nasty behaviour that [he has] ever had the misfortune to witness". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm making my exit, sadly. Problematic admins are one thing, but I just discovered there is a problematic bureaucrat, too. That's a higher order of stress, frankly, and I'm not up to trying to work under it. Could I ask you to lock my talk page so that no one (including me) can edit it? Thanks. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I can only protect it to the point that only admins can edit, but I have done that. Sorry to see you go. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The bureaucrat role should ideally be time-limited. It was when I served as a bureaucrat on a non-WMF wiki. Someone who treats users the way I was treated in the BP thread is not fit for such a high level of authority. But I don't trust Wiktionary to police itself given all the dust being kicked up at the prospect of banning a long-term troll with hundreds of socks. (Something I was somewhat agnostic on until the stakes moved from passively allowing lax enforcement to actively encouraging non-enforcement). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sad to see you go WordyAndNerdy... You'll be missed. For the record, I would support a third desysop vote for TWK (though I think you were a bit provocative with your own comments). I wish you well and hope you'll be back in a couple years or so, when the community has changed a little bit. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy I guess you aren't going to read this, but I recall you saying that you keep a list of words to add even when you're on wikibreak. If you don't want to be part of the community anymore, maybe you could dump them on Wiktionary:Requested entries (English) every once in a while. Give me a ping and I'll see about getting around to them. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks again for the kind thoughts. I see now that one of the words on my to-do list (delulu) has already been created. I'd even gathered some cites for it. Could I ask someone to restore Wish.com to a noun labelled "often attributive?" This is a tricky one to POS-ify, but attributive noun seems like the best fit, given the evidence of how it's used. I guess TKW missed the two unambiguous noun uses on the citations page. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy – TKW is making trouble at Wish.com again. To the point of defacing the citations page to remove valid citations because they don't like that they show the term being used as a figurative/idiomatic noun, and thus don't support the adjective designation that TKW wants to unilaterally impose. Koavf, sorry for dumping this on your talk page again, but the TKW-specific page protection is the only thing that makes me comfortable commenting here. Anyway, that's it for my weekly check-in. I had a hunch someone would try to covertly edit war by waiting a couple of weeks. I was right. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

TKW has now misused their admin privileges to protect the Wish.com entry to ensure their preferred version (adjective) "wins." Would an uninvolved admin please restore the previous version (noun) until 1) TKW opens a Tea Room thread proposing changing the POS to adjective and 2) obtains consensus supporting said change. I'm rather agnostic re: the POS. I think the cites support the "noun" designation. I went with "noun" because someone in the Grease Pit discussion proposed a non-gloss definition. And non-gloss definitions tend to work better for nouns than adjectives because of the way English works. "Noun" is more in keeping with the more cautious/conservative approach the Grease Pit thread seemed to favour. If someone added an adjective sense to Twitter, Facebook, etc. backed up with cites such as "Twitter discourse" or "Facebook culture," many would object that those represent attributive noun usages rather than true adjectival usages. But I get that POS questions can be complicated and somewhat subjective. I scratched my head when someone switched old man yells at cloud from "noun" to "phrase," but I didn't kick up dust over it. It's the principle of thing thing, for me. If TKW wants the change, they need ought to go through the process of establishing consensus, instead of trying to unilaterally impose it by fiat. I'm sick of Wiktionary because it keeps letting TKW get away with this crap. Feel free to link this comment in the Tea Room thread, but I won't be participating, sadly. I've had my fill of TKW's bullying. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the page was protected by Fenakhay. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed after the fact. Makes little difference to my feelings regarding this situation. I'm tired, and checking out again. This has removed any stubborn desire I had to return. Thanks again for fighting the good fight. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no Tea Room thread as of yet and so the Wish.com entry needs to be restored to "noun" until there's an actual Tea Room thread and sufficient consensus. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Made simultaneous to this: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2023/August#Wish.com —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Here is the Grease Pit discussion if anyone wants to add a link. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Queen of Troubled Teens

Hello! This account is sock-puppet of WF and blocked for 1 month. Could you change the block to indefinite please? Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Merci. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Audir8r

Hello, I'm not sure if this account is WF, could you see it please? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it based on deleted contributions. Thanks for your work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

From 2006? Does it matter? VBuggyM (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes and yes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

Have you divulged information on the content of revisions you have hidden within the past week? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Surjection: I found them before they were removed. Why would I ask an admin for the contents of a random deleted revision? OvskMendov1 (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No. I have not and would not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Banned user is reverting edits

Hello. I would rather bring this to e-mails or other private communication form, if I knew how. Theknightwho, a user you banned and whose ban has not expired yet, still was somehow able to undo an edit I had done. My edit was to remove what to me looks like obvious vandalization of the linked Wiktionary article (etymology which is not etymology but at very best an example of slang use, and which seems more fitting Urban Dictionary than Wiktionary). I'm just an user who likes to make minor edits on Wikipedia when I notice typos or abuses, when I randomly stumble upon them, and I'm not sure of how I should proceed in this case (honestly I would rather leave the matter in the hands of an Admin like you). --Exhululath (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you need to email me, there is an email form on the left side of this page: it leads to Special:EmailUser/Koavf. Theknightwho is only banned from this talk page, so he is free to edit elsewhere. If you two have a dispute, the recommended way of resolving it is by talking directly and not reverting back and forth. Have you two discussed this and addressed why he is reverting you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Not yet, but I will now. That was what I was going to do when I noticed the ban on top of their talk page, which I misunderstood. Thank you (also for your welcome). Exhululath (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Note also that as Theknightwho is an admin, he has been entrusted to understand our policies and be able to fairly and accurately communicate with users in a civil way. I'm sure that you will find that to be the case with him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Request on behalf of the community

I think it's fairly clear by now that your discussion with Theknightwho is not coming to a resolution, regardless of who is at fault. If you'll allow me to be so bold, may I ask that you refrain from replying to TKW for a week, to give time for things to cool off? I have made the same request on their talk page. I think it will be better for everyone if we take a step back from all the drama in the Beer Parlour and elsewhere for the time being and maybe come back to it in a different way later, if necessary. I've made this request to both of you, but it will only take one of you to put a stop to the back-and-forth. Thanks a bunch. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Andrew. Thanks for intervening. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Let's hope this new vote puts the whole WF issue to rest one way or another, rather than devolving into another Wiktionary brawl. :P Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have good judgement and are interested in mediating conflict. Would you have any interest in being an admin here? I would happily nominate you if I thought that you would accept, based on what I have seen recently (tho I admit that I haven't done a deep dive on your activities here). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I would be willing if I had a bit more time, but I consider myself more of an active user than an active editor. I primarily edit in the course of looking words up. In the last few years, my involvement in discussions tends to be more significant than one might expect from my actual contributions and mainly stems from my keen interest in Wiktionary from a user perspective. Perhaps one day, when I'm no longer a university student, I'll have more time to invest in editing, but for now, I probably wouldn't be much good as an admin. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

wonderfool police wee woo wee woo

Special:Contributions/90.166.56.201 is this Wonderfool? The IP geolocates to Asturias, Spain and we know WF is big on Asturian. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Good eye. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

the account "6letter acronym" was created right when one of WF accounts were banned, and immediately jumped into a discussion WF was in before being banned. I'm like 90% it's WF. Though the account hasn't done anything except talk to Ben, not sure if that matters. سَمِیر | sameer (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

شكرامرسی, friend. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

predat?

Just noticed the hidden comment you added about considering predat? in the Appendix:English verbs with Latin prefixes, but I'm not sure what you meant by it. The pre in predate (as in predation) isn't a prefix, and pre-date and redate seem to be the only ones off datus but that's a participle. –Vuccala (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Thanks for correcting me. It can be safely deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. –Vuccala (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Questions about links

Hello! I have a quick question. How do I put links from another sites on my user page? I was trying to justify a correction I made with links (working kind of as "further reading") but they got blocked by the spam filter. Thank you in advance! Jão das Couves (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It will just take time for your restrictions to go away automatically. This is a feature to stop spam, but it sometimes captures good users, too. The literal method is to do something like this: "[https://example.example/ This is my link]". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Reutilizing this topic as I don't want to turn your talk page into a mess.

I have a question. The pronunciation of the entry mannãa has a . followed by a '. I'm not an IPA expert, but all the other pages I've checked so far either use ' or . (I think ' for stressed syllables and . for normal syllables). I was thinking about using the discussion of that entry, but usually nobody checks those so I thought I should ask here instead.

Amanyn (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It's alright. Merry Christmas! Amanyn (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf I also reuse this topic because it fits well. I saw this morning that every entry page of the sanskrit wikipedia has facebook f and twitter t link. looks like somebody kidnapped the main template for entries there. for me that looks like spam or worse. Am I right?

look for example at this page: https://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%99%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%BE

But you can take any entry / user talk page to see the mess there ...

Because you are part of the patrol admin team I ask you for help here. Undekagon30 (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Undekagon30: Hello and namaste, friend (excuse me if even writing "namaste" is cringy). Unfortunately, I don't know any Sanskrit, but I can tell for sure why these links are appearing at sa.wp: if you look at w:sa:मीडियाविकि:Gadget-ShortUrl.js, this is the page that is causing these Facebook and Twitter share buttons to appear on every page. I don't know why you're just seeing it now, as this code has been there since 2017, but if you think it should be removed, you can start a discussion about that on that wiki and if you just don't want to see it, I can probably help come up with some CSS that will at least keep it from displaying for you. Let me know how I can help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay and thanks my friend, my Sanskrit is as good as yours (more or less non existent). I can read the script (Devanagari) and I have a browser plugin which I use extensively to read pages (no I don't like google translate to directly translate the whole page for me). I wasn't aware that this header existed for so long, thanks for pointing me to the template to see where it is coming from. I got a welcome message on the Sanskrit wikipedia today on my user talk page, that is why I ended up being there today. I found the links a bit strange and suspicious and wanted to confirm that this is not a kind of attack or page tracking mechanism of any kind ...

I can also not start a discussion in Sanskrit about it, but thanks for your answer and advice in this regard

und Auf Wiedersehen bis zum nächsten Mal Undekagon30 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Danke und vorsprung durch Wiki! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Babel

Just asking, since you edited my user page, where can one find the help for the babel template codes on wiktionary? Garethphua (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

mw:Extension:Babel is a little technical and m:User language is a little lighter but easier to read. If you have any more questions, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)