Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2010-02/User:Atitarev for admin

Thank you

Thank you to all who voted for me and maybe is going to vote against me. Here is your chance to talk to me about me. Why did you vote for me or against me. How can I get better? --Anatoli 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't trouble me enough to oppose or (formally) abstain, but I wonder - why can't you do things like this within a single edit? Привет, Thrissel 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do when I can. Of course, there is no reason to add one and save. I normally try to add translations in one go. Sometimes the assisted method is unstable if it takes me too long to translate (I had it when I have to do it again because of "fail to save" error"). Besides, I have to do some manual work - nested translations for Chinese/Mandarin, remove older translations or unwikified translations. If you are talking about the translation for to begin or flour, I had to use a few dictionaries before I was satisfied. --Anatoli 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but consider e.g. your "flour" edits. In 1st you add a Russian (and other languages') translations by assisted, in 2nd remove the presumably wrong spelling manually, in 3rd do more manual editing, in 4th just re-balance the columns, which would Tbot do anyway, in 5th add more translations so you have to re-balance again, in 6th add another translation for a language you just added one for, in 7th add another Russian translation, in 8th yet one more, and in 9th add "(2)" behind the two latest rather than splitting the table in two for the two definitions. All this within 6 minutes, which doesn't look " too long" to me. (And I see the "failed to save" message myself every now and then, but 99 times out of 100 simply pushing the browser's Back button then the Save button again works). I admire your work as a contributor, but I'm afraid I'd expect a wee bit more from an admin. --Thrissel 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it better to do these things in one edit than across several edits? It's not like he left the entry in a bad state between edits. —Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it makes the entry's history and every watchlist where the entry appears unnecessarily long - that's at least the way I see it. --Thrissel 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Anatoli, it would be nice if you added translations in single edits. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to see things whichever way you want to, but statements things like "I'd expect a wee bit more from an admin" make it sound like you think that your viewpoint is objectively correct, or at least that it reflects community consensus. As far as I'm aware, neither is the case. Yet not only do you want entry histories to be unnecessarily short, with unnecessarily incomplete edit-summaries, but you even start off this discussion asking why can't he do it that way, italicizing the "can't", as though it were a personal failing of his that he wasn't already abiding by your viewpoint.
Personally, I think that however someone wants to edit is fine, as long as each edit is an improvement, and as long as they're not violating policies or consensus. It's all well and good to raise an issue and suggest a change in behavior, but had you even mentioned your whim before this discussion? If not, then to me it seems very inappropriate, even gauche, to suggest that an admin should have already been following your whim before he even knew of it.
—Ruakh_TALK 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you interpret "I'd expect" as though I "think that my viewpoint is objectively correct, or at least that it reflects community consensus" and as "suggesting that somebody should do something" you're probably used to communicating in hints and undertones to an extent so much bigger than I am that it makes mutual understanding between the two of us hardly possible. --Thrissel 16:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the "I'd expect", but also the "wee bit more". You started this conversation with the question, "why can't you do […] " (emphasis yours), as though you were taking for granted that the only good reason not to do it is if you can't. (In technical terms: by asking why he can't, you presupposed that he can't.) By italicizing the word can't, you invited inference of your "hints and undertones". —Ruakh_TALK 16:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I caused grief to someone. I find it difficult to have quality translations in one edit, not if I do multiple translations to a few languages at one go. I am not a machine. I have a multiple tabs open with dictionaries. I am more worried about the accuracy and the final look before I leave the entry. When I add translations, I try to use the standard way - using a linked translation (assisted), correct or add transliterations, with Chinese entries, also need to manually nest them. Note that I do a lot of editing at work (like many others) where I get "distracted" by my normal duties. Also, should I be worried about your long Watchlists if I decide to add another translation later on or is it more important that I add more translations? Anatoli 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Ruakh. I understand why Thrissel is unhappy but I only see long history when I look at individual entry's history and yes, I think the final result is more important than the number of edits. BTW, using "assisted" editing sometimes has quirks, especially if add a new Chinese translation (zh) followed by a new Japanese or a new Korean translation (in this order and with these languages!). The JavaScript invariably complains about "missing codes", then I have to save translations, edit (I make nested Chinese/Mandarin at this point), save again, continue adding translations. For Serbo-Croatian translations (a semi-official roof for Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian), I also have to manually remove |sc=Cyrl| from Roman spelling or add |sc=Cyrl| to Cyrillic spellings. Thrissel, please judge when you try to contribute multiple translations (into a variety of languages) and see how easy or hard it is. --Anatoli 03:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I prefer to edit manually from the beginning when I know I'll have to anyway, but I admit your way is quicker. I still can't see what's the use of tbalancing in a special edit when you immediately go on adding more translations, but the stuff about nesting Chinese/Mandarin and about the Cyrillic spellings is interesting - I didn't know this couldn't be done by Assisted. Well I learned now - and that's the point of asking, isn't it? --Thrissel 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I had to do nesting and modified script by manually editing in between edits. You can override scripts in assisted but then it remembers your choice, which I don't like (I may forget to switch to Cyrillic again). I might have an extra and unnecessary t-balancing between edits. --Anatoli 22:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)