Leucostictes

Hi. Please stop adding example sentences with real people's names in. Equinox ◑ 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Indents

Sounds pedantic, but can I ask you to indent your posts properly? When you write a colon : at the beginning of the line, that indents by one "level" (a bit like hitting Tab in Microsoft Word). So if you write a bunch of them :::: then you are going to indent way more than necessary. Not sure why you are doing that, but it makes the discussions hard to read, especially e.g. when we are discussing adolescent and you keep adding more text. Just add a single : for each deeper level and it reads nicely. Thanks for considering. Equinox ◑ 02:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome

And yet another comment: someone shoulda given you the auto welcome by now. There might be some useful links in here.

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Equinox ◑ 02:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Why did you delete the citations at pedophile? Deleting valid citations will only get you blocked – unless you have a valid reason to delete them, refrain from doing so. I urge you to undo these changes and contemplate why you deleted them in the first place. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I undid the changes, sorry. I thought that wiktionary didn't want the medical definition in, I apologize.Leucostictes (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not about seeking to avoid medical definitions – I'm sure it's sometimes warranted not to have a medical definition. It's about deleting definitions with valid citations, without providing any of your own. Surely you see that your changes come off as arbitrary if you don't have sources to back you up. I'd hate to see you get blocked for something as "innocent" as this. On another note, pedophile, pedophilia, etc., are pages which have been extensively vandalised over the last couple of years, so tread carefully around these kinds of terms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? Note that I undid the bad changes. Leucostictes (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator. Your reverts are duly noted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Were you considering blocking me or were you just warning me that others might? Leucostictes (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I was not considering blocking you, because I know you mean well. However, deliberately removing citations is not only going to get you noticed by other administrators, it is a slippery slope which does get people blocked. Consider it a heads-up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

However, I took out "informal" and replaced it with "general use", because informal would be a word someone uses in casual conversation. Pedophile isn't a very common word and has a diagnostic ring to it and is an ancient Greek derivative, so I didn't think labeling it informal was appropriate.Leucostictes (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Go for it! I can't, however, vouch for what other admins will say. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been a little bit wary about Leucostictes' habit of making sweeping changes to entries on controversial topics (racism etc.). I think his paedophilia definition is actually better though! Simplicity is good. A while ago we had someone who kept "medicalising" that entry. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the medical definition should be deleted because nobody uses it in real life. There's different age limits people define for child and what age a pedophile is attracted to or has sex with, but pretty much everyone would consider an adult having sex with a person younger than 12 a pedophile, and most people are already pubescent by ages 10-11, so the definition as "attraction to prepubescent children" is much narrower than any use of it that occurs in real life, its almost never used in that restricted sense in real life.Leucostictes (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, I have to agree with Equinox that the simplification that you did was beneficial. On the other hand, you just had to go back and start complicating things again (diff). Topics such as this one are complicated and controversial – where I live, all sexual contact with someone under the age of 15 (regardless if there is consent, regardless if the perp is under or over the age of 15) is considered rape or sexual assault of a minor. People who commit these crimes are oftentimes seen by society as pedophiles. What I'm trying to say is that if you start taking into consideration all the medical, psychological and legal aspects from different societies, you end up making it impossible to define terms. A convicted pedophile in country A is not considered a pedophile in country B, and where does it leave us when we try to define these terms? My best advice to you is: try to stay away from numbers. Numbers change, they can be used to mislead and they're usually interpreted differently depending on who's doing the interpretation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't suggest putting numbers in, I suggested replacing the medical definition and prepubescent with simply "child". I thought that would be more simple. We don't have to put any number in. I was putting 12 in just to show what the absolute minimum is, not to say we should put that in the entry.Leucostictes (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So what I'm saying is there should just be one definition, "adult sexual attraction to or sexual acts against children". I'm not suggesting listing every possible legal age for sexual activity, that would be absurd. I think the medical definition is bad for a dictionary because nobody uses it in real life.I only used the 12 example to show the lowest real world usage limit, and that even it wasn't compatible with the medical definition, not advocating putting age 12 in the article. Leucostictes (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also it might make more sense to put "adult" in the entry instead of arbitrary ages like 16, since in Sweden, France, Germany, Austria and some other countries a 15 year old could be a pedophile at least legally. Leucostictes (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

On a different subject, do you agree with me language Nazi should be deleted. Leucostictes (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Language Codes in rfv template

Since we split Requests for verification, the {{rfv}} template requires a language code (in the case of English entries, the code is "en"). If you leave out the language code, you get a big glaring red module error message, and the creation link points to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English‎. When you see a module error, something is definitely seriously wrong, and you need to correct it. If you don't know how, ask.

Please always add the language code to the {{rfv}} so you don't clutter up CAT:E and no one has fix your edits or move your posts from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English‎ to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English‎. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

PaulBustion88

Your edits to pedophile very much remind me of User:PaulBustion87, User:PaulBustion88 and his socks.

In any case, please use preview function before you create 9 edits in a row on a page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussions with PaulBustion88 are in Special:Permalink/32801136. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

In WT:RFD#Belgian Congo, you said 'Well, when I was on Simple Wiktionary a few years ago Barras sent me a message criticizing me for creating entries on countries and said "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia like wikipedia, we don't need large numbers of entries on every possible former country...we don't need large numbers of new entries on whatever part of the Soviet Socialist Republic" so I thought dictionaries avoided place names.' That would be this post by Barras to PaulBustion88: "However, a few things: Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. We don't need an entry on ever possible former country."[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, yes its me PaulBustion88. 1. ISMETA unblocked PaulBustion87 on July 23 2015, [[2]], and I was allowed to edit after that. I had forgotten my password. 2. I have not caused the kind of disruption here I did before. But I don't think its worth it to edit here because I don't want the attention of the likes of Dan Polansky, so I give up. I think my editing this time was better than it had been in the past. But obviously I'm not welcome here, so its a waste of time to edit. Leucostictes (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dan Polansky, it's likelier that this is Tisane/Leucosticte from Wikipedia; see here, here and here. He's banned by WP:WMF.

The PaulBustion88 account is still blocked, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For further information, see this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

zoophilia

In diff, you have split the sexual sense into two senses, one for attraction, the other one for sexual activity. I have undone this split since it is not an obvious improvement, and it is unclear these really are two distinct senses. I have checked “zoophilia”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. to see what other dictionaries are doing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)