Amin

wordie

Hi. Looks as though you added a "new" sense that's basically identical in meaning. A word lover is a person interested in words. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

Hi. Your site wordo.co seems to be using Wiktionary material without any attribution. Can you check you are following the licence terms? Equinox ◑ 15:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My reply: Hello Equinox, thank you for noticing. We will add attribution to Wordo and link back to Wiktionary. It is a tiny side project which we work on whenever we have time for it. Amin wordie (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You are still violating the licence, and using our contributors' work uncredited. When can you fix this? Equinox ◑ 05:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My reply: Hello Equinox, I am a front-end developer on the Wordo project. I will pass it on once more to the programmer, we are not sure how to implement credits in an inconspicuous matter. Also, have you used Wordo? And how do I contact you directly? Twitter DM or email is OK for me. Amin wordie (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's "inconspicuous" or not. You are still stealing our work and breaking copyright law. Fix it now. Equinox ◑ 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We are now crediting and linking back to Wiktionary

Sorry for being rude about that but, ya know, you get it all for free, or the tiny price of saying where it came from. Thank you for fixing your site! Equinox ◑ 09:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Equinox. I am glad you take "copyright law" seriously. My generation, of which I am a product, generally does not. Keep up the good work Amin wordie (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Scorn quotes? I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. I have observed that people who don't spend time creating anything (especially SEO scum) are much readier to copy other people's stuff. If you are making fun of me then I can only apologise for my ancient 18th-century idea that people who do work should at least be thanked. Nobody is asking for money! kisses, Equinox ◑ 09:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. I am genuinely glad to play by the rules. It's not easy communicating when you cannot use emoji's, LOL. And SEO has been dead for years. Anyone still doing that spam is not ahead of the curve. PS, I have a question. Is there a place where I can ask people questions about Wiktionary, and expect a reply within 30 minutes? I could not find any active Facebook groups. I tried the IRC channel but it seemed dead.

Capitals

Hi. Capitals make a difference here: money is a word, but Money isn't. To do what you wanted, you need to make the link separate from the displayed word, like this: [[money|Money]]. It will link to the first word, but display the second one. Equinox ◑ 06:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Attestation etc

Hi Amin. I saw on PBP89's talkpage that you seem to think that Wiktionary cannot serve its purpose as well as Urban Dictionary. I wanted to explain a bit more about why some of your contributions have been deleted, and how Wiktionary differs. Anyone can add a definition to UD, and it doesn't have to be used, but just be a joke. We try to limit ourselves to words that have actually seen use, and we demonstrate that by seeing that they pass WT:ATTEST's requirements. In that sense, we want to document language in a way that avoids once-offs, and as a serious dictionary, we thus have a different goal in mind than UD.

Some of your contributions haven't been able to pass this standard. Some of them haven't been easy to cite, like about that life, which I made a lot of effort to save at RFV. Others haven't been citable at all, and some have been defined with an amount of bias that is not appropriate on Wiktionary, which tries to keep to a neutral point of view. Semper does have a habit of deleting too much, but his instincts aren't all bad — your entries need to be Wiktionary entries, not Urban Dictionary entries. I hope that this helps, and please feel free to ask any questions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meta, I think Wiktionary is great for having quality standards, and should not try to emulate Urban Dictionary. And sure, we can pat ourselves on the back for having higher standards than Urban, but what is the point to having a dictionary that no one uses?

Having said that, I get the feeling that many Wiktionarians hold a double standard when it comes to slang and internet entries. If a word is used in high schools and colleges all around the world, and has 1 million tagged photos on Instagram, Wiktionarians will still put it up for deletion, simply because they are blind to those worlds. But add a medical, or business related entry with only one hundredth of that relevance and Wiktionary will welcome it whole heartedly.

Wiktionarians hold a double standard, and measure internet and slang related words with a different scale than they do with other entries. Meta, I do appreciate you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Amin wordie (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely true that we hold a double standard there, and I don't think any sane Wiktionarian would deny it. It's intentional. Such words are generally fleeting and, though popular, swiftly fall out of the public consciousness. (Some, of course, do not — but then they nearly always become citable by our existing standards, as they get used in magazines or what have you.) We have to draw a line somewhere (unlike UD), and this is a relatively self-consistent place to draw it.

I think that we should make an effort to include such words wherever we can, but I understand why you've met a lot of opposition. Starting with the statement on your userpage, you've been quite dismissive of editors and our reasoned policies, and I might also note that your assumptions about Wiktionarians' ages are wildly inaccurate.

So is this thus made into a dictionary that no one uses? Well, Wiktionary is in the top 1000 most visited websites according to Alexa, so that's yet another inaccurate exaggeration. Being user-friendly is a goal that I think should be prioritised more often, but our chief job is to provide information of a certain lexicographical quality, and I think that we are always making good progress toward that goal. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Meta, you raise some very fair points. I updated my user page a couple of days ago after yet another contribution was put up for deletion. I'll remove the note from my user-page shortly. Oh, and I just checked and see that Wiktionary's Alexa Rank is actually improving while Urban Dictonary worsening, using a tool I build a while ago. Keep up the good work. Amin wordie (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the dialogue. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions or comments, or need help in trying to save a word at RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Two years later, and we're still having the same problem. I had to delete gymcel because it looks like it doesn't meet our standards for attestation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

😠😥😥😞😞 Amin (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Babel

Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather keep my user-page clean for now. But for what it's worth: My Dutch is great, my English is good, and my Persian is good enough. My internet-slang is a 10 out of 10. Hope that helps

Wiktionary:Tea room and Wiktionary:Information desk

I moved our discussion to Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/August#How do I propose a word of the day?, as a formality. It's not a big deal this time, but, for future reference, please ask questions like "How do I do X?" at Wiktionary:Information desk, as Wiktionary:Tea room is only for discussing individual entries, in relation to their state at Wiktionary. WT:TR in that sense is similar to entry talk pages, but is often preferred by active Wiktionarians over talk pages because talk pages are known to get smaller amounts of attention from the community, but it is not for general questions about Wiktionary. Please keep this in mind for next time, and thank you. (For whatever reason, I actually didn't notice we were at the tea room until just now; it must've slipped my mind before.) PseudoSkull (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello @PseudoSkull:. Thanks for informing me, I was not aware of that! From now on, I will post general questions at the Information Desk. Have a good day. Amin (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Uncountable

Please be careful with this. "Uncountable" doesn't mean "we rarely use a plural form of this word". It's a grammatical thing, meaning that you use some instead of a or the. So "rice" is uncountable when we say "give me SOME rice", but it's countable when we say "Indian RICES and African RICES have different textures". Equinox ◑ 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: Thank you for explaining that to me. But I'm still not sure if I understand the rule correctly.

In the case of wokefish, we could use both 'some' and 'a', right?

Some wokefish tricked me on Tinder today

The wokefish in this city are ruining my dating life.

So how can I accurately identify whether a word is countable or uncountable? I looked it up online but I'm still a bit confused. Thanks! Amin (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorting definitions

Have you acquired consensus for these edits? If so, where? J3133 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@J3133: Can you show me where it says one would need to? Amin (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you show me where it says one would not need to? J3133 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@J3133: The burdon of proof is on you. Amin (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it is on you, as you are making the changes. To my knowledge, no one has has agreed with your changes yet. J3133 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@J3133: Every dictionary shows the most relevant definition on top, and the least relevant uses last. I will continue to contribute as I see fit, unless I see rules or reason not to do so. Amin (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I will continue to agree or disagree with proposed changes as I see fit. J3133 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@J3133: That's fine by me. But if you keep feeling conflicted about my sorting-edits then I think it's best if we source the opinions of other Wiktionarians to settle it for once and for all. Amin (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please don't move stuff randomly around, especially if a figurative sense is marked as "by extension" it should never come before the definition it is extending, see for example your edit in Special:Diff/55328556/60140004. – Jberkel 10:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! You've been around a while and you still make really basic mistakes like creating wokewash as a noun (en-noun template) and suggesting it's a blend of woke and wash. It's not a blend at all. Why not use WT:REE to add words that you would like to have defined, instead of creating very broken entries? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: I feel ashamed. You are right about my basic mistakes. I will consider using REE in the future, but I think I would rather (slowly) learn how to improve create entries myself. Any help in the right direction is welcome. Best, Amin (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

PLS IMPROVE THE UI!

Hello. I have just seen your July 2022 edit summary on greedflation, part of which is the headline for this comment. Did you know that you can click “Insert a template” (it looks like a little jigsaw puzzle piece) at the top of the edit window? This then allows you to search for a template (e.g. quote-web, quote-journal) and then prompts you to add the required as well as optional parameters for the template. You might find that easier to use than wiki markup. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Haha, thank you for sharing that, @Cnilep, I will try to use it next time :) ! I still think the platform could use a complete redesign. I’ve worked in UX design and I’d be happy to help but my previous efforts to get people on board with this, many years ago, were quickly dismissed.