Arzel

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page 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.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Internoob 03:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

santorum

Hi. I had to undo one of your edits to this page. We are not Wikipedia and we have no biographies of living persons policy because simply, there are no biographies of living persons in a dictionary. We simply define terms as they are used, and this term meets our criteria for inclusion. —Internoob 03:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages of WP, not just the BIO pages of the individuals. Furthermore, since there is no source for the degrogatory slur of "shit" and "worthless" it is not a anctual definition. Go to Urban Dictionary if you want that kind of tripe. Arzel 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary is its own project with its own policies. I don't know what your objection is since I don't know what WP's BLP includes (because frankly I don't need to), so I'll just try to cover it all. There is no reason to remove quotations (as you did from the first definition), and the second definition meets our criteria for inclusion because it is used in at least three durably archived sources. Yes, Usenet examples count as durably archived sources. Ultimateria 06:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What stupidity. Usenet is a Reliable Source? Not sure I can even talk to someone so hopelessly clueless to what is a reliable source. Wiktionary is a completly worthless piece of crap. Arzel 15:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here at Wiktionary, the most "reliable" source for definitions is their use in the "wild". Providing a source for a definition is the same thing as showing that it was used with that meaning in a durably archived source. That is to say, we are a secondary source whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source and by this method we avoid things like Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. —Internoob 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Why was I permanantly blocked? Arzel 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how what I did is considered vandalism? I have been given absolutely no warnings whatsoever. Arzel 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't usually give warnings unless edits are clearly made in good faith, and apparently the blocking administrator didn't think that was the case. This is explained in more detail on WT:WINW, which Internoob pointed out above. —CodeCat 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was editing in good faith and even explained my edit, and was in the process of commenting on the talk page when the SemperBlotto blocked me. I wouldn't call that very helpful. Vandalism is the willful destruction of material. I was trying to improve WK and give the result some medium of rational. Now it may be fine that WK does not have the same standards of a real dictionary, but if people are to take WK as a useful source, then there should be some better standards. The the 2nd entry for santorum was implied by a couple of editors and from what I was able to discern actually fails RfV. As it is WK is like the Urban Dictionary, but not nearly as funny. Arzel 16:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's harsh in a way but I can see why SemperBlotto would do it. You've had loads of warning, are only editing one entry and the edits to that entry are unacceptable and you've been told so more than once. If you were making other valid edits I'd probably reduce the block to say a week, but since AFAICT all your edits are bad (good faith and bad faith) I can't justify a shorter block, so I won't. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Loads of warning" Really, how are you counting these, since I see absolutely no "WARNING - You will be banned if you do this again." I provided edit summaries for each edit and I made two reverts, and for this I am banned indefinitely? I have never seen such a harsh approach taken before. I suppose though, it is much easier to completely silence any dissenting opinions rather than discuss. I made my last edit after reading up on RfV and see only the interpretation of a single editor that santorum has a second definition of "Shit" and so forth, and was blocked before I even had a chance to save my discussion comment. Also, how is [this] a bad faith edit, it was clearly a good faith edit. It is completely true and there are hundreds of reliable sources that make the statement. I see that even the well known fact that Savage is a gay activist has been removed, even though it is prominent aspect about him. Arzel 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Still banned I see with no further explanation. Pretty heavy handed I must say. I guess only a certain accepted point of view is accepted here. Arzel 06:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your "Deragatory form of the name"/"Gay Activist and" edit, which you highlighted, doesn't necessarily seem like bad faith, but it does seem badly written. ~ Robin 09:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I understand Semper's harshness, I'm going to go ahead and reduce it a step to a finite duration of "1 year". When that expires, the United States will have just inaugurated our next president. Perhaps any political motivations which might be involved will be less of an issue then. ~ Robin 07:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say thanks, but this is still extremely heavy handed. To call my edits vandalism is out of line, and is a personal attack on me as well. If you would like to show your neutrality on this you will add back in the adjective for Savage, which is an important aspect of the reason why he made a big deal about this in the first place. Arzel 15:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an aspect of the reason, but it doesn't actually matter that much in an etymology. An etymology describes how the word came to be, it doesn't try to analyse someone's exact reasoning or circumstances for inventing it; that's really just additional trivia and we try to reduce it as much as possible. Savage coined the word in response to Santorum's statements, but it doesn't matter that he's a gay activist - it doesn't make it any harder or easier to understand the origin of the word. As for the derogatory part, that's not a part of the origin of the word, nor is it a derogatory form; the form is just Santorum's name, but without a capital letter. Rather it's a part of the definition or meaning. The meaning is derogatory to Santorum, the etymology is not. —CodeCat 15:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And both definition lines already have (derogatory).

Savage might say he was being an activist for both gay and straight rights. When Savage asked readers to send in definitions: "Santorum didn't just say that gays have no right to private, consensual sex; he said that no one, gay or straight, has that right. He even said that states should be able to outlaw birth control. That makes Senator Santorum a threat to the sexual freedom of straight people too..."[1]. ~ Robin 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the block now. I don't necessarily disagree with the block, but its length was excessive and it goes against WT:BLOCK. I do hope you refrain from making any further undiscussed edits to the article, though... —CodeCat 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)