User talk:Equinox

mouthbreatherEdit

Re your revert of my addition to mouth-breather to move it to mouthbreather: It seems like they should go on the dominant page, as they do with bluestocking (not bluestockings or blue-stocking, which doesn't exist at present but does show up in the quotations there).

Also, re the hyperlinks that you removed: they were in the original, so I was just reproducing what he had. I added the same quote to several other pages, and at least on alt-right and Gamergater it seems to me that the original links clarify the author's meaning. I see why they might not be desired on mouthbreather, but I'm not sure what the guidelines are for reproducing links in the original, especially when relevant to the word.

--Flex (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Had this discussion with someone recently and wish I could remember who it was, so I could link. Basically, a cite with the alt form attests the existence of the alt form (and not the main form); it is evidence and support for the alt form, and best belongs there. 2. Yes, links are in the original, but so might be font colours, banner ads, and pop-ups. We don't need them to attest words. Equinox 19:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm also not thrilled about the idea of us giving Google link-juice/rankings to someone's opinions, by copying their link phrases. Internet links die all the time anyway, and we often have to remove them. Equinox 19:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest Wiktionary:Quotations be updated to indicate what the policies should be. In any case, I think there's a good case to be made that the links to reputable publications (the NYT and Time) should be left, where immediately relevant. If they expire, they probably expire in the original too. --Flex (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to start a discussion: I suppose WT:BP may be the best place. Equinox 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Here it is. --Flex (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on the BPEdit

I feel very out of place to say this, but I do not agree that your comments on BP were very good, and no one else has said anything, so I will.

I really do not think your comments here and here, and a few more, are very good.

I realize my edits aren't perfect, but I feel that these posts you made are a personal attack on the creator of that vote. Though I may not agree with what you said about morse code, I completely respect your opinion, but you totally presented your opinion in a degrading, disrespectful, and belittling manner, and I think you know you could've done otherwise. I ask you to please stop disrespecting the users, especially in such a blatant manner. Even as I am not an admin and can't do anything about it myself, I'm sure there are admins here who agree with me, and most are probably watching this talk page, so I've made my point. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey-ho, sometimes bad things make me angry. Equinox 20:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Boom-boomEdit

Hello, Equinox. Regarding, boom-boom, the 'sex act' sense does seem to be uncountable, but the 'excrement' sense is not – or not always. I've added an example where 'boom-booms' is a bit of a pun, referring to both explosions and excrement. The cliché "baby made a boom-boom" also features a countable usage, as the indefinite article reveals.

Also, I changed "two booms" to "a repeated loud sound". I don't think the booms are precisely numbered, do you?

Thanks, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cnilep: I've changed the excrement to "mostly uncountable", since the plural doesn't seem common. Regarding the two booms: I do think they are numbered, yes. Consider our citation talking about the "boom-boom" of a drum. We could equally just say "the boom of a drum", even if it was a repeated boom; so why are we writing it twice? Presumably because it's coming in matched pairs, like a heartbeat. I haven't changed it back because I don't even really think it's worth having a sense for "X-X" that just means "two Xs"; but yeah, I dispute what you say there! Equinox 21:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

emoji monsterEdit

If I may ask: How so? Are you opposed to entries for emojis or something? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That was a slightly joky comment — but yeah, in a lot of cases, I think they are not "words in a language". The APL symbols failed, and those seem to carry far more meaning than 1000 variants of smiling and crying. Equinox 20:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would have voted "keep" for APL symbols. I found a few quotations with domino tiles used in running text, then I started creating entries. Do you see any problem with entries like 🁚? I used a single entry for all rotations of a single tile, because they seem like the same idea to me: 🁚 = 🁚 🂌 🁠 🂒. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Haha, well, I can't fault your work ethic! But I don't think that's a good entry. It's really showing a picture of something, and the definition says "this is what the thing is a picture of". The fact that Unicode includes the picture should not automatically make it a dictionary headword. But I already know we disagree there! Equinox 20:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we disagree here... I was thinking: apparently, all APL symbols got deleted per Talk:≡. If that was the only discussion about it, there is no reason to believe that APL is outright banned from Wiktionary. Most of the RFV discussion are questions about whether APL is really in our scope. You said: "I doubt it occurs in text other than program code. But plenty of mathematical symbols don't occur in text other than mathematical proofs, formulae, etc. Perhaps these things would be best in an appendix of some kind?" If all we have is a failed RFV, then presumably, if I find printed APL texts using these symbols, the entries can be restored. In the closing message, Bequw said: " If some are citable, feel free to move them back into the main namespace."
Anyway, I understand your position about entries for domino tiles and other pictures in Unicode. I wonder: if there are people who support entries for pictures and others who oppose them, at least having 🁚 for 🁚 🂌 🁠 🂒 is not a terrible idea. It's quantitatively better creating 29 entries this way than than having one entry for each of the 100 codepoints in Appendix:Unicode/Domino Tiles. Similarly, I would probably put forward the idea of creating one single entry for a crying face with a list of 1000 Unicode codepoints for crying faces. That would make sense, at least to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not that bothered about whether we have APL or not; my point is that at least it consists of a series of quasi-mathematical operators that (i) don't usually "look like" what they mean, thus requiring explanation (a + sign doesn't "look like" addition), and (ii) have very precise meanings. A picture of a cactus or a bowl of soup looks like what it is, and doesn't have any meaning beyond what it is. Equinox 21:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right, nobody really needs to use a dictionary to understand the cactus or the bowl of soup. We could choose to ignore this for the purpose of providing images to help people who don't have the right fonts, but then again, many symbols just exist in Unicode without being attestable in real life and thus shoulnd't have entries. As a separate idea, all subpages of Appendix:Unicode could just have an additional column for images from Commons, if people have the patience to link them.
What about symbols that don't look like their meanings, like: , , . I believe it's obvious that they should have entries if attestable. (correct me if I'm wrong) If memory serves, I also seem to remember you saying somewhere that you support or like having map symbols. By that logic, we don't need an entry to say: "⛽ = fuel pump", but we should have an entry saying: "⛽ = gas station (in maps)". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I had assumed you were in favour of having an entry for every single thing that Unicode includes (which is getting a bit crazy these days). I think there is an argument for the fuel/gas thing (which you phrased fairly well, somewhere else) — because there can be a meaning above and beyond "this is what the picture is" — but even so, are map symbols "words"? I haven't picked a side on this yet! Equinox 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
We have a way of decided if things are words, don't we? It's called WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 22:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What?! I must check this out immediately. Equinox 22:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I was directing that more at Daniel. If we can't verify that ⛽ is used in actual sentences to mean "gas station", then it should be deleted. --WikiTiki89 22:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is this, currently: Map symbols sound genuinely helpful, in addition to having meanings different from "this is what the picture is" and I am in favour of creating/keeping entries for them. I don't think we can call them "words" -- one reason is: they are not supposed to appear in running text. For attestation purposes, personally I'd be satisfied with printed maps, preferably ones that exist on Google Books.
The way I see it, a big problem with the inclusion of many symbols is that they are not actually used in citations with the meaning stated by their codepoint names. Wikitiki89, I don't know why you mentioned RFV to me right now. Like I said to you in the Description vote, I think we're probably not going to find any citations like: "The gas station had only two ⛽s.", meaning "only two fuel pumps."; or "The spines of 🌵 serve as a defense against herbivores.", meaning "the spines of cacti". If we did find citations like these, I would be in favor of having those senses. Otherwise, they should be deleted. With these citations, I suppose, they would actually be classified as Translingual nouns. I created an entry for a boobs emoticon at some point, with 1 quotation: (.)(.). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason I mention RFV is exactly that. If we don't find citations, they should be deleted. You yourself just said "we're probably not going to find any citations". So they should be deleted. --WikiTiki89 22:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You said: If we can't verify that ⛽ is used in actual sentences to mean "gas station", then it should be deleted.
I said: I think we're probably not going to find any citations like: "The gas station had only two ⛽s.", meaning "only two fuel pumps."
You were talking about deleting the "gas station" sense and I was talking about deleting the "fuel pump" sense. I think the "gas station" sense would pass RFV. If we found the ⛽ in the middle of a printed map, it would probably easily count as an use in "permanently recorded media", "conveying meaning", and so on. We could discuss if we want to create a rule explictly allowing or declining attestation from maps, and I would vote for allowing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do words and symbols end, and other things begin? If I see an entire road sign in the UK that is an upside-down red triangle containing the black text GIVE WAY on a white background, that tells me a particular thing to do as a car driver. But is that a single symbol? Isn't it two words formatted in a certain legally prescribed way? If I am flying around in a helicopter and I see a hedge maze from above, it's clearly a maze, and if I drew it on paper, it would be recognised as a maze, and could possibly even be used as a generic symbol for "maze". But this is getting rather far from what dictionaries are supposed to do. Otherwise, maps wouldn't need keys. (By the way, as Phillipson might ask, which culture's maps are we serving? Does a Boy Scout's map, or a Native American or Aboriginal Australian map, use the same symbols as a government-published European or American one?) Equinox 23:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would have to see in which context a "maze" symbol is used, before deciding if I agree with it. Is it used like a noun, in the middle of a sentence? Is it a map symbol, indicating a hidden ancient maze somewhere in the jungle? Obviously a random drawing of a maze would not be enough to attest a maze symbol on Wiktionary, or else a drawing of a brick or a table or a cloud or Spider-Man or an elbow on a random page of a comic book would serve for attestation purposes, too. At least, this is what makes sense to me. I defended the inclusion of domino tiles because I found some of them in running text.
I fear that what I'll say will sound a bit more controversial than usual, but I would probably support having entries for traffic signs. Yes, in my opinion, (which may change if someone convinces me otherwise) the upside-down red triangle containing the black text GIVE WAY on a white background is different from just the verb give way. But the lack of Unicode symbols for traffic signs would make it a pain in the ass to create entries for them and defend them in discussions concerning the scope of Wiktionary, so I don't feel too enthusiastic about it. I'd rather discuss about having symbols for more earthly things like chess pieces and astrological signs, at least for now.
I think I'm going to sleep now, without properly taking my time to answer your question about different types of maps. Is there any type of map you feel it's obvious that we should not include symbols from it? Good night. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The upside-down-whatsit-sign is different from the word "give way", because of its context (it's printed on a sign, in a certain font, on a pole, which means that drivers must obey it; it's not the same as me waving the words around on a piece of paper in the middle of the road, which would be ignored as a madman). But in what respect is it different? Not lexically, really. Contextually. I mean, the novel Mansfield Park — like the traffic sign — is also a set of words arranged in a certain way. But nobody would suggest that the entire novel should be a headword. You need to be clear on where you draw the line and why. It's possible to be too inclusive. Equinox 02:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
All right, I'm rethinking what I said about traffic signs. I think you're right. The sign on the pole could have the order "get out of your car and roll in the mud". It would be just the same sentence I said, with the context of being written on a sign. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about all the senses. The middle of a printed map is not a sentence. --WikiTiki89 23:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just as there's no rule saying that a dog can't play basketball, it's possible that CFI lacks one or two rules that would make sense in the real world and are taken for granted. CFI does not say the words have to be in the middle of sentences. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Equally, there is lots of information that is useful but does not belong in a dictionary. There's a ton of other wikis for other types of data. Equinox 23:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is it too stricted that symbols must be in sentences? Sounds like conservative head. We can find symbols anywhere other than sentences. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter 54Edit

I created the edit filter you asked for, but it only tags for now. The hits so far are rather odd: only a fraction of them are actually saved, and it's hard to see any reason for them. They geolocate to a variety of places such as Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey and Egypt.

My guess is that we're looking at cellphone or smartphone users hitting keys assigned to functions while not in the right mode- perhaps because of a lookup app. This diff is particularly suggestive.

I haven't seen any false positives, so I may set it to disallow soon. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I find the smartphone theory hard to believe because it always seems to be three Xs, "XXX" (or "Xxx", etc.). But it's mystifying to me too. Equinox 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did thereEdit

You reverted my addition of "Gamergate" to the gamergate page. Now that I look closer I see why. The problem, of course, is that - immediately scrolling down to the definition - I didn't notice the "see also" at the top of the page.

You are obviously deep into this project. Has the project given any thought to either (a) putting the "see also" in the appropriate definition section (particularly helpful if there are multiple language definitions) or (b) combining lower case and capitalized versions of words into one article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been discussed occasionally. Gamergate and gamergate are totally unrelated words (and sometimes we're not even dealing with the same language, e.g. Finnish ei "no" and German Ei "egg") so I don't see the benefit of having a combined article. Maybe "see also" could be made larger. You could raise it at WT:BP to get opinions. Equinox 13:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

missing dataEdit

Missing data appears in no OneLook dictionary, but does appear in some technical glossaries and dictionaries. There seems to a family of concepts and associated initialisms for types of missing data: MAR "missing at random"; MCAR "missing completely at random"; MNAR "missing not at random", possibly more. There is only one kind of missing data that goes by that name in the context of statistics: missing fields in a row (= observation). Missing rows of data go by other names, often including the word bias. DCDuring TALK 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Those initialisms seem worth creating, but otherwise I don't know what to take from your remark. Random anecdote: although most computer systems/formats allow you to omit things you don't care about, sometimes you have to work across system boundaries, and explicitly describe the ones you want to omit. I remember having to write some code to deal with Excel spreadsheets via interop, and the end result looked something like (1, 2, 3, MISSING, MISSING, MISSING, MISSING, MISSING, MISSING, MISSING, MISSING). Rather like the classic exam paper that lies "this is a blank page". Equinox 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Edit - Synonyms - Lemma:driftingnessEdit

hiEdit

hi sorry I cant get a Wikipedia acout cause create a acoaunt blocked on Wikipedia. nightmare scarecrow. ps. do u like my user

hi sorry cant make a Wikipedia account cause they have it blocked . p.s do u like my user (Nightmare scarecrow (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC))

Return to the user page of "Equinox".