Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:TheDaveRoss


Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month. Let me know if you'd prefer a secret alert by e-mail next time.

Equinox 00:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Sorry if that feels a bit pushy, but would you be willing to nominate me for adminship? As I've said here, I'd like to take up the mop. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a self-nomination, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation of CheckUser statusEdit

Hello TheDaveRoss, as Chuck Entz has been successfully nominated as a CheckUser, can you confirm your wish to continue your task of CheckUser too (to be sure you want your CU rights restored). Best regards, Linedwell (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Linedwell I do, and I have been talking with RadiX about getting all of the ducks in a row. - TheDaveRoss 12:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

EWDC #2Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

EWDC #3Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 04:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello sir. I remember you saying somewhere that a Wiki is poorly suited to a dictionary project, but that, unless we want to throw away everything we've done and start from scratch, the conversion to a proper database would have to be incremental. Could you expand?


--2A02:2788:A4:F44:A99F:AFD6:2D3D:98C4 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I can expand on any of those points. I think a wiki is poorly suited for a dictionary because it has a very "flat" file format, and linguistic data is largely relational. The wiki format lends itself best to long-form information, such as Wikipedia. Having a reasonably strong relational database available would make many types of linguistic data much easier to store, process and present.
The start from scratch comment mostly concerns the current data structure, both locally and across all Wiktionary projects. Some data is in reasonably standard format, and could be processed into relational data easily. The vast majority of existing data is not and would need some form of human oversight to be accurately mapped into a database. This could be done incrementally, starting with virtually any type of relationship and moving through one at a time. I would imagine that it would be easiest to start with definitions and go from there.
Not sure that that was expansive enough, but if you would like specifics feel free to ask. - TheDaveRoss 13:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template editorEdit

This anon has been engaged in a large number of template edits. I am rather template-oblivious so have no clue if these are positive edits, or ones which are breaking dozens/hundreds of entries. - Amgine/ t·e 16:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amgine, Stardsen, Echtio The edits seem reasonable, assuming that the information is correct. Without any knowledge of Picard I am unable to say. Pinging some Picard editors, but anyone who knows French would be starting from a better place than I am. - TheDaveRoss 13:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I can understand "picard" quite well. The edits seem OK. Good work. --Echtio (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC) See for example --Echtio (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look, Echtio. - TheDaveRoss 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

DaveBot NORMs run 10/07Edit

Did you use /\-{4}\n/ to capture the hr? cuz…, just sayin'. - Amgine/ t·e 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Something like that, but I have since updated it to a more robust regex. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "TheDaveRoss".