ZH8000
Joined 26 September 2012
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic Babel
Reverts
editI hope you are actually checking these translations first before removing them. Some of the ones you removed were actually correct. —CodeCat 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you continue to remove valid translations, you will be blocked. —CodeCat 13:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- And some you have re-undone are actually more than wrong, such as gsw: Strossburi. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then why is it used on the Alemannic Wikipedia? —CodeCat 13:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is an arbitrary work by a socketpuppet of: User:Chickensire, User:Laibwart, IP 67.1.226.194, IP 65.129.128.18, IP 75.164.99.113. It can be correct, but also wrong. And often they are wrong. There is no source at all for this socketpuppet edits. Probably just simply based on his/her expectation (by an user from USA). Why do you accept unsourced edits, at all? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because Wiki... is no valid source! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- And because in WP article it says that Strassburi is Alsatian – only. Unfortunately, gsw refers to many different Alemannic dialects, an old and very well known flaw by the classification system. I do not know whether Strassburi is correct for Alsatian. Any other gsw dialect I know does not say it that way!! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even so, you can't just remove potentially valid translations. You should take them to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this is probably a philosophical question. Formally you are eventually correct. However, what do you prefer: a dictionary full of errors and wrong contributions, just because you accept any unsourced contribution, especially by approved vandalists, and most readers are not able to recognize them, or a dictionary with less content, less faster growing, but also with less potential errors. It is always a question about quality vs quantity. Always. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's what RFV is for. Also, if there is a vandal, why did you not report the vandal on WT:VIP? —CodeCat 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, again. I do not "have the nerve" (can you say so in English?) to check every edit by a approved vandalist. I do not like to spend my precious time for highly potential wrong edits. As I said, it is a question of attitude (and time, management, and resources). IP was reported and approved on en:WP. Again a question of time/management. I do actually not really appreciate redundancy within the same system (WP). So in other words: If you like to keep these edits, please go ahead, I just tried to weed the weed with the potential, but acceptable drawback to remove also valid contributions. As I said it is a question of approach. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's what RFV is for. Also, if there is a vandal, why did you not report the vandal on WT:VIP? —CodeCat 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this is probably a philosophical question. Formally you are eventually correct. However, what do you prefer: a dictionary full of errors and wrong contributions, just because you accept any unsourced contribution, especially by approved vandalists, and most readers are not able to recognize them, or a dictionary with less content, less faster growing, but also with less potential errors. It is always a question about quality vs quantity. Always. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even so, you can't just remove potentially valid translations. You should take them to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then why is it used on the Alemannic Wikipedia? —CodeCat 13:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- And some you have re-undone are actually more than wrong, such as gsw: Strossburi. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Babel
editWould you add {{Babel}}
to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)