User talk:Connel MacKenzie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Use wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie instead. Please do not leave messages here!
or wikt:Special:Emailuser/Connel MacKenzie
or even Special:Emailuser/Connel MacKenzie

  • Note: I do check this page at least weekly monthly annually. Some comments understandably must be left here, but please be aware that I am not likely to notice them in a timely manner!

en This user is a native speaker of English.
Search user languages


Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 08:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. Please lighten up, and *read* the humorous reverts I was doing. --Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
What you were doing on bordering on disruption, not to mention that we don't appreciate the fact that you could have very easily spoiled the surprise for Yelyos, even though it doesn't really matter now. Jtkiefer T | @ | C -----
Fair enough. I'll go back to Wiktionary now. Sorry to have bothered you; I was only trying to add to the general amusement, not spoil it. --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuzzy wuzzy bunnies[edit]

The article Fuzzy wuzzy bunnies has been marked for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy wuzzy bunnies. Alf melmac 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I prefer not to waste my time on the buracracy rampant over on Wikipedia; I'll stick to Wiktionary. I must say I am dissapointed (again, as usual with Wikipedia) though. I don't recall what tangent I was pursuing when I entered this one, so sorry, no verifiable sources from me at this point in time. (Didn't the policy used to cover obscure things that people might want to know about?) --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Custom redirect button[edit]

Go to Wiktionary's MediaWiki:Monobook.js page, probably at , and add these lines:

/* add a redirect button to the edit page toolbar */
function InsertButtonsToToolBar()
 tooly = document.getElementById('toolbar');
 if (tooly != null) 
  RedirectButton = "<a href=\"javascript:insertTags('#REDIRECT [[',']]','Insert text');\"><img src=\"\" alt=\"Redirect\" title=\"Insert redirect link\"></a>";

 tooly.innerHTML = tooly.innerHTML + RedirectButton;
window.onload = InsertButtonsToToolBar;

Save the page, then edit a page, and press CTRL+F5. The redirect button should show up. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-4 08:23

Yes, I had added that to my personal Monobook.js to test it, but it fails. I've copied the .png image from Wikipedia to Wiktionary, in case that was the problem, but still nothing. I do not seem to be getting any errors in my Javascript console. Viewing source of a Wiktionary edit page shows the element "'toolbar'" is identified as expected. If you have any other hints, they'd be appreciated. (There isn't any special image restriction for Javascript pages that require the Javascript to be in the MediaWiki namespace, is there?) --Connel MacKenzie 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You forgot the last line of the code, I think. window.onload = InsertButtonsToToolBar; If not that, then make sure you press CTRL+F5 to refresh the files when your on the Edit page. Beyond that, I don't know what the problem could be. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-4 17:37
I just took one of their existing buttons and painted over the icon. The Hebrew Wikipedia has a lot of edit page buttons. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-5 11:57
Awesome. Thanks again! --Connel MacKenzie 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks[edit]

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary user account confirmation[edit]

Hi, Connel. Yes, that page is mine. I've sent you an e-mail. Cheers. AnnH 11:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


I guess my question is now, who on Wikipedia (I'm not a sysop here) is going to start the effort of combing through all his entries, to indicate which have already been deleted/cleaned up?

Already underway: admins Michael_Snow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have have already whacked the most obvious offenders. See User talk:Primetime for a blow-by-blow account.

--Calton | Talk 02:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


We have several lists of words on Wikipedia, lists which I don't think belong here because they violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Wikipedia is not a hacker/computer usage or other slang and idiom guide."

What do you think? Can they be accomodated at Wiktionary? Primetime was the chief editor for some of them, exerting strong ownership. They attract a lot of graffiti and original research. -Will Beback 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When he was using one of his many sockpuppets, he/they entered the nigger series from that first list. Each was entered onto "Requests for deletion" wikt:WT:RFD. Most were deleted, but with some argument, until the sockpuppets were discovered.
Entries listed in Wiktionary List of ... entries generally do have to meet Wiktionary's attestation criteria. Joke dictionaries, slang dictionaries and similar references are generally discounted. Anything citing "Cassell's Slang Dictionary" I assume to not be a good-faith contribution.
I think it would be more expedient if those entries were simply deleted here, rather than being transwikied to Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 08:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, many of the entries would meet the attestation criteria, and most of List of sexual slurs is sourced. The difficulty in deleting them is that they are a functional set. If we try to delete one then many voters say "but this is no different from the other lists". Perhaps a new deletion request, encompassing all of them and with Primetime's involvement, would have a different outcome. -Will Beback 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understood me correctly. On Wiktionary, most policies are different, to some degree. Wiktionary discounts whether an entry is sourced or not, if that reference is deemed to be a secondary source, especially if from a joke reference such as Cassell's Slang. If the term cannot be attested (i.e. three print usages) then it is not likely to pass our RFV process. See wikt:Template:nosecondary. So, without Primetime duplicating the Cassell and OED citations (copyvio) again, I do doubt that these terms would survive the Wiktionary wikt:WT:RFV process.
You are correct, that the lists themselves seem to be the problem, for Wikipedia. As a Wiktionary sysop, anything that got Transwiki'ed would ultimately be merged into the WikiSaurus: namespace or deleted.
At this point, they could be transwiki'ed, only to be deleted on Wiktionary. Or they could be nominated (as a group) for deletion here, as you said. I think nominating them for deletion here first would be most reasonable, allowing them to be transwikied (and then deleted on Wiktionary) if the Wikipedia RFD process breaks down. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of you lying about Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Will Beback is correct. Citations from a dictionary technically meet Wiktionary's criteria for attestation ("usage in a well-known work" "clearly widespread use").[1] The fact that you or Steven G. Brown would take matters into your own hands and delete them does not mean you are acting within policy. In reality, there are very, very few policies on Wiktionary, and there aren't enough users watching the recent changes page to call you on your abuse of power--although Richardb, Eclecticology, BDabramson, and Davilla have all complained about your deletions now. (And those are just the ones I happen to know about!) Also note that I provided three print usages for each entry in the "nigger series" but they were deleted, anyway, because you do whatever the fuck you want.

Also, stop lying about Cassel's Dictionary of Slang. I demand that you provide a source for your slanderous assertion that it's not reliable. Reviews from Library Journal have all been positive and never mentioned anything about any reliability problems. This has to be the tenth lie I've caught you in, so technically you're worse than me, now. Also note that Connel MacKenzie told other Wiktionary editors that I wrote the article Lolicon,[2] a blatant lie that I demand he retracts. Although many have said I can't be trusted about copyright violations, nothing MacKenzie says can be believed.--Primetime 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is untrue. Your assertions always prove to be false on examination. I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point. Your sockpuppetry 5ki11z0rz seem to be improving though. I suggest you cease and desist. --Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


--Bhadani 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Primetime mischief[edit]

FYI, Primetime has apparently used my email address to a sign up for all kinds of services. In one instance, he used my address to request a business catalog to be sent to you at an address in Salt Lake City. -Will Beback 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Deleting redirects?[edit]

I deleted {{Major programming languages small}} together with {{Major programming languages}} per its AfD. The latter seems to have been recreated since. Cheers, —Ruud 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to modify your userpage (several times). The template:Babel-1 is phasing out and may be removed in future (I'm not sure if it'd be removed, but currently it is a redirection).--Hello World! 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, it looks like the link to the subpage (and a lot of others) was restored after I left a note on the talk page. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia admin[edit]

Hi Connel, I think it will be beneficial if you were an admin here, if only to chase Primetime. I've set up a nomination page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connel MacKenzie, which requires your acceptance. I figured if you voted for me, I'll vote for you back. And this is a genuine offer - I know you don't like me, but just pretend that someone else nominated you for adminship if you have an interest in being one. It would be a shame to have spent much time setting up that page for nothing. --Dangherous 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that I had to have other people (plural) tell me to check my talk page here, over on Wikipedia, to notice this.
I'll try to reply to your e-mail one of these days. I've been busy, as you may have guessed. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd support your nomination as well. -Will Beback 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, thank you. Will, I'll send you an e-mail when I have a free moment. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 02:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all you do. Unfortunately, PT has been quite active recently. -Will Beback 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CopyToWiktionaryBot's flag[edit]

Hi. Per Voice of All's final approval [3], I've granted CopyToWiktionaryBot a bot flag. Cheers, Redux 08:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WF-free WT[edit]

Hi CMK, you know if you want to get rid of WF from WT, all you gotta do is treat all their edits as vandalism, i.e. revert everything (s)he does. --Dangherous 09:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, range blocks. That should make things a little more tricky. I'll let you know if they are effective. --Dangherous 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Daniel.Bryant[edit]

I think you misinterpreted what happened - I didn't close it. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

MUMPS (criticism) revert[edit]

Care to explain this revert? [4] --Regebro 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see your comment on the other talk page now. --Regebro 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

re: spellchecker[edit]

Sorry, exactly what do you want me to review? The template or the script's code? —Ruud 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can document the script at Wikipedia:Tools and Wikipedia:Scripts. Interface wise, I wouldn't only display the possibly misspelt words but the entire text with the possible misspellings clearly indicated. Perhaps add an option to check against a dictionary with Wikipedia-jargon? I don't think your spell checker really is match against Firefox' in the edit mode, but I would be very interested in a spell checker that checks article while I'm reading them. —Ruud 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Hmm, 16 entries added before the SB-CMK iron fist came crashing down upon Wonderfool's head. That's not bad going for that so-called vandal. --WFpuppet 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's Rfa[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. N.B.: I did think this comment belonged here on Wikipedia, so you'll see it when you see it, and thanks for stopping by. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Sub-sectioned due to enormous size of each reply. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann's response 1/27/2007[edit]

thank you for your post. I do hope that we can now engage in constructive debate, which is really all I ever tried to acheive on wiktionary. I find it a little bit alarming myself that I only become a partner in reasonable debate with the weight of 40,000 Wikipedia edits backing up my good faith, as opposed to simple show of good faith.

My frustration on wiktionary was due to no-one actually listening to what I had to say, but not letting me do my thing in good faith even in spite of not listening. On Wikipedia, people are free to do their thing until someone challenges them. At this point, both sides are expected to enter constructive debate and consensus-seeking. It is only after detailed exposition and long fruitless search for compromise that a strawpoll is staged to get some sort of framework on how to go ahead.

On Wiktionary, things are different, and I recognize that I didn't realize this at first. It appears that there are so few users that all discussions can be held centrally, at BP. On Wikipedia, it would be absolutely futile to try and follow all discussions, and you watch the talkpages you are interested in. As such, I found the "reconstructed terms" page, marked as an "active discussion", and naturally assumed that anyone who has to say anything on the matter will contribute there, and that, of course, any vote on the matter would be announced there, or in fact, held there, after exhaustive debate. As it happens, votes and discussions take place on BP instead, which I was not watching. And understandably, I hope, I am rather peeved to find a vote has been held and closed, without my being notified, without the relevant talkpage being notified, and without anyone bothering to have a debate to sort out the issues to be voted upon.

I can easily accept that you and Ullmann have different views from mine on how etymological material should be treated. This is no problem, and I repeatedly invited you to discuss it with me. In my understanding of Wikimedia, this makes users in a 'content dispute' (or 'formatting dispute'), and we are expected to sort out our differences. As it happened, instead of debating, you put the very page under debate up for deletion, slapped a couple of blocks on me and held a vote on your own terms. It was this behaviour that really annoys me, what on Wikipedia we'd call "admin abuse", that is the intervention as admin on the part of a user involved in a dispute. Not the fact that I may not get may way with things. Believe me, I am very used to not getting my way, and I am rather good at sorting out disputes and looking for optimal compromise, it's what makes me thrive on Wikipedia.

On the content side, seeing your comment of

Seeing your conduct on en.wiktionary is absolutely alarming. Don't you think your position is somewhat audacious, in presenting a policy page as if it were real, that directly conflicts with several of the underlying principles of Wiktionary?

I am afraid I do not quite understand your position. I recognize that you are apparently serious in complaning about my conduct. Just, I have difficulty understanding where I may have gone wrong. I have repeatedly tried to get you and Ullmann to talk to me constructively. I never presented any sort of "policy page", I tried to evolve guidelines by having a debate. Instead, it was Ullmann who kept "presenting a policy" under false pretensions. He went as far as blocking me for alleged violation of a policy that did not even exist at the time. If that was acceptable on Wiktionary, I gather Wiktionary does not have any guidelines on admin conduct, or a blocking policy, but people are expected to block just anyone who is getting on their nerves? I would be honestly interested in what way may conduct conflicted directly with "principles of Wiktionary". If you can explain that, maybe I'll be able to appreciate your disapproval of my approach. The question appears to be "where do we stash etymological information on wiktionary". That wiktionary should contain etymological information doesn't strike me in any way as a contradiction to its founding principles. Anything else is open do debate, and I argue that I tried to have such a debate, only I was not allowed to. It would be somewhat disappointing if that would be the end of the episode, since, if Wiktionary needs to block the university people to write its dictionary, I must say I take it to be a bad sign of where the project is going.

I am open to discussing this further with you if you like, but this post is over-long already. There are two issues, the content side (what I tried to discuss on "reconstructed terms"), and the "conflict side", what I called admin abuse. I suggest we keep the two topics separate. I am willing to have this debate either here, or on Wiktionary, but the latter option would require that Ullmann steps down from blocking me every time I voice dissent or criticism. dab (𒁳) 08:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert's response 1/27/2007[edit]

I have never blocked you, and will not block you, for dissent or criticism. You were blocked for willful, repeated violation of CFI. No matter how much you tried to twist it, CFI never permitted PIE terms. PIE lacks an ISO-639 code, it therefore does not, and did not ever, meet CFI, despite your repeated attempts to claim otherwise. The entire vote and procedure was to re-confirm the existing policy.
And yes, everything in the en.wikt happens in the Beer Parlour. I'm sorry you did not understand that. You are very welcome to contribute, but please understand that the wikt doesn't run on the stacks of legalese that the 'pedia does. (I ran across Ex fida bona and was going to tag it for delete, but after hunting down the process and reading it I just gave up.)
The other thing is that we have very serious concerns about copyright, that are different from (but in some ways similar to) the pedia. People understand easily that they can't copy from other encyclopedias into the wikipedia; but they don't understand that they can't copy from other dictionaries into the wikt. In the 'pedia case, people naturally use secondary sources to write (tertiary source) 'pedia articles. In the wikt, entries must be from cited usage and/or PD sources, they can't be copied from dictionaries in copyright. Yes, this makes some languages difficult, but that's just the way it is. In everything from Modern English to Sumerian Cuneiform, it is possible to cite usage. But in PIE et al, the only sources (for the modern theory) are copyrighted texts.
This is particularly annoying to people because the copy is so short. They say "fair use"! No, the purpose of that dictionary was to describe this word, the purpose of this dictionary is to describe this word, so copying the description is a copyright violation. Even if it is four words of definition, or "< PIE *haglaz".
So we just can't extract stuff from (e.g.) Pokorny. I know that's annoying. But that's what we live under. (And this is the other reason PIE terms have always failed CFI.). If there was a subject area covered only by other encyclopedias, the 'pedia basically couldn't do anything with it. There just isn't much we can do; we aren't going to allow original research either.
Regards Robert Ullmann 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Connel's reply 1/27/2007[edit]

User:Dbachmann, thank you for your thoughtful response. It would be much more convenient for me, if we could conduct the Wiktionary discussions (particularly the two points you have outlined above) on Wiktionary. The above text that you wrote, I feel, is important for Wiktionary to fully grasp the breadth and depth of these misunderstandings. Without such appreciation, I think it is unlikely the situation will improve soon. To facilitate that end, I'd like some or all of your above post, reposted on wikt:WT:BP.

I think it is clear from User:Robert Ullmann's post above, that no further blocks are likely (unfortunately with the provisio that you limit your edits to the conversations about these very serious topics.) As you may have guessed, it is very common for Wiktionarians to discuss issues on other people's talk pages. So I'd like to thank Robert for his comments above, on this delicate matter, as well. had a "benevolent dictator" mentality, that formed many of our existing practices and pseudo-policies the first two years of its existence. To directly combat the unilateral decisions that he sometimes made in direct conflict with community consensus, I createwiwikt:WT:VOTE which has only just begun to develop into the role helping form policy. Please note that as per that "benevolent dictator's" rules, (as Robert and I have pointed out before) the reconstructed terms have no role whatsoevern It is only through a compromise initiated bwiwikt:Ur:MuMuke that the varis proto fororms were allowed to exist in the Appenx namespapace at all. My personal objection to e proto fororms has nothing to do with the existing policy, nor with the compromise, rather the certain copyright-violation nature of the sources involved. To me eye, (please take this with an enormous grain of salt,) the additionf proto-forormso en.wiktionanary is a sinister, mendacious formf copyvyvio vandalism. On that, it is plain that you disagree.

While the issuef proto-fororms is separate from the "admin abuse" you accuse myself and Robert of, it pales in importance. I do not see my actions, nor Robert's as "admin abuse" in any way whatsoever. Therefore it is very, very important for allf to first understand the basis for the accusation, second, to determine if that is a valid complaint, third, to institute several numerous wide-spread changes, as a result. That understanding cannot possibly come about, if discussions are held here.

Again, I think it is absolutely crucial, that all such conversations on the topic of admin abuse, be conducted ithe beer parlour. I would really like to see you (and several other respecd Wikipediaians) be able to come through this event as heroes that help reform somef Wiktionaryry's more confusing inconsistencies wh Wikipededia. I would really appreciate having more of you become respected, contributg Wiktionariaians. But that simply cannot happen here.

--Connnl MacKenznzie -wiwikt 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann's reply 1/30/2007[edit]

sorry for the late reply. See my most recent post to BP, I do not think my time is well invested at the moment trying to "x Wiktionanary practice". Let me address the issuesf proto-fororms and admin practice separately.
  • I have no problem with havg proto-fororms in a separe namespapace. Really, I don't. My only objection is that the entry shouldn't be titled along the lines "Proro-InIndo-European rt K KeK-", but rather just "Reconstrucd:K:KeK" or something for reasons I would be happy to lay out for everyone if people let me. Everything else is not related to the content side but how the debate didn't take place, how the "active debate" page was voted from under my ass, and how I was blocked for dissent.
  • I recognize the necessity for "benevolent dictatorship" and do exercise a share of that here on WP. Just, only in cases where I am uninvolved in the content dispute. That's something like Commandemementn Wikipededia. You don't revert a user's contribution, and then block him. We distinguish between "blatant vandalism" which any admin may of course roll back, and block the offending user after due warning, and "content disputes", which may result in blocks in case of repeated revert-warring or incivility, but not on the part of an admin involved in the dispute. Now, I assume we can discard the notion that I might be a blatant vandal. This is consequently about content disputes, and alleged violations of CFI (which, I understand, do not even have the character of fixed policy, notably stating there is "no apparent consensus" on the topic of constructed language). I understand that RU somehow disagrees with my position, although he has never deigned to enter constructive debate. I gather he is somehow unhappy with some of my approaches, which has resulted in allegations that I "violated policy" (a policy that was voted upon without my knowledge, after the fact). If RU disagrees with an edit of mine, and thinks I violated some agreed-upon WT policy, he should (a) attempt to find out if there is some misunderstanding that can be resolved in debate, and failing that (b) ask uninvolved admins to look into the case. I will not accept being blocked by the same person with which I am in dispute. RU has changed my edits to "About Sanskrit" and "Reconstructed terms", which is of course his right, but which, should I dissent with his edits, requires us both to use the pertint talkpagages to pin down our differences and try to look for a compromise solution. RU has done nothing of the sort so far, he has simply resorted to reverting me and smearing me on BP as "vandal" and "problem user"

I emphasize again that I am willing to enter constructive debate on each and every point. That I do not insist on having reconstructed terms in mn namespapace (although I would have presented arguments in favour of this, had there been a debate about it; as it is no-one has even heard those arguments ye. RURU's notion of copyright appear to be, well, hazy. This is also a topic that would require informed debate, where actual sources are consulted to establish the stas q quo, instead of simple assertions pulled out of thin air. Again, this is all material for further debate. I would be happy to have such debates on WT, and you are welcome to copy all this to BP, but I will not be using WT excepting insertion of new material as my activitiesn Wikipededia shall necessitate (such as[:wiwikt:aśvamedha]], which I link to from Ashvamedha; which perfectly valid entry, incidentially, RU has again jumped upon to denigrate me on BP (what is wrong with that guy?)), until RU agrees to at least forgo blocking me unilaterally, without asking for input by uninvolved admins beforehand. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

see also

the entirety of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes -- these are policies that were carved out under extreme pressure of the hairiest disputes on WP. WT being much smaller will probably not need all of them, e.g. WP:3RR was implemented only in 2005, but it would be well to consider their gist as something really time-tested and optimized.

In conclusion, I do wish the project all the best, I do recognize that policies and guidelines are still being optimized (why, it was my intention to contribute to precisely that), and I do hope I will find the environment more welcoming and stable in a couple of months. dab (𒁳) 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Connel's response 1/31/2007[edit]

If I gave the impression that Wiktionary has no policies we follow at all, I apologize. We simply call them Guidelines or Common Practices most of the time. I've spent some time in the last couple days starting a reorganization of them, so newbies can find them easier.

Thank you for your response, and permission to restore the conversation back to Wiktionary pages. I will do so soon, albeit imperfectly, without edit history.

You've raised quite a few issues (whether you know it or not) beyond the two central themes. But to address them, I'd like to turn the tables, so perhaps you can understand. You are well versed in vandal-fighting (especially subtle vandal fighting) so I'm tailoring this to you...anyone else reading the following will probably not understand it, as implicitly as you should.

Please note the open, frank, candid tone that follows. It has been phrased this way for simplicity (else it would have been at least twice as long.) This is not meant as some kind of inter-project essay (even though it touches on some of those elements): these are comments from one Wiktionary sysop to one Wikipedia administrator only. Parts that seem overly-critical must be understood as fairly representative of my Wiktionary perspective.
  • What would you think of a new user with ~500 contributions?
    1. What would you think of a new user with ~500 contributions over four weeks? (Say, with ~ 3 to 10 edits the first week.)
    2. What would you think of a new user with ~500 contributions in one day?
    3. What would you think of a new user with ~500 contributions in four years?

Number one is obviously a new wikiholic. Number two is obviously a vandal.

Ahhh, but number three.

What is going on in a case like that. Someone who has never been active, during any portion of their time on the project, only tossing in spurious contributions here and there. Do they have a firm grasp of how things work?

Let turn the tables back again...back to the Wiktionary perspective. Actually, it is very true for any sister project, from the contacts I've had...but for my example I'll stick to Wiktionary. has had dozens of the third case. Sometimes, they are vandals. WP:'T is the best example of that. But the inter-project nature of Wiktionary forces many to fall into that category unwittingly. Can someone who edits one or two Wikipedia articles a month, be considered knowledgeable of the inner policies of Wikipedia? Would you even dare to suspect that they are aware? Clearly, that is far beyond the scope of AGF, right?

My Wiktionary involvement has left me little time for Wikipedia. When I do "come over the wall" is is always a disgusting, filthy experience. The layers upon layers upon layers of bureaucracy are simply sickening, to me. Wikipedia has rabid policy wonks that seriously hurt the project. Wikipedia, I feel, has lost sight of how to get things done. If you let everyone edit that wants to help, then let them. If you find a troll or vandal, then BLOCK THEM, don't piss around wasting everyone's time. Conversely, anyone (meaning anyone) that has demonstrated the ability and desire to help, should be given every possible tool available, to do so.

Obviously, this means I have to tiptoe around, when I'm on Wikipedia, as if I'm walking on broken glass. It is clear my mentality is not in favor here. I think "cowboy" was the term you used.

Say, (to point to a real, recent example,) I come to visit, to fix an erroneous article that won't transwiki properly for my User:CopyToWiktionaryBot. First off, I don't have any delete/restore buttons for the article in question. But secondly, and more importantly, I'm immediately lost in the maze of where the fuck do I make a request for article restore? God forbid, that a full restore causes further technical problems, and I need it re-deleted, and only the last 500 revisions restored. And all the while, someone like Daniel Brant might come along and mark the whole "restore request" as invalid for not crossing a "T" or dotting an "I" or something. Now, I understand that being an administrator "is no big deal," in official texts, while in reality is a very, very, very big fucking deal. Should it be? Of course not. But the bureaucracy here has grown completely unchecked, for no apparent reason.

But Wikipedia is even worse than just that. You give administrators [block] buttons, then tell them never to use them. What. The. Fuck.

Now, let's leave my meandering observations to the side for a moment. Back on Wiktionary, it must seem like a zoo to Wikipedians. But it is not. There are strict conventions in place, but they simply are not formalized into lethargic, inflexible bureaucratic policies. I personally have spent enormous amounts of time trying to codify some of them. But the flavor is quite different.

Yes, we have a Wiktionary blocking guideline, at wikt:WT:BLOCK. It shall very likely remain a guideline forever. Wiktionary has repeatedly rejected 3RR. Not because it is a bad guideline, but instead, because it is a bad RULE. It is covered under other conventions, without adding any restrictions on when it can be used, whatsoever. Someone reverts once in a POV manner? Yes, blocking them before it gets out of hand may be acceptable. But only the sysop involved can know for sure. To a Wikipedia, I understand this seems not only impolite, but against policy. Alas, that is the perennial fallacy we encounter. There is nothing inherently wrong with blocking someone who is disruptive. And with 40+ sysops (unlike Wikipedia's 1,000+) there are numerous benefits to quick block actions.

For one thing, there is less cleanup to be done. For another, there is less time-wasting discussion detracting all active sysops and contributors. For another, the block history is tracked better, as a crystal clear indication of repeat trolling/vandalism/disruption. I must emphasize and re-emphasize that last point. Open proxies are a difficulty on en.wiktionary; on Wikipedia they are a perpetual nightmare. The block history that appear on the block page is simply invaluable to quickly and reasonably, escalating those blocks.

Now, in your case, your block history shows a pattern of disruption. It is only with the most gigantic possible leap of faith, that one can assume you did not understand the centralized nature of the Wiktionary discussions. But, having taken that leap, it is still true, that you went ahead and edited a pillar of Wiktionary (wikt:WT:CFI) directly against things you had heard and things you had been told, beyond any reasonable limit of forgiveness.

Suppose for a moment, I edited NOR to remind people that as long as they have a web page somewhere, then what they say on that web page can be used as a notable citation. Suppose for a moment, that I had written an essay on the concept beforehand, and got scathing criticism of it, yet decided to go ahead and edit NOR not only despite the harsh criticism, but to directly undermine it. Even Wikipedian Administrators can recognize that as disruptive right? How about if I then reverted the rollback, and posted on WP:AN/I and WP:VP and everywhere else I could, complaining about the sysop abuse of the evil roll-back-ers? What if I then called for reinforcements, of like-minded people to help push my POV? (OK, this hypothetical analogy is pretty far out there...I'll guess I'd have to go to encyclopediadramatica to find someone who agrees with that BS.) And so on...

I hope that you can appreciate that to English Wiktionary sysops, that is exactly what it appears you did. After being told to cease updating a failed/abandoned/OBE policy page, you then edited the most important page on Wiktionary (in approximate order of importance: WT:CFI, WT:ELE, WT:BP, Wiktionary:Main Page, WT:TR, WT:RFV, WT:VOTES, WT:RFD, WT:GP.) Not only did you not have consensus built up anywhere for the change, you directly undermined the spirit and letter of all Wiktionary policy in one fell swoop. I hope you can appreciate my surprise, that you were not blocked indefinitely, or a the very least, for one year.

Now, all the sysop abuse allegations aside, I am very pleased that you have been able to frame your complaints in a way that I can appreciate them.

Furthermore, I am very glad that you so far have made very helpful observations about policy deficiencies. Some of these, I have begun to address and correct.

I am intrigued by your "Reconstructed:" idea. Offhand, it does not seem workable, but it is certainly worth hearing out. I wish to very clearly state that I am opposed to any mention of any P-I-E terms anywhere on, so I may not be your best advocate on the topic. Fortunately for you, cooler heads than mine seem to have won out, taking the less radical approach of restricting P-I-E to the appendix namespace (as it has been, for a very long time) as a more official compromise. I must note with exquisite irony, that the completion of that month-long vote has now made a radical move to "Reconstructed:" much less likely, and obviously more difficult.

Lastly, you said "Everything else is not related to the content side but how the debate didn't take place, how the "active debate" page was voted from under my ass, and how I was blocked for dissent." Well, the debate did take place in 2004 (with the conclusion that no P-I-E terms could be used on Wiktionary) and again in 2005 (with the same conclusion again.) The "Active discussion" tag on that rejected policy page was someone's experiment that had not been cleaned up before yesterday. (I have modified that template as a result of this misunderstanding.) Again, you were not blocked for dissent, you were blocked for disruption. There were numerous approaches, all of which would have been much better, you could have chosen.

I do very clearly understand how difficult it is, to be a perpetual newbie on a project (Wiktionary for you, Wikipedia for me.) Just when you think you have a handle on how things work "over the wall" and get comfortable editing, a random sledge-hammer comes down on your forehead. But the one thing that seems to help the most, is to remember that you are a newbie.

Between this reply, and other external events, I've noticed I just "lost" six hours of bot runs. I can't imagine how much time has been lost, collectively, between the 50+ involved people, (and 200+ onlookers) so far, as a result of these misunderstandings. I remain optimistic that some more good can still come, from all this.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

etymology on wikt:[edit]

now, things seem to become more clear. I think at the core is the misunderstanding that I seemed to be coming across a derelict policy proposal ("reconstructed terms") marked as an "active discussion" and containing several workable suggetions, while the actual debate had apparently taken place on BP and had become part of general lore without being reflected in any policy page. If you did decide on reconstructed terms ages ago, why was there no mention of the fact on CFI, and why did you allow the persistence of the 'active' "reconstructed terms" page? It seems the project is above all in need of clean documentation of its past debates an decisions.
regarding etymological material. The proposition isn't that a reconstructed term like "*pek'u-" is in anyhow a "real word" on equal footing with "sheep", I wouldn't ever suggest such a thing. The nature of the term may be seen under two aspects,
  1. as a jargon term of a specific academic field, much like "MRI", which isn't a "real word" in the sense of "sheep" either. Indo-Europeanists may naturally refer to *pek'u- in spoken and written expression as a specialist jargon term of their field with a clear definition. In some cases, the term may bleed out of academia into general use, for example "algiz" (from Germanic studies to esotericism), much like "AIDS" bled from medicine jargon into general usage. I am not aware of any restriction against including jargon terms in Wiktionary, and I see no reason why linguistic academic jargon should be treated differently just because Wiktionary itself is a linguistic project. This view would argue in favour of including the terms in main namespace, or at least have links from main namespace to wherever it is etymological information resides, such as: "isaz: 1. Proto-Germanic wikt:Appendix:Reconstructed:Wherever-you-stashed-it:WARNING-not-a-word!:*:*isaz "ice"; 2. name of the Isaz rune".
  2. as a term of a constructed language. If we can have wikt:Category:Volapük language I see no conceivable reason why we cannot have wikt:Category:Proto-Indo-European language. Yes, both are modern constructions. Both are notable. But while Volapük is the province of a few enthusiasts, PIE is the subject of an entire academic field, taught in dozens of Universities in a dozen countries, with several dedicated academic journals that have been going for more than a century. Since PIE is undisputably a constructed language, I in best faith took the "constructed languages" paragraphof CFI, since there was no explicit mention of reconstruction, to include PIE. If all constructed languages of equal or greater notability than Volapük belong in main namespace, so does, I would argue, obviously, PIE.
  3. as a shorthand, the constituent phonemes as it were algebraic symbols summarizing a pattern of attestation. thus the *p in *pek'u stands for Latin p, Sanskrit p, English f, etc. As such, the entry would be a mere convenience to centrally treat the etymology of cognate words at a single location. There is nothing that would speak against having this outside main namespace. This is pretty much the ratio I gave at wikt:Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms which RU kept wiping out. Possibilities would be wikt:Appendix:*pek'u-, wikt:Appendix:Reconstructed:pek'u- or wikt:Reconstructed:pek'u-. I seriously advise against wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European root pek'u-, because that's incorrect: the term is a stem, not a root (and to require people to correctly distinguish roots, stems, indeclinables and finite forms in page titles would just intruduce a gratuitous source of errors). I advise also against wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European pek'u-: first of all, why? We don't see it necessary to split wikt:lit into wikt:English lit, wikt:French lit, wikt:Swedish lit etc, h2 sections are enough. Secondly, it will simply fragment entries, since it will not stop at Proto-Indo-European, we'll have Proto-Germanic, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Semitic, Proto-Afro-Asiatic entries and what have you. wikt:Appendix:Proto-Afro-Asiatic ʾl is silly when we can just have wikt:Reconstructed:ʾl.
  • regarding Sanskrit and IAST vs. Devanagari, I won't even argue about it, it is too obvious that RU at this point is just trying to shoot down whatever I bring up. I do have expertise on the subject, I can name any number of notable publications that do use IAST, I am willing to contribute Sanskrit entries in IAST but not in Devanagari since that's convenient for me, and the way I want to link the entries from WP. I wouldn't dream of trying to outlaw Devanagari entries, the corresponding entries should just point or redirect to each other. There is no reason there should even be a dispute here other than RU's vitriolic temper.
I present these arguments to you since you showed interest. They are what I would have presented on the pertinent talkpages if RU hadn't seen it fit to stifle all debate with his bully's approach. I do recognize that the well has been poisoned now, and I will do well to stay away from WT for a while, but I submit to you these considerations to submit or not submit to the part of the WT community interested in making the project a repository of etymological information as you see fit. regards, dab (𒁳) 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your lucid response. I think at this point, a one-week cool-down is needed before presenting any of the 12-15 or so points you identified above, individually. Please note carefully that your assessment of RU's actions do not match mine, nor most other Wiktionary sysops'. Oddly, the sysops who have been most active in ensuring the Devanagari uniformity have remained silent, so far, with RU being particularly neutral on the topic in the past. Your implicication of tarring and feathering, I think, falls under BEANS, :-)   and is best avoided. A cool-off period is a obviously needed. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • thanks. I recognize there seems to be a sort of cultural divide here, which is in itself remarkable with two so closely related communities. I can only state that I have never found my assessment similarly in opposition to a consensus of the admin population on WP and declare myself confused. I am always, on WT or WP, more than willing to shake hands, or even just grunt in recognition, and look forward, even without insisting on apologies for past grievances, and I hope you will be willing to testify you found me amenable to reasonable debate even without needing to hit me over the head with a truncheon first. I am most ready to appreciate more moderate appraisals of RU's actions on the part of other WT admins. As I said, I will not be back to WT for some time anyway, but I will consider the episode resolved as soon as RU agrees that in the interest of avoiding decisions based on personal grudges, he will in the future ask other admins to "deal with me" should he feel I was violating some written or unwritten WT policy. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Please note that User:Connel MacKenzie/w is canvassing and could have gotten you and Werdna in a lot of trouble if it had been posted. Cbrown1023 talk 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad I didn't use it, and am grateful you gave me the link explaining the relevant policy. Odd that WP:CANVASS shows such bias, in the way it implicitly promotes oppose canvassing. Thank you for the speedy-delete. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "invalid" comments at the FAC[edit]

I'd like to direct your attention to the instructions at the top of the featured article candidates page. In particular: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." In other words, objections have to be about the article itself, and not the article's contents. Objections of form: this subject is too obscure/boring/technical to be a featured article are inherently inactionable, in that they cannot be fixed. Per the FAC instructions, that makes them invalid objections, which the FA director (me) can ignore. Raul654 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary block[edit]

We are still discussing CSU's block at Meta:Babel. I am curious why we are blocked and why we have been blocked for over 7 months. You asked about the unblocking and Raul does not remember. Thanks. Best Username Ever 00:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Politics of the Netherlands (terminology)[edit]

I don't know what policy says on this but I do not believe that Politics of the Netherlands (terminology) should be transwiktionaried like your bot proposed here. The article is mainly used (look at its links) to explain Dutch concepts used in articles about the politics of the Netherlands to non-Dutch readers. It is not a list of dictionary definitions, but a list of how common insitutions, like mayors and provincial governors are implementented in the Netherlands. Otherwise these articles would be about 100 additional stubs on wikipedia. Therefore it should not be transwiktionaried and certainly not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C mon (talkcontribs) 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

2000 AD glossary[edit]

I have explained why I don't feel the entry meets the transwiki criteria [5] as it is about a consturcted language and other fictional terms. (Emperor 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Glossary and supplements for the Rwandan Genocide[edit]

Your bot added multiple TW cleanup tags to this article... not sure why but figured I should point it out. gren グレン 00:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...yes I am in the process of finding and fixing all the glassaries affected. (So far, it seems like all of them.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators[edit]

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


The bot says it's been transwikied but when you click on the links it doesn't look like the current version of the article has been transwikied. Could you check it out? Thanks, Pan Dan 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now. That one has too much history to avoide the apache timeouts one the squids, so it always fails. I've imported the latest version; I hope that helps, but it seems to be all I can do for it, at this time. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks very much! Pan Dan 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi - it looks like CopyToWiktionaryBot is automatically copying across all articles marked with vocab-stub. Not all vocab-stubs are really suitable to be transwikied - a lot of them will eventually end up as full sized Wikipedia articles that are far beyond what can be incorporated into Wiktionary. Please don't automatically assume that a vocab-stub is simply waiting to go over to Wiktionary! The text at the top of the category says it best: "The following message (from the {{move to wiktionary}} template) may apply to some or all of the articles in this category". Grutness...wha? 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't choose to add that category to the copy to Wiktionary category. Obviously, as a whole, they are better suited (and more relevant) if placed properly at Wiktionary. The ones that will develop into full encyclopedic entries, of course will remain on Wikipedia. Did I miss something here, or did you? Simply copying them to Wiktionary will not cause deletion on Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners[edit]

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on Wiktionary[edit]

Hello Connel,

I am writing you here because my account of the same name has been blocked on Wiktionary as being a sockpuppet of Primetime. This is an error and I don't see how to contact you over there because I am blocked there. I think on wikipedia I would be able to do some limited edits to get help from an admin were I blocked here, but I was unable to figure out how to do that there. It says I should provide you my IP address: Please assist. Thanks.

WilliamKF 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to post on your account at wikipedia, but you blocked my AWB account there too. Here is the message I was composing:

Hello Connel,

I see that you have reverted several of my changes, blocked my account, blocked my IP address, and accused me of being a sock puppet of User:Primetime. For example you reverted my change to materteral. As it turns out, your revert was subsequently reverted by another user back to my version, which I feel supports my edit being well intentioned. I do not know what led you to feel my changes were not well intentioned. Therefore, I can only offer my Wikipedia account as evidence of my long standing history of well intentioned contributons to many of the different wiki projects. Please let me know what else I can offer up to support my defense. I'd appreciate my account being unlocked and my IP address being unlocked, thanks.

WilliamKF 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki of Metaescaline[edit]

Your bot transwikied the article "Metaescaline." does "transwiki" mean move the article from wikipedia to wiktionary, or copy the article onto wiktionary, leaving the original? Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a Wiktionarian, I have no idea, nor the slightest guess, at what Wikipedia will do with it. The bot copies (with full revision history) the entry to wikt:Transwiki:Metaescaline and tags the Wikipedia entry Metaescaline for cleanup OR deletion, as per whatever the Wikipedia rules are. My guess, is that no one could seriously nominate it for deletion, but I've been surprised before!
Thank you, very much for commenting on my Wiktionary talk page! It has been a while since I've looked over "the wall."  :-) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


In Wiktionary, you blocked me from editing it. Can you please tell me what I did wrong? 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are editing from an open proxy, apparently., etc. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense of Psoloquoise[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Psoloquoise, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Psoloquoise provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Psoloquoise, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Psoloquoise itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual, my foray over the wall to evil Wikipedia has ended inexplicably. Was there some reason you deleted this entry, without any comment? I can understand you might feel disinclined to expand it, but certainly a redirect was merited. So, I'd like to know why.
--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this article with a comment of "nonsense"; this may be a shorter comment than you would have liked, but it is a valid reason for deletion. I have no wish or intention to offend you, and apologise if I have done so. The essential fact is that our encyclopedia has no sense of humour, and articles such as yours which are intended to be humorous but which have no encyclopedic content do not survive. I hope this answers your question, and would like to take the opportunity to encourage you to contribute factual articles to wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree. The entry was not "humorous" in any way. It is an attested curiosity that any linguist ought to know of and be able to refute sensibly, by referring to the encyclopedic explanation of it, such as the one at Ghoti. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect, the first words of your article are "A humorous spelling of Circus". My calling it humorous comes from this. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The entry was not humorous; it is about a humorous spelling, of significant linguistic value. Are you prone to just madly delete stuff without checking? What's the point of linking references, if someone such as yourself, happily deletes (obviously relevant) encyclopedic information from an encyclopedia? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I feelt the article should be deleted under criterion A1 as it provides no context to reader about the purported significance of the spelling. It has no sources either. Leebo T/C 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The {{speedy}} designation is obviously an error; this should be designated either as a stub or perhaps recommended for merging. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article to mainspace. It comes back with its {{speedy}} and {{hangon}} tags attached, and we will see what happens. The above comment from User:Leebo was not solicited by me.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the entry. Can you help me with the format of how Wikipedia "References" sections ought to be formatted? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that the article has, as I rather expected, been deleted by another editor. I have got to say that that makes three admins and one non-admin who believe that the article should not exist.

You will find out all about references and citations if you go to the page WP:REF. Best wishes and happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the Ghoti article, perhaps Psoloquoise could be a redirect to Ghoti and have an adequate explanation there. Leebo T/C 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, a redirect certainly would have been preferable. Who is the third admin? And why did this second one whack it while it was still being discussed? That's trigger-happy, even by Wiktionary standards! --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The three admins I refer to are myself, User:Leebo and User:Metros, who re-deleted it.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So, that's three admins and one non-admin who know nothing about linguistics, then? Why the rabid witch-hunt? Can't any of you properly tag it as a stub, or even mark it for merging properly? It very obviously is a valid encyclopedic entry. While I understand it is easier to simply delete anything you don't understand, I would hope that those entrusted as "administrators" would at least give cursory examination to what they were deleting; perhaps even learning something along the way. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The article existed for 3 days with inadequate context. There is nothing to prevent you from creating the article with appropriate context and sources. Would you like it restored to your userspace at User:Connel MacKenzie/Psoloquoise so you can work on it outside of the encyclopedia? Leebo T/C 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's not a matter of understanding or not understanding the subject matter. I can understand the content of the article, but it was presented as an interesting factoid without sources or significance (lack of context). There is consensus to remove such articles from the encyclopedia, rather than let them remain indefinitely. Lastly, it seems that the spelling doesn't discuss anything that isn't covered in the Ghoti article, which is why I recommended it be added there as another example. Leebo T/C 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response. I think that restoring it to user space would deftly prevent the "piranha effect" (AKA "wikimagic") from doing its thing, but that would be better than nothing. I do not understand the Wikipedia-specific consensus of deleting entries rather than redirecting and merging them (if, as you say, the article cannot be expanded on its own to encompass a complete encyclopedia topic.) While I understand it could be viewed as a "factoid" at first glance, I don't understand how it was re-deleted despite obvious conversation. Is there some new mandate over here on Wikipedia that calls for instantaneous expulsion of anything questionable, even if there is discussion regarding its merit? I know I haven't spent time "over the wall" recently, but that seems like a dramatic change from how things used to proceed. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: "...existed for three days"...well, not exactly. I created what I thought was an honest start of a fledgling article. When I returned, it was marked speedy which diverted me from expanding it. When next I returned, it was gone. When next I returned, it was back tentatively. By the time I was ready to expand it, it was gone again. Surely you can appreciate that it wasn't editable for those three days. But the incredibly quick re-deletion is what irks me the could it not be obvious there was surrounding discussion? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "it was marked speedy which diverted me from expanding it." The speedy templates typically encourage the original creator to rectify the problem, and only specify that the tag not be removed by the creator. Also, the discussion was taking place on user talk pages, so the re-deleting admin must have missed it. I will restore it to your userspace and you can move it back to the encyclopedia when you feel it's ready. Leebo T/C 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The move to User:Connel MacKenzie/Psoloquoise is complete. Leebo T/C 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there a timer set on it, or can I expect it to persist for a week? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Drafts of articles you intend to move to the encyclopedia are typically allowed to exist indefinitely. There's not really any time limit. Leebo T/C 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Armedblowfish[edit]

WP:BEANS. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


for the Zen transwiki :) Pan Dan 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block my Wiktionary account?[edit]

Hello Connel MacKenzie, please list and explain here what wiktionary edits for "Hollow are the Ori" are in any way blockable offenses? Why did you make the block indefinite?

If there are any other admins reading this page please look into this case. zen master T 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spreading falsehoods that my email to you regarding your unjustified block of my wiktionary account had a bad tone. The tone of my email to you was the same as my tone is here. I repeat my request for you to list and explain here how any of my wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses? zen master T 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Dear Connel MacKenzie,

I am a long-time, productive Wiktionary editor (active in several Wiktionaries of different languages in which I have skill) and I seem to have been mistakenly blocked indefinitely without warning. I have never added a word in error and have added hundreds of Asian words (primarily in the Vietnamese and Chinese languages). Thanks in advance for taking care of this, and I also hope you won't block without warning, or indefinitely, in the future, as this would seem to serve to alienate productive editors. It's best if we help one another to do the best job possible rather than act in a pre-emptively punitive way (no matter how right we may feel we are, or how wrong we may feel another editor is, over a particular technical issue).

One more thing: would you kindly fix the Wiktionary software so that blocked editors may post on the discussion pages of the blocking editors? As it stands now, this is not possible, and if you did not have a Wikipedia account it would be impossible to have any recourse for such a block. Best, 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at you seem to be on a semi-fixed RR IP address. Looking at I'd guess that my 1 week block (for re-adding nonsense) might be far too short. Thanks for bringing my attention to that address.
Do not post Wiktionary unblock requests here. They can fester unnoticed for weeks at a time here. My e-mail address is posted on Wiktionary for those who cannot lobby their case due to blocks. "Fixing" the Wiktionary software to enable blocked users to post is not something I support and does not appear to have any community consensus at all. Leaving that feature turned off is a result of past abuses and AFAIK, is not supported by any of the Wiktionary community at all. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Connel MacKenzie,

With all of your research about me, I suppose you are unaware that I am among the top 40 contributors of en:wiki's million-plus contributors, and a productive contributor, always working in good faith and with the utmost accuracy at both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. I dispute your imputation of poor behavior on my part (there has been none), and do not understand the strange website you sent me to, with all the colored blocks and incomprehensible abbreviations. I reiterate that I have never created an entry in error and do not add spam of any sort to any of the Wiki projects. Your failure to acknowledge the years of productive contributions I have made reflects poorly on you.

One further thing: at Wikipedia, blocked editors may post to discussion pages in order to request an unblock and send a message to the blocking editor. This allows for accountability and transparency, which are very important to all of our Wiki projects. I do ask again that the software for Wiktionary be changed in this way, so that we are more of a community, and that editors such as yourself are not perceived as unaccountable "kings" or "oligarchs" of the site who may exile an editor essentially forever, while not allowing for an editor to prove his or her innocence of the offense for which s/he has been blocked (see below for proof that my own edit for which I was apparently blocked was not in error).

Regarding print sources for "depants" (which I did provide a "non-nonsensical" source for, from the Random House Dictionary, I believe you asked for three? I think these should do, in addition to the Random House Dictionary, to prove that my edit was not in error and meets our CFI.,M1

In light of the above, I will require an apology, and an immediate unblock. I strongly urge you not to block again in such a manner (i.e. a summary block with no warning or notice, no expiration date, and no message to the blocked editor). We are all working together for the same purpose and with only 100 dedicated, active editors, it does not make any logical sense to alienate a contributor who is the only editor actively adding Vietnamese words. Striving not to alienate one's volunteers is a key concept for anyone helping to operate a volunteer-based organization. No one of us is perfect and we all have room for improvement--and that includes yourself. I do appreciate your kindness in this regard, and for all the good things you do in other regards at the Wiktionary project. I thank you in advance for making things right. 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, User:,
I dispute your imputation of bad behavior on my part; there has been none. Tremendous Wikipedia contributions have little or no bearing on Wiktionary. For you to be an productive contributor on Wiktionary you need to follow Wiktionary (not Wikipedia) conventions. Regarding that external link, I do not see how you can fail to understand simple color coded boxes indicating previous nefarious activity from your IP address (which you presumably have had for years.) You most certainly did reenter a previously deleted definition without citations. Your failure to follow such a simple guideline, and your failure to recognize the time previous spent previously dismissing that term by other sysops, reflects poorly on you.
Further, your refusal to follow the links given on the block page imply that you had no desire to follow normal, reasonable procedures in a dispute. After my reminder above, you still used the least preferred method of communication. That is an indication of your refusal to collaborate and cooperate. Your outright lie of indicating a one-week block is somehow indefinite is inexplicable. Your insistence that Wiktionary adopt an often-abused mechanism present on Wikipedia seems equally nonsensical. These facts, again, reflect poorly on you.
Thank you for these supplemental citations, after-the-fact. They apparently were not available when the earlier determinations were made. The new sysop you did contact had already supplied sufficient citations formatted correctly, according to our formats. I strongly urge you not to use such underhanded methods of sysop-fishing in the future as they can affect the new-sysop's standing as well. The impression that you can only function in a covert manner reflects poorly on you. Wiktionary has only tens of thousands of contributors, of which only several hundred are active. Due to the lexical nature of the dictionary, the formatting conventions, verification conventions and cleanup conventions are much more strict on Wiktionary than on Wikipedia. Due to the smaller size (as you noted) it is more important that we all work together, as there are fewer contributors around to keep an eye on things, as compared to Wikipedia. No one among us is perfect and we all have room for improvement - including you. Wiktionary does welcome your valuable Vietnamese translation entries, as do I. Despite the mechanism used, I appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter in a straight-forward manner. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Connel MacKenzie,
Thank you for your note. I changed my Internet service provider from Earthlink to Road Runner earlier this summer, and also around the same time purchased a new PC to replace my old, broken one (in early June). As I said before, I don't know anything about the website you directed me to and still cannot make any sense of it, but I assume all the IP addresses I have had since then are different from the ones I had before with my old PC, under the Earthlink service I previously had (with a different modem). I had no way to indicate any of this on your Wiktionary talk page, as the software doesn't allow a blocked editor to post there (unlike Wikipedia, which does allow this). I am not wrong in maintaining that the block (without warning, notification, or indication of the length) was very wrong, and will require an apology, as a long-time contributor who always works in good faith. It was impossible to know that the block was not "forever" as there was no notification of the block on my "Discussion" page. All of this is a strong recommendation to improve your procedures in the future in similar matters. Thanks again for your response. 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You said: "without citations" - the definition did include a citation, which was the Random House Dictionary. Providing a reference to a reputable dictionary is not a blockable offense, and I can only assume that your having been proved wrong by this reputable source was the primary reason for your summary block, and nothing else. 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote[edit]


Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).

As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.

I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.

Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(This made more sense to post here, even if you didn't see it for awhile. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Heh - with a Wiktionary link, no less!  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on Wiktionary - Kitty53[edit]

Connel, I'm sorry for adding nonsense to the marshmallow article on Wiktionary, but I still never found it very nice of you to block me from editing there. That gives me nothing to edit for 24 hours there, and it gets no fun! I was going to add another reference to my talk page there up until you arrived to block me!Kitty53 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of en.wiktionary is to build a free (as in speech) dictionary. Having fun is sometimes a by-product, but certainly not the focus of the project. Looking at your talk page now, it seems like you spend most of your time defending against all your material being AfD'd. Perhaps your focus is wrong, for a general use encyclopedia. Meanwhile, there's a whole wide world out there; while not always fun, it generally is more satisfying than any boring reference-building. Your user talk page emphasizes that you are a young girl - well then, go outside and play, before you're too old to! Real friends can give you real smiles and real hugs, that are bound to cheer you up more effectively than random icons.
I'm not sure of some of the "reference" links on your Wiktionary talk page. Surely one generic translator is better than three or four promotional / advertising-oriented sites (that can't be used as citations of use on Wiktionary, anyhow.)
In the future, I'd appreciate your contacting me directly, instead of this Wikipedia-like back-stabbing. I have my e-mail contact information prominently mainly because the cultures of Wiktionary and Wikipedia are so different.
--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Wayobjects (Copy and paste from)[edit]

2008-01-27 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not yet successfully completed!!! Peter Horn 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wiktionary in turn should refer back to the Wikipedia to cover[edit]

Peter Horn 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

as well as
Before deleting this article look at "what links here".

Peter Horn 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No definition yet either way:

Peter Horn 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The contents have NOT actually been moved!!! Peter Horn 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Horn 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter Horn, the entry wikt:Transwiki:Wayobjects most certainly, positively does exist with the complete edit history from Wikitpedia. HOWEVER, because the nonstandard syntax {{Copy to Wiktionary|date=January 2008}} was used instead of {{Copy to Wiktionary}}, the bot did not tag it properly. But it did copy it, so it will (ultimately) be handled routinely by Wiktionarians. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Use wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie instead. Please do not leave messages here!
or wikt:Special:Emailuser/Connel MacKenzie
or even Special:Emailuser/Connel MacKenzie

  • Note: I do check this page at least weekly monthly annually. Some comments understandably must be left here, but please be aware that I am not likely to notice them in a timely manner!

TfD nomination of Template:Spellcheck[edit]

Template:Spellcheck has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Primordial sea[edit]

Ok, there is a dispute on whether or not Primordial sea article should exist?

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spellchecker[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Spellchecker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)