The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Egypt Bans Online Porn, Should we send them a link to Commons?
Retrospect
post Wed 14th November 2012, 9:20am
Post #21


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



And here's another one:
QUOTE
I've been calling, and referring to Britons thinking of it as a friendly nikname. I wasn't intending to be offensive, but was.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 14th November 2012, 2:45pm
Post #22


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Wed 14th November 2012, 4:20am) *

And here's another one:
QUOTE
I've been calling, and referring to Britons thinking of it as a friendly nikname. I wasn't intending to be offensive, but was.




Doesn't prove anything. Brit is not offensive and never will be, just like Yank is not. Even your own link has:

"I take the easy way out.....I would much rather be called a Scot first and foremost. Being called a Brit is ok by me too......it has the same short, sharp no nonsense ring to it like Scot. "

The thing is, they have to make up some stupid reason to claim it is offensive. British people and Brits don't find it offensive. Just trolls like you do. Even the British newspapers constantly shorten it to Brit. When you quote, like your link or from mine, you take a minority and try to act like it is the majority. That is in the definition of trolling.

So stop the trolling.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Wed 14th November 2012, 2:50pm
Post #23


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I used to like the term "teabaggers" for Brits too, before those nasty American nut usurped it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 14th November 2012, 3:24pm
Post #24


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 14th November 2012, 9:50am) *

I used to like the term "teabaggers" for Brits too, before those nasty American nut usurped it.



Is this an attempt to get back to the porn discussion?

dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Thu 15th November 2012, 12:35pm
Post #25


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 14th November 2012, 2:45pm) *

Doesn't prove anything. Brit is not offensive and never will be

Ruddy great troll, aren't you? Ignoring anything that opposes your view as "trolling" is a classic troll technique in itself.

Did you know that you won't find "Brit", in that meaning, in the whole of Webster's 3rd New International? Not because it didn't exist then; the new Collegiate dates it to 1901. Because it was too bloody offensive to go in!

And note that Tarc deliberately used the term because he knew it was offensive.

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 13th November 2012, 2:27pm) *

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Tue 13th November 2012, 7:35am) *

If that were true, fuckwit, you'd know we hate being called "Brits".

I know, that is why I used it on purpose.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Thu 15th November 2012, 2:58pm
Post #26


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 15th November 2012, 7:35am) *

Because it was too bloody offensive to go in!



No.

Websters uses "Brit" as an adjective dating back quite a long time. You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English.

"Brit" was their preferred descriptive of a British person because it was short, concise and to the point. We don't approve of "Briton" or "Britisher" here in the States.

You have failed in every single argument you have made. That makes you either a troll or extremely incompetent. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your errors were purposeful. If you want, I can just label you as one of the stupidest people ever.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 15th November 2012, 3:00pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Thu 15th November 2012, 5:45pm
Post #27


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th November 2012, 9:58am) *
...one of the stupidest people ever.


Also one of the handful of people to be banned Over There™. That's some rarefied air there, with the likes of The Wife and VoC.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Thu 15th November 2012, 9:24pm
Post #28


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th November 2012, 2:58pm) *

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 15th November 2012, 7:35am) *

Because it was too bloody offensive to go in!



No.

Websters uses "Brit" as an adjective dating back quite a long time. You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English.

"Brit" was their preferred descriptive of a British person because it was short, concise and to the point. We don't approve of "Briton" or "Britisher" here in the States.

You have failed in every single argument you have made. That makes you either a troll or extremely incompetent. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your errors were purposeful. If you want, I can just label you as one of the stupidest people ever.

Hey, either you're bloody stupider than I believed possible or you're lying through your arse. Aren't you supposed to be at a university? Go to the ruddy library and look up Webster's Third New International. The Google links don't prove your point at all, because they don't show that Webster's Third New International gives that meaning of "Brit"; they can't show what bloody isn't there.
QUOTE

You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English.

So the Third New International, a huge comprehensive reference work, doesn't give that meaning of "Brit". "an incomplete dictionary ... a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English" does. Or are you saying it's the Third New International that's incomplete? I can rest my case. Nobody but you would remain unconvinced.

This post has been edited by Retrospect: Thu 15th November 2012, 9:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Fri 16th November 2012, 4:21am
Post #29


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 15th November 2012, 4:24pm) *

Hey, either you're bloody stupider than I believed possible or you're lying through your arse. Aren't you supposed to be at a university? Go to the ruddy library


I can quote the introduction but it clearly says it is for beginners and not a complete dictionary. It is the equivalent of Simple Wiki. You know it as I even pointed it out. Yet here you are, trolling more.


Here is the best troll line

QUOTE
a huge comprehensive reference work


You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Fri 16th November 2012, 4:23am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Fri 16th November 2012, 12:29pm
Post #30


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 16th November 2012, 4:21am) *

You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.

And you're a bloody liar. The Webster's Third New International is the Webster's Unabridged.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htm


This post has been edited by Retrospect: Fri 16th November 2012, 12:30pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Fri 16th November 2012, 3:39pm
Post #31


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Fri 16th November 2012, 7:29am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 16th November 2012, 4:21am) *

You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.

And you're a bloody liar. The Webster's Third New International is the Webster's Unabridged.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htm



No.

Read the introduction.

It is only an unabridged of terms for foreigners. It is not unabridged for all of their words. It is amazing how small you think their complete dictionary would be.

From the Preface:

"Merriam Company now offers Webster's Third New International Dictionary to the English speaking world as a prime linguisitic aid to interpreting the culture and civilization of today... The demands for space have made necessary a fresh judgment on the claims of many parts of the old vocabulary. This dictionary is the result of a highly selective process in which discarding material of insubstantial or evanescent quality has gone hand in hand with adding terms that have obtained a place in the language. It confines itself strictly to generic words and their functions, forms, sounds, and meanings as distinguished from proper names that are not generic. Selection is guided by usefulness, and usefulness is determined by the degree to which terms most likely to be looked for are included."

It is neither comprehensive nor their complete set of definitions. It is done for an international audience of words that they feel are the top necessary words. That edition is limited. Even Wikipedia mentions that. And here is a key section: "He eliminated the 'nonlexical matter' that more properly belongs to an encyclopedia, including all names of people and places (which had filled two appendices). There were no more mythological, biblical, and fictional names, nor the names of buildings, historical events, or art works. "

Their complete, unabridged, American edition ("Collegiate" edition) is online and behind a pay wall along with the actually unabridged "International" edition. It use to be accessible via dictionary.com before they went their own way with pay walls and such.


I think it is odd that you are trying to start a fight over dictionary history with me and my proven background in the field.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Sun 18th November 2012, 10:40am
Post #32


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Are you bloody blind? Have you ever seen a copy of a dictionary? The Third New International is in three volumes measuring 13 by 9.5 inches. It has 2662 pages of dictionary, not counting the introduction or appendices. The second sentence in the preface starts "This latest unabridged Merriam-Webster", and towards the end it again says "This new Merriam-Webster unabridged".

And here's what Merriam-Webster themselves say:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htm
QUOTE
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged

The largest, most comprehensive American dictionary available!

* Over 476,000 entries
* Special updated Addenda Section of new words and meanings
* 3,000 illustrations and 140,000 etymologies describing word origins


http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?c11.htm&1
QUOTE
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

A new edition of America's best-selling dictionary! Setting the standard with:

* Fully revised print edition featuring more than 225,000 definitions
* More than 10,000 new words and meanings

Size: 1,664 pages; 7 1/4" X 9 7/8"


So they themselves think the Collegiate Dictionary has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. But of course, how can Merriam-Webster know as much about their dictionaries as you do?

Yes, you ruddy have demonstrated how much you know about English!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eppur si muove
post Sun 18th November 2012, 12:04pm
Post #33


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 10:40am) *

Are you bloody blind? Have you ever seen a copy of a dictionary? The Third New International is in three volumes measuring 13 by 9.5 inches. It has 2662 pages of dictionary, not counting the introduction or appendices. The second sentence in the preface starts "This latest unabridged Merriam-Webster", and towards the end it again says "This new Merriam-Webster unabridged".

And here's what Merriam-Webster themselves say:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htm
QUOTE
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged

The largest, most comprehensive American dictionary available!

* Over 476,000 entries
* Special updated Addenda Section of new words and meanings
* 3,000 illustrations and 140,000 etymologies describing word origins


http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?c11.htm&1
QUOTE
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

A new edition of America's best-selling dictionary! Setting the standard with:

* Fully revised print edition featuring more than 225,000 definitions
* More than 10,000 new words and meanings

Size: 1,664 pages; 7 1/4" X 9 7/8"


So they themselves think the Collegiate Dictionary has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. But of course, how can Merriam-Webster know as much about their dictionaries as you do?

Yes, you ruddy have demonstrated how much you know about English!

Ooh "bloody" and "ruddy" in one post. Stop being a fucking dickhead and drop this more English than the English act.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Sun 18th November 2012, 12:50pm
Post #34


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 5:40am) *

Are you bloody blind? Have you ever seen a copy of a dictionary? The Third New International is in three volumes measuring 13 by 9.5 inches.



No. The Third is in one volume with updates that came out in later volumes.

You don't even have the basics correct. Pathetic.


QUOTE
So they themselves think the Collegiate Dictionary has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. But of course, how can Merriam-Webster know as much about their dictionaries as you do?


I was referring to their online dictionary. The Collegiate includes terms the International would never - did you not read the quote? It was a big quote, so I assume that your illiteracy kicked in by word 3.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sun 18th November 2012, 12:52pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Sun 18th November 2012, 8:42pm
Post #35


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 18th November 2012, 12:50pm) *

No. The Third is in one volume with updates that came out in later volumes.

I've got a copy in front of me, the Britannica edition, in three volumes. You don't even have the basics correct. Pathetic.
QUOTE

I was referring to their online dictionary.

The Third New International has over twice as many words as the Collegiate. Do you seriously think the online dictionary has over 250,000 words not in the print version? OK, you know better than the ruddy publishers. End of discussion.

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 18th November 2012, 12:04pm) *

Ooh "bloody" and "ruddy" in one post. Stop being a fucking dickhead and drop this more English than the English act.

Says a ruddy descendant of immigrants.

This post has been edited by Retrospect: Sun 18th November 2012, 8:54pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 19th November 2012, 12:04am
Post #36


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 3:42pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 18th November 2012, 12:50pm) *

No. The Third is in one volume with updates that came out in later volumes.

I've got a copy in front of me, the Britannica edition, in three volumes. You don't even have the basics correct. Pathetic.


Even the Wikipedia page says you are wrong.

"a three-volume version was issued for many years as a supplement to the encyclopedia"

Not the Third Edition. You even state "Britannica edition." So you contradict yourself. Wow, you don't even know your own statements or you are the worst compulsive liar this board has had in a long time.


By the way, Brits don't use the word "ruddy." You aren't actually British. You are just a fake.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 19th November 2012, 12:06am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Mon 19th November 2012, 1:57am
Post #37


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



From powercorrupts as he is on post moderation and his post has yet to be released. I apologize for not checking my WR/Evil Site e-mail account until tonight, powercorrupts.

QUOTE(powercorrupts)

A) Why would Brits hate being called Brits? I've not encountered that
dislike myself. Unless you are a really touchy anti-UK nationalist (and the
large majority are not nationalists at all), it's a nonsense notion. I must
question whether Retrospect is British. Nobody in the UK says 'bloody,
ruddy' etc in his particular fashion, as most people have noticed by now.

B) If the majority of Muslim people were really as 'extreme' as some
(ironically) extreme people here claim, the world would be the 'terrorist
nightmare' we were told it would become when the US/UK crusaders took us to
'War' (an opinion of both supporters and critics of the wars). But it
isn't, because the fact is that the majority of Muslims are simply highly
peaceful, largely because it is central to their religion. The proof is in
the reaction to the wars. You can always pick something extreme from
sporadic examples (the UK-based London bombings perhaps, which were roundly
unsupported of course), but they prove nothing but the above 'rule'. Egypt
itself was always a mixed society. It all depends where in the world the
Muslim society resides, and we must remember that it's a split religion
too, with moderate and potentially extreme branches. Where the Muslim
people are most oppressed, they are the most extreme - it's largely as
simple as that. The oppression is always down to the mutual trade deals
(and history thereof) between those in power (the corrupt and 'puppet'
princes etc) and the West. The people have almost always lost out, and
that's were extremism both flourishes and is encouraged too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 19th November 2012, 2:27am
Post #38


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 18th November 2012, 8:57pm) *

From powercorrupts as he is on post moderation and his post has yet to be released. I apologize for not checking my WR/Evil Site e-mail account until tonight, powercorrupts.



How long has he been on post moderation? I completely forgot about him.


QUOTE
But it
isn't, because the fact is that the majority of Muslims are simply highly
peaceful, largely because it is central to their religion.


True. But my point wasn't so much Muslims as much as the Egyptian government. Governments have the ability to black out internet sites by controlling the providers. So often, Wikipedia black outs to attack political groups, but a political group could black out Wikipedia. It would be refreshing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
culeaker
post Mon 19th November 2012, 12:47pm
Post #39


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon 22nd Aug 2011, 12:38pm
Member No.: 63,651



I really hadn't intended to contribute to this thread, because it's been so funny, but I have to close the Webster bit once and for all.

Webster's New International became known as the "Unabridged". So when the revised version, the Third New International, came out, Webster's regarded it as the new Unabridged, and describe it as such in the preface. It omitted a certain amount of stuff better suited to an encyclopedia than a dictionary, and also a number of obsolete words, but overall it was bigger than the New International so it deserved to continue as the Unabridged.

It has been available in two versions. One is as a single huge volume. The other, given away as a supplement to some sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is indeed in three volumes. It is identical to the one volume version, except that it has a multi-language dictionary as asupplement, occupying around half of the third volume. No doubt this is the "Britannica edition", so it is correct to describe it as a three-volume version of the Third New International and I cannot fathom why anyone would doubt that.

Recent re-printings, of both the one volume and three volume versions, have included another supplement, of new words. However, this supplement is not that large, and scarcely amounts to two extra volumes!

The Collegiate is far smaller than the Third New International, so cannot possibly be described as the Unabridged. However, it is more up to date since a new edition comes out every few years.

There are online versions of both dictionaries, both behind pay walls. Both online versions of course incorporate supplements of new words. However, the online Third New International remains more than twice as big as the online Collegiate.

So I hope that's that.

PS: Powercorrupts is definitely British.

This post has been edited by culeaker: Mon 19th November 2012, 12:51pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 19th November 2012, 3:47pm
Post #40


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(culeaker @ Mon 19th November 2012, 7:47am) *


Webster's New International became known as the "Unabridged".


No. The College Edition was also labelled "Unabridged." You guys really need to look in the beginning of books to read introductions. It isn't actually an unabridged dictionary, just an unabridged shorten version of a dictionary.

The real definition of unabridged means to not limit itself. Oxford is unabridged, and the full OED contains many more words.

QUOTE
It has been available in two versions. One is as a single huge volume.


You mean a repacked re-issue to sell more books along side of Britannica. Doesn't mean that the original was different. Anyone having a real copy of it would have known that.

QUOTE
The Collegiate is far smaller than the Third New International, so cannot possibly be described as the Unabridged.


Because you are an fool who didn't bother to look. They have a shortened version of both dictionaries called "desk" editions, which are much, much smaller. But neither edition is truly unabridged, just the term is used to sell books to people like you without a clue.

QUOTE
So I hope that's that.


No, because it was about them not having the word "Brit" in their dictionary. It was "that" when I pointed out that they removed items like jargon, proper nouns, and other items that used to be part of their dictionary to make it more for lower level individuals while the Collegiate edition retained many of them to target a more academic audience.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 19th November 2012, 4:06pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th 12 17, 2:14pm