User talk:Griffinofwales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wiktionary

Hello, Griffinofwales, and welcome to the Simple English Wiktionary!

We hope you will be happy editing here. Some helpful pages to begin with are Wiktionary:Community Portal, Wiktionary:Useful, Help:Contents, Wiktionary:Rules, and Wiktionary:How to edit.

If you want to talk with other members or ask a question, you can visit Wiktionary:Simple talk. Administrators can also help you with more difficult problems. You can also ask me for help. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. Just remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

Good luck and happy editing! Razorflame 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tools/Navigation popups[change]

They are enabled here. You need to go to "my settings", select the "gagets" tab, and enable them for yourself.--Brett 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there! I just granted you rollback rights. Have fun :) Barras 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuzzy logic?[change]

I am uncomfortable contributing to this project; but sometimes I can imagine no better language choice in the context of a simple:Wikipedia article. In other words, I am only interested in adding to entries in this venue when it appears needed by what I've written . Thus far, I have created three problematic edits. Arguably, they serve the purposes I had in mind; but I do not want to create unintended consequences.

I would appreciate feedback about the following:

A. Native

In the stub I created about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I wrote:
RCMP is the police for 184 native communities -- the First Nations,<:ref>First Nations</ref> Inuit<:ref>Inuit</ref> and Métis.<:ref>Métis</ref>
The illustrative example identifies Australian natives as aboriginals. I was trying to be sensitive to a cultural preference in Canada which is reflected in the first sentence at Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Happily, my edit was reverted by a self-identified Canadian here
My question to you is this: Why was my rationale wrong or inappropriate? Alternately, if a timely re-visit to this edit of wikt:native is plausibly necessary, what is the next step?

B. Govern

I added one related word: governance -- without defining it further?
In the stub I created about the Edo period of the history of Japan, I wrote
The period is marked the governance of the Tokugawa shogunate, which was functionally established at Edo in 1603 by the Tokugawa Ieyasu.<:ref>Hall, John. (1991). Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times, pp. 160-164.</ref>
Frankly, I didn't know whether "governance" is the best word in the context. I copied it from Edo period. I liked it because it allowed for the possibility of a kind of en:fuzzy logic which is appropriate to changing relationships between the Imperial court and the shogunate during the period.

C. Function

I added three related words: functional; functionally; functionality -- without defining them?
In the stub I created about the Kamakura period, I wrote:
This period is marked by the governance of the Kamakura shogunate, which was functionally established in 1192 in Kamakura by Minamoto no Yoritomo.<:ref>Hall, John. (1991). Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times, pp. 86-87.</ref>
Although the inline citation support is different, and the different shogunates are distinct administrative entitles, the sense of fuzzy logic in the marriage of "governance" and "functional" seems on-point.

I worry that this is simply wrong in a simple:Wikipedia context?

With appropriate inline citation support, I plan to use a similar pairing of the words "governance" and "functional" in writing about the Asuka period, the Nara period, the Heian period, the Nonboku-chō period and the Muramachi period. FYI: See tables in List of Emperors of Japan and Japanese era name.

Please, I welcome your comments? questions? suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there! Thanks for your help with importing the templates! Barras talk 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You voiced concerns about the usefulness of this entry in an edit summary. What are your concerns regarding this dictionary entry? Immunize (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was questioning the necessity of a dictionary definition if an encyclopedic article on it already exists. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary is not the place for encyclopedia articles. So were you suggesting that we send users to Wikipedia via interwiki link? Immunize (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, just not have the definition at all. Most readers go to WP first, WT doesn't need to have a stub duplicate of the page. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]