User talk:Griffinofwales

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)

Tools/Navigation popups

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)

Rollback

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

Fuzzy logic?

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)

Thanks

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

Concerns

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)

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)

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)

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)