User talk:Kipmaster

Your talk page was vandalized and deleted afterwards. I reckon you still deserve a message here :-). Vildricianus 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki#comment

Replied there. Nemo 20:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help proofread the French translation of the Second 2011 Editor Survey

The translation is ready at Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011/fr. Please review it, your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Akhanna 21:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Dear Kipmaster, I would like to ask you if you kindly agree to translate the article Israel Tsvaygenbaum from English to French. Thank you. Sincerely, Boxes12 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time for this.

I realize now that I should have removed my translation boxes...

Regards --Kip (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata update

Hello Kip, have you reviewed the OW design to see how it would work with the current design of Wikidata, which is different from the extension from many years ago?

For instance, it says "Translation tables in the various Wiktionaries could be replaced by data taken directly from OmegaWiki, similarly to how infotables at Wikipedia will be replaced by data taken from the Wikidata project." but it seems to me translation table data would also be stored in Wikidata, and from there used in OmegaWiki (and perhaps also in current translation tables). –SJ talk  01:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful answer. –SJ talk  20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

OmegaWiki

Looks like a great idea. Hopefully it goes through and wikimedia will use it. Nice work though. NativeForeigner (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Amsterdam Hackathon

Is there a chance to meet at the 2013 Amsterdam Hackathon and have a/multiple Omegawiki-related session(s)? --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to go there. I have already visited Amsterdam ;-) --Kip (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should nevertheless talk. Phone or various online options are fine. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

native-languages.org

L'information sur ce site est déjà utilisée par les Wiktionaries et même les Wikipédias. À l'exception d'erreurs potentielles (mais ça tous les dicos en contiennent surtout pour les langues autocthones), l'information est bonne, seulement l'orthographe n'est parfois pas celle la plus utilisée aujourd'hui ou correspond à celle d'un dialecte en particulier, sans être complètement erronée. Amqui (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Merci ! --Kip (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback

Hey Kipmaster,

I wanted to ask for your help. As you may be aware we have been running banners on many language wikis. We have a lot of new content this year and I really want to conduct a thorough review of our translations. This is a combination of feedback from the community, readers, donors as well as those with professional translator experience. This will help us ensure the highest quality of translations used in our messaging.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to give us feedback in french using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Many Thanks

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Are you going to reply to some of the opposes on Requests for comment/Adopt OmegaWiki, like -sche's? πr² (t • c) 14:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied a bit, but basically, I consider that people are entitled to have their own opinions (even if none of the "oppose" guys has tried to edit OmegaWiki to really know what it is about), and I don't really want to enter into long discussions. Also, I think that some people have an emotional reaction against OW and that they cannot be convinced with rational arguments.

I have already expressed how I think OmegaWiki can be a good thing, and they express how they see it as bad thing, or how they perceive it as a threat to (the English and French) Wiktionary. OmegaWiki is how it is and I can't really do anything about it.

I think that OW can mostly benefit the small - dying or already dead - Wiktionaries, and that it can develop in parallel to the English and French Wiktionaries, if they are not interested in it. This is already in the page OmegaWiki. So I am not really interested in the opinions of the English and French Wiktionarians, since they would be the less (least?) affected.

I just (1) wanted to see if there are actually people interested, and (2) would like to know whether the WMF is interested in OW, so that I know if I should start looking for support from another organisation :-) --Kip (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

more Ωω interest

I had good chats about adopting Ωω and improving wikt at the Wikimedia conf this weekend. It might be a good time to clarify the proposal (based on the feedback in the rfc), get a couple of the 'opposes' on the fence to switch to support, and start a larger banner-driven discussion. The code review piece may take more time; but could be done in stages. –SJ talk  00:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

I don't really see how I can change the proposal. The arguments I can see against OW are the following:

1. People who don't believe that a multilingual dictionary can work, because translations can only be inexact when you consider too many languages. I've replied that this is already taken into account in OW and that it works well so far.
2. People who don't believe that a multilingual dictionary can work, because everybody would have to speak English. I cannot do anything against that, it is expected that you are able to speak English in the 21st century.
3. People who see OW as a threat against (the English and French) Wiktionary, and obviously have not read the proposal.
4. People who say that there are too few contributors to OW, so that one shouldn't contribute to it, which is a bit a circular argument.

Code review: I have started refreshing the code a bit, but there is still a lot to do. On the other hand, there is that idea of moving to Wikidata (which Gerard is totally supporting, me I am happy either way), which depends on the Wikidata developers at the moment, and might take several years before it happens (if it happens).

It is unfortunate that I am the only OW contributor who takes time to write the proposal and reply to arguments. After a long winter, as usual in Germany, sunny weather is coming back, and I'll spend less time online.

What is a banner-driven discussion?

Probably I should try to join a Wikimedia conf at some point in my life ;-) --Kip (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OmegaWiki question

What if a language that doesn't have an ISO code is used for OmegaWiki under a Linguist list code, but it later gets an ISO code? Do you switch the codes? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know because the case never happened, but I guess we would switch the codes. --Kip (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Update to OmegaWiki RfC

Dear Kip,

There are enough supports - and enough strong support overall - to expand the current RfC to a site-notice here on Meta.

But I think that you might first want to do two things to strengthen the proposal:

• Recruit 3-4 more developers (from the OW / translatewiki / wikt-script community)
• Recruit wiktionary-editors from a few of the largest wiktionaries, who want to help test new extensions / merge or migrate data -- and help develop the future plan
• Develop a brief 1-pg plan, about how OW would work with WikiData: something supported by you, at least one person on the WikiData team, and at least one of the devs with a technical concern (Jeroen, et al).

(I believe that most of the concerns here relate to "whether or not OW would 'conflict' with a future WikiData solution and the best way to address those concerns is to point to an explicit solution-path that does not conflict)

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. –SJ talk  15:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)