Do admin requests have any effect?

[Wuzzy2]

Is it just me, or are all admin requests (this one: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/moderation.html) ignored?
I have sent a couple of admin requests in the far past (primarily for word deletions), no reactions so far.

[lagleki]

Words aren't deleted from JVS. They are downvoted.

[Wuzzy2]

The page I've linked to has a drop-down and it includes the entry “valsi Deletion”. If entries are never deleted, then this drop-down list is grossly misleading.

[lagleki]

feel free to file issues. i think words can be deleted by request in a
separate issue.

2015-07-10 16:28 GMT+03:00 Wuzzy notifications@github.com:

The page I've linked to has a drop-down and it includes the entry “valsi
Deletion”. If entries are never deleted, then this drop-down list is
grossly misleading.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#184 (comment).

[Wuzzy2]

Well, I think there is one kind of word which should be deleted: Those lujvo which aren't in the canonical form, i.e. “pinxe zei cidja” vs “pinxydja” vs “pixydja”. Only “pixydja” should remain.

[solpahi]

Wuzzy:

Well, I think there is one kind of word which should be deleted: Those
lujvo which aren't in the canonical form, i.e. “pinxe zei cidja” vs
“pinxydja” vs “pixydja”. Only “pixydja” should remain.

I strongly disagree. A lot of people for example prefer {tolcliva} over
{tolyli'a}, or {ci'omle} over {citmle} despite the worse score - a score
that does not take into count aesthetics and pronouncability.
Restricting word formation is exactly the wrong thing to do at this point.

[lagleki]

then probably should be done via BPFK decisions. However, there is no
unified mechanism for it now.

1. How does one send such requests to BPFK?
2. What should and what should not be sent to BPFK?
3. Deadlines for such decisions, reporting back to those who made requests.

2015-07-16 11:20 GMT+03:00 selpahi notifications@github.com:

Wuzzy:

Well, I think there is one kind of word which should be deleted: Those
lujvo which aren't in the canonical form, i.e. “pinxe zei cidja” vs
“pinxydja” vs “pixydja”. Only “pixydja” should remain.

I strongly disagree. A lot of people for example prefer {tolcliva} over
{tolyli'a}, or {ci'omle} over {citmle} despite the worse score - a score
that does not take into count aesthetics and pronouncability.
Restricting word formation is exactly the wrong thing to do at this point.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#184 (comment).

[lagleki]

I think it's not about deleting but about tagging words as e.g.
"user_Wuzzy:deleted".
if an API to postres is available and tagging is added to the db model then
GUI with such tagging capabilities can be developed with export mechanisms
of printing dictionaries in which words with/without certain tags are
excluded/included.

2015-07-16 11:05 GMT+03:00 Wuzzy notifications@github.com:

Well, I think there is one kind of word which should be deleted: Those
lujvo which aren't in the canonical form, i.e. “pinxe zei cidja” vs
“pinxydja” vs “pixydja”. Only “pixydja” should remain.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#184 (comment).

[Wuzzy2]

lagleki, you do not understand. People are free to choose any word form they like.
Because, according to CLL, all forms a lujvo are equivalent by definition. So if I define “tolyli'a”, I also automatically have defined “to'e zei cliva” and “tolycliva” as well.

Therefore, it does not make much sense to include all those word forms, don't you think? The other word forms are simply implied.

That the dictionary always should use the canonical form is simply to avoid redundancy.
It would be bad if we had “tolyli'a”, “to'e zei cliva” AND “tolycliva” floating around. It's simply a technical reason.

That also why there is “malgli” in the dictionary, although “malglico” is a much more common (and 100% equally valid) form of this lujvo.

In fact, this is stated every time you create a word:

If it is a lujvo, make sure you're using the lowest scoring form of the lujvo. You're not going to get anywhere by using a different form, as the database is periodically swept for noncanonical form lujvo, and they are modified to the appropriate canonical form. (Or removed, and all related data pointed towards the canonical version, if it already exists.)

I wonder if this database cleanup has ever been actually done before.

It would be even better if Jbovlaste could check the lujvo score right from the beginning.

[lagleki]

2015-07-16 11:45 GMT+03:00 Wuzzy notifications@github.com:

lagleki, you do not understand. People are free to choose any word form
they like.
Because, according to CLL, all forms a lujvo are equivalent by
definition. So if I define “tolyli'a”, I also automatically have defined
“to'e zei cliva” and “tolycliva” as well.

Therefore, it does not make much sense to include all those word forms,
don't you think?

It makes perfect sense. People have been using {lobykai}, {lobypli} and
{fa'orma'o} for a long time.
So how one is supposed to understand them?
You already opened an issue #52

Until that issue is closed this issue isn't going to be solved and should
NOT even be solved.
After issue #52 is closed we may discuss deleting those words.

The other word forms are simply implied.

That the dictionary always should use the canonical form is simply to
avoid redundancy.
It would be bad if we had “tolyli'a”, “to'e zei cliva” AND “tolycliva”
floating around. It's simply a technical reason.

That also why there is “malgli” in the dictionary, although “malglico” is
a much more common (and 100% equally valid) form of this lujvo.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#184 (comment).

[Wuzzy2]

Until that issue is closed this issue isn't going to be solved and should
NOT even be solved.
After issue #52 is closed we may discuss deleting those words.

Yes, I agree.