Talk:limpan

I urge the author who stated that there arguably was a German word "limpfen", to quote his sources or at least one usage in a text in fluent German, because German is like my second maternal language and I have never heard of such notion (and placed it within comment), nor is it present in two voluminous dictionaries of the language, which I use. Bogorm 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

limpfen is really a Middle High German word. The only modern German word which is related is (deprecated template usage) Glimpf. Ƿidsiþ 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am well aware of Glimpf. However, I consider this destructive and presumptuous edit as highly impudent(it has not been committed by you)! I am thereby asking whether there is a permission in Wiktionary to light-mindedly delete cognate words! I have used for his extolled OED the template "verification of etymolgy" (drown) and have not dared to delete recklessly and instead he is deleting en gros without any attention to the discussion pages all which seems to show the kinship of English with the Northern Germanic languages! I hope sincerely that User:Atelaes is not going to delete the academic irrefutable Danish source for the kinship of lempe (here no descendance is claimed) with limpan, otherwise I would complain about this impertinence, if it were to be committed by a person, who has not shown any knowledge of the Danish language. If I were to became so inquisitive and reckless about the base for his edits, what would remain from them? If he considers the referencing for every straightforward kinship exigent, I urge him to expound on which rule is this based? The etymologies, for which the editors have provided some sources, are exiguous in number and I really cannot fathom him pestering exactly me on this furtive manner. Bogorm 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just calm down. If you have a problem, bring it up here and don't revert administrators' edits. Ƿidsiþ 07:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

"don't revert administrators' edits" - this sounds like ascertaining that there should exist any primus inter pares, which has really disappointed me, if so, since I believe in the principle of equality. Anyway, I am doing exactly that(participating in discussions) unlike your fellow administrator (User:Atelaes) and I am asking you: is there any Wiktionary rule according to which I am obliged to quote sources(which is the case in Wikipedia, but which I have not seen almost in none of the numerous articles here that I perused)? In the article limpan I was compelled by User:Atelaes to quote sources mot à mot in order to prevent possible edit war and to show him the stringency of my edit and the inanity of his reversion. However, if I have to quote dictionaries for every edit of mine, I would like to know whether there is such obligation for the Wiktionarians and if so, I would ask, since approximately 90% are lacking in any sources whatsoever, wherefore exactly my edits should be reverted until I quote any sources? Bogorm 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no rule that sources must be required. However, obviously, if many people disagree with you then citing reliable sources is the best way to convince them that you have a valid argument. Since most of our entries are not controversial, there is usually little need for extensive references. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, when the sooth is controversial, I am compelled to use sources, as in behoof and drown and here but if it is necessary... However, expanding etymology in articles would be far easier for me, if I am not forced to quote on every edit concerning it. Magna est vis veritatis et praevalebit. Greetings Bogorm 09:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

One additional question: is deletion of sources corroborating a certain assertion to be considered vandalism? Bogorm 09:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply