User talk:Birdofadozentides

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! PseudoSkull (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from simply copying entries and recreating them with a wynn instead of the regular w (as you did at ƿoruld, among many others); we keep the brunt of the information about words on the entry for one "standard"/main spelling (the standard spelling differs per language: typically for OE we use the West Saxon spelling).

This means etymology, alternative forms, etc. etc. only go on one main entry; the other alternative spellings get a more barebones entry redirecting to that main entry. For an example, see my edits to worold (main entry) and the alternative spelling entries you created. On the entries for alternative spellings just use the {{alternative form of}} template, as I did at woruld. I've been cleaning up after you just now, but in the future please keep this in mind. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 02:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll keep it in mind. Birdofadozentides (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for bothering, could you please delete blæƿ page? It had to be blaƿ, not blæƿ, I just made a mistake, I'm so sorry about that. I created the blaƿ page before I realized how moving pages works and I can't delete the wrong page myself. --Birdofadozentides (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you can use the speedy-deletion template ({{d|Entry created in error, please delete}} (you can change the rationale I added here to whatever you like or even leave it out) to bring pages you created in error to the attention of an admin who will delete it for you. I'm not an admin so I can't delete it, but if you add the template to blæƿ it should be taken care of within a day or two. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you, I'll try to add it, hope I'll do everyting right. Sorry I bothered you, I thought you were an admin. Birdofadozentides (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I don't mind. Anyhow, seems like you managed just fine. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I guess so. Thanks again. Birdofadozentides (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ƿast þu hu fela manna þone stæf ne oncnaƿaþ, oþþe hu feaƿa geƿunode sind hine to rædenne? Hundwine (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, unfortunately I'm not able to keep the conversation in Old English. I create pages with Ƿynn because it's a right thing. Ƿynn was the letter of Old English alphabet, I know this sound was also written as u or uu, but Ƿynn was the main one. It's Ƿynn, not w that is supposed to be in Old English texts.

But there is that tendention, this unfair tendention that rules the world. Creating these pages is the least I can do. You say many people do not know about Ƿynn and they would not understand. I don't see a ptoblem with that, on the contary, people could learn about Ƿynn. I always provide a link to word's main page, how can it be a problem?

May I please ask you something? Would you mind if I get rid of w in your question and put Ƿynn instead? Please, I really want to. Birdofadozentides (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I fixed this. Hope you don't mind. Birdofadozentides (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

As it seems to want repeating -- please stick to the established entry formatting - definitions following the pound symbol, not a line below, and label markers such as "poetic" only on the main entry, that is not the wynn-spelled one (unless the information is specific to the alternative form in question). See this edit of mine to one of your recent wynn alt-entries: Special:Diff/50137641/50139381

Also, be careful when editing entries not to forget headers, as with the Etymology 1 header here: Special:Diff/49991766/50139577

And please do not do this: Special:Diff/47952096/49526204 -- there's a standardized spelling for a reason, using alt forms on the main entry in examples is just confusing. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've taken some time to clear the entire backlog of entries you edited or created that required reverting or fixing, but please keep these points in mind in the future. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand, the Etymology thing should be created differenty, and "poetic" is not supposed to be added, but why the alternative pages do not have the meaning of the word? What harm could it do if people would know the word's meaning without clicking on the main page link? Without the definition pages look empty.

About quotations, I also don't like doing it on the main pages. With all my heart I wish I could add these quotations to pages I create and then everything would be fine. I know you would never let me, but why not so? Alternative pages are going to have less information than the main page anyway, not all words have quotations. It could look great.

I'm sorry I added you more work

Birdofadozentides (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because the more alt-form entries you have with a lot of information on them besides the main entry, the more difficult it becomes to amend or expand an existing entry: instead of just editing the main entry, you now would have to check whether there aren't alt-form entries with outdated information floating around somewhere. This is why we unify information in one place with alt-form entries pointing to that one main entry: it means you only have to change or expand in one place. It's a more easy, elegant and consistent solution than having all these competing spellings with their own expanded entries. Again, therefore, the only information that should be added to the alt-form entry is information that is unique to that entry (e.g. dialect labels for dialectal spellings). The rest should all go to the main entry.

Regarding quotations using wynn - it's a matter of consistency. Today, very rarely do you read published O.E. text editions (disregarding the original manuscripts, which few except scholars and the occasional amateur get to read) where wynn is used (while the eth and thorn for example are commonly used), the letter just isn't familiar and isn't conventionally used when reproducing OE text. Therefore, it makes sense for Wiktionary to also use W instead of wynn for quotations. I understand you have a love for this particular letter, but that shouldn't stand in the way of consistency in wiki editing. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Today, very rarely do you read published O.E. text editions where ƿynn is used (while the ð and þorn for example are commonly used), the letter just isn't familiar and isn't conventionally used when reproducing OE text". I know and this is one of the most unfair things in this world for me. If there were more Old English texts with Ƿynn, both electronic and puplished, they could make a difference, and people would be familiar with Ƿynn. But with all that tendency of using w instead of Ƿynn, how can it be possible

And it's such a pity that alternative pages are without definition, adding it would be more easy (people would know word's meaning withoug following the link), elegant (pages do look better with definition) and... well, I can't really say "consistent", but definition is not etymology, perhaps it's even more important than pronunciation, though pronunciation is added and definition is not. But it's not my rules, I will be creating pages without definition.

Thanks for undertanding. Birdofadozentides (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also please note to keep the pound symbol before the {{alternative form of}} template (see here for example), and to keep the amount of spaces lower (see here for example). Sorry to be bothering you about such things so often, but every mistake you make means more work for others who have to clean up after you. It may be useful to review the WT:Entry layout guidelines. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I didn't know the position of this template means so much, I'll be more carefull. Again, I'm sorry. Birdofadozentides (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that in pages like awlencan you've interpreted Old English /wr/ and /wl/ as being phonemically and (at least after /ɑː/). I would be interested to know why you chose to write them that way.

IIRC, The theory that Old English /wr/ and /wl/ are phonemically velarised and isn't universally accepted. In my opinion, it doesn't stand up to the evidence, at least for /wr/, as the evidence shows it persisting into Early Modern English orthoepic texts that write write as <ureit>, presumably indicating a pronunciation of /ˈwɾeɪt/. --Hazarasp (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but it must be a mistake, I didn't change anything in pronunciation section, I just added "Alternative forms". And I'm afraid I know really a few about phonetics to answer your questions. Birdofadozentides (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! Thanks for adding the alternative forms with Wynn. Please be careful to also include macrons, and dotted letters (ċ, ġ, etc) so that the Alt forms match the headers. Thanks ! :) Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'll try to, but I don't quite understand. I always cope the information from the main page and get rid of w. As I understand it, if the title has macrons or dotted letters, it should also be used throughout the whole page, right? Birdofadozentides (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

For instance, at swēor, in the {{ang-noun}} template, the head argument = swēor to show that the diphthong is long, not short, which would be sweor. You've added an alternative form as sƿeor when it should properly be sƿēor. Leasnam (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are two Etymology sections on the page, with both long and short diphthongs and two different meanings. --Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Correct. The change made here ], whioch I believe was meant for Etymology 1, was lacking the macron. I've since added it and moved it to its proper place beneath Etym_1 Leasnam (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just please make sure that when you are adding Alternative forms with wynn, that you are adding the needed macrons (indicating vowel length) suitable for each entry and etymology section. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just undid your edit...the only thing that it needs is to look like this: sƿīġe; not sƿige. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

This cuts down on a lot of work someone else will have to do behind you to add the macrons and dots... Leasnam (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Page titles do not have mascrons or dots, why adding alternative forms with them are so important? Macrons will still be on the alternative page, just not in title or alternative form section. I'm sorry for asking, but I acually don't understand. --Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because that is the conventional/consensus way we display the word, not only in the header lines but also in links. Plus it's simply good practice to do so. You want Wiktionary information to be of the highest quality, do you not ? Leasnam (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Macrons and dotted letters are made to help people to know how the word is pronounced without looking at transcription. It's a good thing though in original manuscripts macrons were not used or used very seldom, as far as I know.

I believe page titles don't have macrons here for some technical reasons, right? Otherwise if macrons mean so much it's strange that titles don't have them. I'll keep in mind adding it all to alternative forms. Birdofadozentides (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that alternative forms are actually always added with macrons. Sorry for not noticing it before. I'll be carefull Birdofadozentides (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're correct, macrons weren't used in Old English. They are added in later times to do exactly what is stated above, to assist in pronunciation, and also to distinguish between words which might be homographs, but aren't homophones. And you're correct, since they aren't used in the original orthography of OE, we don't want to add them in the page title...that would be an error. Leasnam (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

A: Macrons were not used Old English orthography, so there will be no macrons in titles, it'd be an error.

B: The letter W were not used in Old English orthography, Ƿynn was the main letter for the sound and sometimes it was written as u or uu. Pff, who cares! It's too complicated. Let's make all Old English resourses with w, let's wreck the orthography!

L - Logic

Kind of... hypocritical, I'd say

Birdofadozentides (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I actually don't have anything aganist macrons, unlike w, they're harmless. The fact that titles are without macrons and the whole page (sometimes) is written with them made me confused, that's why I couldn't understand at fist what the problem is. I thought: if titles can be like that, why alternative forms can't? Now I got it and I'm sorry I added you (or someone else) work. Birdofadozentides (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that in the alternative entries with wynn, you have included a pronunciation as well as the template {{alternative form of}}. But as far as I can tell, these words aren't pronounced any differently from the main word, only spelled differently. So the template {{alternative spelling of}} is more appropriate, and the pronunciation should be removed ("alternative spelling" entries should never have a pronunciation section, as a rule). The heading on the main entry should still say "Alternative forms" though, it was decided years ago that we would not use "Alternative spellings" as a header anymore, only as a definition in alternative entries. —Rua (mew) 22:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but why is it such a problem? Both of the templates used, I see nothing so wrong with using "alternative forms" one. If that is so impotrant, I wouldn't mind use "aternative spelling", but it means the pronunciation is going to be taken away from adding, forever! I can add no etymology, no descendants, no quotations, no definition, espesially definition! And now no pronunsation, the alt pages will be even more empty. Please, please don't do that. All was discussed, arranged and at least somehow fine, just why? Birdofadozentides (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

But that's kind of the point. Only the things that are different from the main form should be given. That way, we avoid redundancy and make things easier to maintain. What if someone changes one of those things in one of the entries, but not in any of the others? Then they no longer match, which is confusing. We once had complete entries at both color and colour, but they proved so hard to keep consistent that we made one an alternative form of the other and stripped all but the differences. The wisdom we have gained from editing Wiktionary for over a decade is that duplication of information should be kept to a minimum, to avoid things going out of sync. Even if you don't like it, can you at least understand where we're coming from? It doesn't come from thin air. —Rua (mew) 22:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand it's about making things easy, but please try understand too, pronounsation makes pages look more valuable, it's not great creating pages with only "word type" section, withiout definition, with "alternative form of". And with pronounsation it doesn't seem so sad. If adding pronounsation and these templates are real problems, why nobody talked about it before, there were a lot of dicussions, no one even mentioned it. And now out of the blue it becomes the problem number 1. Can it not stay as it is, the main word in these templates is "alternative", and "alternative form" is just used more often. Birdofadozentides (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I went through and removed all the unnecessary spaces you've been adding after = signs. And now with ƿær you've added a bunch of them back. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS. The source pages you're copying don't have spaces after = signs, and there's no reason whatsoever to introduce them; in fact, there are many reasons not to introduce them, e.g. they make life more complicated for bot writers (like me). Benwing2 (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, please use {{alternative spelling of}} in place of {{alternative form of}}, since this really is just a spelling (or even typography) difference, rather than something more basic like the difference between siowian and sēowan, which are potential alternative forms of each other but differ more than in just spelling conventions. Benwing2 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I didn't think it could cause any trouble 'cause pages looked absolutely the same with or without spaces, so I thought it wouldn't bother anyone if I add it, but I was wrong. I'm sorry I added you work.

About using {{alternative spelling of}} instead of{{alternative form of}}, I've already been through it, and that time I won. But now it's been more than a year and the sutiation is all not the same, so I can only agree.Birdofadozentides (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I know you love love love your wynn entries, but there was a vote to delete all such entries, and it won. See Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing Old English entries with wynns. I am in the process of deleting them all per the vote. Please do not add any more in the future. Thank you. Please also note, if you type in an entry with a wynn in it, it will automatically redirect you to the entry with w. Benwing2 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

So this is the way it ends? All this two years work, for nothing. Why? What harm those entries could cause anyone? They were reminders that it was ƿynn that was a common letter for that sound in Old English, not w. They were not the main pages and they always had less information that the main ones. It was like a dance of butterflies.

Could at least one entry stay? The entry for the word wynn, could there be a ƿynn form? Please. So there would be at least something left. Birdofadozentides (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I know it seems sad, but many people didn't like all the duplication caused by the wynn entries. There is an entry for ƿ itself in Old English, perhaps that is enough? Benwing2 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's great that there's an entry for ƿ, but it's still not the same, ƿynn is this character's name so it'd be wonderfull if this word could also have an alt form with ƿynn itself. Just one entry. Sorry for bothering you with my messages. Birdofadozentides (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, @Birdofadozentides.

A criterion, as it were, for starting a vote is that you have a discussion about it with the community well in advance of the commencement of the vote. Remember to start a Beer Parlour topic to find out who's interested in seeing wynns come back. For that future vote, you can make reference to the discussion about it. Good luck! ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, I actually thought before that old Beer Parlour topics would be enough. Thank you for pointing that out and for wishing me luck! Birdofadozentides (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well done, Birdofadozentides! It seems that more people are realising how silly it was to remove words from our dictionary which were how they were written in the original language. Remember to take a look at the Old English lemmas' recent activity. There are people who contribute to OE who are simply unaware of what happened. I imagine that if they are passionate about contributing to OE, they might be interested in learning about the ban on wynn character entries. They might also be inclined to support allowing the creation of entries with wynns. But be selective, by the way, about who you bring the issue up with and how you bring up the issue. You don't want to be accused of spamming or anything like that. For the life of me, I still can't understand why the dictionary which is about all words in all languages allowed this mess to happen (removing words from the dictionary which were how they were written in the original language). -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, thank you. I think most of the people know what happened even though they didn't vote. I contacted one of them in the beginning but it was ignored, and I don't know if the others would support it. @Voldesade often creates new entries, these entries have enough information and look great. I don't know what they thought about me adding Alt. forms to their entries, so I will ping them instead of leaving messages to their talk page. These messages may actually look like spamming. Thank you again, I think you are one of the most friendly Wiktionary users, I didn't expect such great support. Birdofadozentides (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. That means a lot to me. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Re: your last comment on Lambiam's talk page: "It took a long time for this discussion to become an action. It was Benwing2 who was deleting the entries. I do not think they would be flexible, they would be against it. Starting a vote now is too early, I see. Sorry you will spend your time on this, for me it looks like that people who are against the entries will always exceed in number people who would support it. I am sorry I am kind of useless at finding more proper words. Perhaps we shouldn't write here, it's Lambiam's talk page. I suggest we'd better switch to my talk page.Birdofadozentides (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)"

Don't give up, @Birdofadozentides. Start the vote. Perhaps something like: "Allow the creation of attested Old English entries with wynns." There's a period before the vote goes up where the rest of the community will weigh in on things like wording. Go for it. Nothing tried, nothing gained. — Dentonius 11:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, thank you. But again, this word "attested". Are you sure it should be in the title? I'd name the vote "Bringing back ƿynn entries". I am sorry I cling to this, most - if not all - common words are surely attested, for example, in Beoƿulf manuscript, but there are more rare words like cweartern. I don't know in which manuscripts this word has been used, most likely a person who added this word has seen it in some new editions, but these editions are printed versions of manuscrpits, and in manuscripts this word could be either written with ƿynn or with uu/u. But it couldn't be written with w in the manuscripts. That's why I doubt it should be included, it would some kind of deceiving. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dentonius, I have problems with creating a vote. There are supposed to be 2 or 3 options, right? Or can there be just one option? I doubt that. Option 1: allow ƿynn entries to appear again as Alternative spellings, like they used to be before removing. And how should I name option 2?

There is only one link to a dicsussion I can provide, this November Beer_parlour, I don't know if one link is enough. I couldn't give my talk page, or could I?

And that is what I'd put in the vote description: Voting on: Bringing back ƿynn entries, to the main Old English words written with w (like weorold), not to other alt. forms of main words (like worold, woruld) and not within Old English Reconstruction section.

I guess it all looks pretty bad. I thought I'd be able to create the vote, but here I ended up again bothering you. I'm sorry. The main problem is I can't name the options so it would look correct. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Voting on: Bringing back ƿynn entries, to the main Old English words written with w (like weorold), not to other alt. forms of main words (like worold, woruld) and not within Old English Reconstruction section.

• Option 1: allow ƿynn entries to appear again as Alternative spellings, like they used to be before removing
• Option 2: Not to allow ƿynn entries to appear

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/November#Bringing_back_ƿynn_entries

That's what I was able to perform. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I've never started a vote so it'd be a learning experience for me too. Your vote would likely not have multiple options. It's just the one issue which people can vote support, oppose, or abstain on. Look at the past votes in the timeline and see if you can find one you'd like to base yours on. In my opinion, Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Misspellings_and_alternative_spellings is a well-structured vote. Examine it closely and see if you can model what Ultimateria did. -- Dentonius 19:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, I'm sorry, I didn't know you never started a vote either. I have just started it and I don't know if I did something wrong. It didn't appear anywhere yet, I think it takes time and needs to be approved, so I'm worried it might not be approved. I have only one discussion link, I couldn't give a link to my talk page, I doubt it would help. I guess you must be tired of me bothering you and apologizing all the time, that's how I am, always apologizing. If I write "I'm sorry" now it will look bad, but it's what I'd like to write. Birdofadozentides (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here is a link to the vote - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-12/Bringing_back_wynn_entries. Birdofadozentides (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll check it out. Everybody's entitled to start a vote. Don't worry. Everything will be okay. — Dentonius 04:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, thank you! As I understand, the vote will appear on Thursday, it will be shown in Planned, running and recent votes section, right? And untill that day it will be hidden. How do you the text of the vote? Birdofadozentides (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dentonius, thank you for spending your time, it looks concise, precise and much more professional now. I only pity missing this sentence "It would be winsome if ƿynn entries appeared again", perhaps it looks out of place, but I used "winsome" because it's the only word in modern English that has this root. The only thing that's left from a word which once was the main term for "joy". Probably it didn't fit though. Birdofadozentides (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. If you like the slogan a lot, go ahead and put it back. It can't hurt :-) -- Dentonius 05:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Dentonius, sorry for bothering, I just wanted to ask, may I support the vote I started? If yes, may I just put # Support without leaving a comment? Birdofadozentides (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Absolutely! You can go ahead and vote now if you like. No comment is required either. — Dentonius 13:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, thank you, I realized it was a stupid question after I posted it, I just wanted to be sure. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

• One last thing, BOADT ... Good luck! — Dentonius 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, thank you! I would have never done this without you, you gave me the idea, you helped me and made it all possible, back then in November I thought nothing could be done. I am only a bit confused, what does BOADT mean? Birdofadozentides (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy I was able to help in some way. Now, irrespective of how this vote turns out, don't be disheartened. I'm convinced that one day, in the future, wynns will come back to Wiktionary. BOADT = Bird Of A Dozen Tides. By now, you must have realised that there's a clique here which runs this place. If rules don't exist to justify what they want, they band together and create them to get rid of anything they don't like. Don't let them frustrate you. Their aim is to either make you conform or drive you away. As they say in my country "Mek dem tiyad fi see yuh face" (Let them grow weary of seeing your face). Be present. Participate and become active in the community. Help others who need it. Lord knows there are very few people here willing to go out of their way to show newcomers how things work. For my part, I enjoy participating in the Requests For Deletion (RFD) sections where I actively try to prevent them from deleting useful things from this dictionary. At present, it's a lost cause. But I'm convinced that in the future there will be others who see the value of preserving things instead of deleting them arbitrarily. I modified the entry for wæter to include a quotation with ƿæter. It's not the real deal but it's one way to mention the original form which I don't believe will cause any trouble. — Dentonius 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, oh I could've guessed about BOADT. You do great things. I've never been much active - except for creating the entries - and I don't know if I will, I could try but I won't write promises here that may turn out to be empty. But I definetly shouldn't have been so carefree, then I would have noticed the vote. Still I don't know if me being aware would change much, maybe not. Thank you for modifying the entry, and no, it means much. Thank you. Birdofadozentides (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply