User talk:Blockhaj

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!

Thanks for posting, but note that we don't include every company name here. Take a look at some of the links above and let me know if you have any questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use vaguely documented slang words as primary terms of translations for common words. There are plenty of direct synonyms in the dictionary to choose from. Rossig is only found in one article in all the internet, with its own dictionary to understand the speaker. Kind regards, ➢ Frodlekis (Talk❤) 18:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blockhaj, you were reverted because you added an Old Irish term as a direct descendant of Proto-West Germanic, and an Old High German term under Proto-Germanic, when it's already under the Proto-West Germanic entry below it. --{{victar|talk}} 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

These cannot be listed on several entries cuz? Blockhaj (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, and Old Irish doesn't descend from Proto-West Germanic. --{{victar|talk}} 05:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This specific word does: https://www.etymonline.com/word/snake, https://www.saob.se/artikel/?seek=snok&pz=1. Blockhaj (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neither page claims that. Please do not edit languages you do not understand. --{{victar|talk}} 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please get consensus before doing this. I don't think it's correct here on English Wiktionary. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C0:8321:7D29:10A0 10:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

These redirects are harmles as of now. There is already a discussion on Svwikt on how to deal with this: https://sv.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Bybrunnen#technical_problems_in_the_Swedish_Wiktionary Blockhaj (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are too many problems with your edits to fit in a comment note. Here are the main concerns:

1. Incorrectly merging three Proto-Germanic terms together:
   • *hlidą, from PIE *ḱli-tó-m, from *ḱley- (“to shelter, cover”), whence PWG *hlid (“lid, cover”), ON hlið (“gate”);
   • *hlidiz, from PIE *ḱli-tí-s, from *ḱley- (“to lean, slope”), whence ON hlið (“side”);
   • and *hlīdō, from PIE *ḱley-téh₂, from *ḱley- (“to lean, slope”), whence PWG *hlīdu, ON hlíð (“slope”).
2. Improper entry formatting: You cannot invent header names (e.g., "Variants") and must adhere to formatting guidelines as outlined in WT:EL.
3. Use of incorrect characters: We reconstruct Proto-Germanic using *d and *þ, respectively, never *ð.
4. Inadequate sourcing: You cited outdated publications as primary sources (e.g., SOA (1939)) instead of more recent works like Orel (2003) and Kroonen (2013). Additionally, the appropriate reference templates should be used (see CAT:Proto-Germanic reference templates), when available, and if not, formatted using the relevant citation template, i.e. {{cite-journal}}, {{cite-book}}, etc.

--{{victar|talk}} 09:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also see my rewrite of Old Norse hlið. --{{victar|talk}} 09:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

You could have given this advice without prohibitive statements like "this user should not edit PG entries" in the edit summary... — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I fully stand by that. This isn't the first time I've had to warn this user for very poor edits borne out of a lack of knowledge. --{{victar|talk}} 19:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are not helpful in the slightest whith ur "warnings", making them essentially useless. Blockhaj (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is that all you have to reply with? -- {{victar|talk}} 20:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have yet no idea how to correct my edits for the future. Blockhaj (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

My point exactly. -- {{victar|talk}} 22:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you a gatekeeper or actually daft? Blockhaj (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since you two are talking past each other, the main principles are:

• We don't use "Variants" as a section since it's too vague of a label; use these instead:
  • "Alternative reconstructions" for if authors agree that a set of descendants must come from a proto-word but disagree on what form should the proto-word take;
  • "Alternative forms" for when multiple variants of the same word were in use within a language;
  • "Related terms" for words within the same language that are etymologically related to each other (that are not straightforwardly derived by attaching an affix to another word; in those cases use "Derived terms").
• We prefer more recent, up-to-date sources than e.g. something from 1939. Hence we prefer LIV, Orel's Handbook of Germanic Etymology and the Indo-European Etymological Dictionary books, etc.
• For proper spelling of proto-words, there is usually a spelling standard established per proto-language (it's usually given at a page named "Wiktionary:About ", e.g. Wiktionary:About Proto-Germanic). Please follow it.
• About "incorrectly merging three Proto-Germanic terms", you have to be careful to distinguish root shape (*hlīd- =/= *hlid-, which differ by vowel length), gender (a neuter is not the same as a feminine), stem formation (-iz (i-stem) =/= -ą (neuter a-stem) =/= -ō (feminine o-stem)), and meaning (side =/= gate =/= slope). If three "variants" have different root shapes, different genders, different stem formations, and different meanings, they're probably separate words.

— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Victar My answer yesterday was short and unwarranted, but i feel i am being pushed away rather than being helped. I obviously want to help expand PG articles, but my edits are just being undone and then im being adviced to educate myself by extension.

1. As far as i have read and been told, the "three Proto-Germanic terms im trying to merge?" are all related by extension.
2. The "header name i invented" i stole directly from a different article, thus i thought it was conventional.
3. Where can i find the guidelines for PG-spelling on English Wiktionary?
4. Fair enough. The sourcing i used had similar enough forms to where i thought no discernible difference was of issue. Besides, should be not also cover earlier reconstructed forms for the sake of clarity?

Blockhaj (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello ! I saw your edit to ċeafl. What is the evidence for a lengthened 'a' ? Leasnam (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.saob.se/artikel/?seek=k%C3%A4ft&pz=1 the etymology section (see my bold mark): ,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

I see, okay. Thank you for your effort in trying and make the entry more accurate; however, we adhere to strict diacritic marking principles established by Wiktionary's editor community and spelling standards of Old English, which can often differ to those of other sources. Since ċeāfl doesn't align with descendant forms such as Middle English chæfles, chevele, chaveles, chavles, etc. it can be assumed to be aberrant: the expected outcome of Old English ċeāfl would be Middle English chovel(e), which is not the usual form. Middle English forms overwhelmingly support descent from an Old English form of ċeafl, and as such I would ask that you please refrain from making similar changes to Old English diacritics in future. I shall also be reverting the edits at ċeafl to restore it to previous form. Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Blockhaj (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Many sources, like Bosworth-Toller, do show the accent or macron on the second vowel (e.g. eó for what we show as ēo). Old Frisian actually was accentuated in this way. Even though there is no direct information regarding this particular use of diacritics (since Old English didn't actually use any), if you'd like more on how we structure Old English pages you can find it here. And if you do come across an entry that requires a correction, please adjust not only the pronunciation and header but also the declension/conjugation table as well Leasnam (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Blockhaj (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply