User talk:Chuck Entz/2013

Hi. Thanks for sorting out some of those placeholder etymologies I've been forced to use! Equinox ◑ 03:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. There are times when activity has died down on the forums and I don't feel like patrolling or starting on a major project, but I want to work on something. It's nice to have a request category that I can work on in small pieces and quit when I get tired of it. Lately I've been working on the entries needing Greek script.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

A grammar reference should be politically neutral. Why not undo the revert or replace "to launch a strike at Iran's nuclear ambitions"? I have no opinion on the matter, but it will probably look a bit silly in the page for "по" in a few years.

Who's to say that Ireland doesn't have nuclear ambitions?

The problem was replacing something political with something goofy. If you want to come up with a new sentence that doesn't mention Iran or nuclear ambitions, fine. What you did just looks like someone sticking smiley-face stickers over the genitals in obscene pictures- obvious and clumsy. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I reinstated the more expansive entries because the previous entry made it sound a if only the Bible mentions those figures. Pass a Method (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

But the usage in the other religions traces back to the Bible. Those entries need to be fixed, since they use "Old Testament" rather than "Hebrew Scriptures", but throwing in obscure terminology like Abrahamic doesn't address that. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

If our criteria is based on which scriputre mentions characters first then we would have to similarly mention the ancient mythologies or Zoroastrianism which influenced those usages. For your information, i used this as a reference. Pass a Method (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Influence" is a matter of ideas, not names. This is about the names- the rest is encyclopedic. There might be room for the kind of note you're adding, but not the way you're wording it. The Bible is a sacred text (more than one, strictly speaking), not a tradition (though traditions are definitely involved) or a faith. Islam isn't a sacred text, nor is Bahai, etc. We need to keep straight what we're talking about.

We also need to work out how to refer to everything Biblical, since such references involve competing faiths, world views, traditions, interpretations, etc. Our terminology is, of course, heavily skewed toward Christianity by virtue of our demographics and the traditions of English-language lexicography, but it needs to be replaced with something coherent and consistent- and also recognizable to our readers. That's not for me or you to decide unilaterally. It really needs to be hashed out in the Beer Parlour. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

the bro's website doesn't look like its commercial, it looks more like a magazine to me. is that one okay?

The main problem is that it's not durably archived, so it's useless as far as meeting WT:CFI, but it's also not a reliable source for anything having to do with lexicography. It's not representative of anything, just one person's idiosyncratic way of talking about things. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thank you for the welcome template. In your edit summary on 学, you said, "Wikipedia-style referencing not valid here". Could you explain what you mean by this? --Odie5533 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary was more to get your attention than to explain anything. It was mostly in response to your edit summary about removal of "sourced" content. Actually, it was a bit of an exaggeration: we do allow references for etymologies and usage notes, but referencing doesn't have the same central importance that it does at Wikipedia. We also don't have the same restrictions against original research that WP does. Having reliable sources doesn't give anyone a free pass to randomly dump loads of information where it doesn't belong.

The main problem I had with your edit was that everything was in the wrong place. Wiktionary entries aren't single units that you can add a Notes section to. All they have in common is the same spelling. Your Notes section should have been a References section nested within the Japanese or the Translingual sections, except that I'm not so sure it's a good idea to have the same etymology repeated in what's basically an alternative spelling of the other. I could be wrong on that particular issue, since I don't spend a lot of time with the Han character entries- I'm familiar with the issues involved, but not with current practices among those working on the languages here at Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply, and thank you for explaining it. It is very difficult to understand what one is doing wrong if no one explains it. The derivation of one character from another must be cited to a reliable source because it is not something that can be gleaned from attested usage quotations. By undoing my addition, you have removed any verifiable proof that the characters are even related to each other. After I wrote the etymology section, a user added a similar section to the previous form (學), but their addition was uncited. I assume it's based on something, but a casual reader might assume that it was made up with no evidence to prove otherwise, particularly with some of the opinionated statements. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The verb "to nugget" is a common idiom in some vernaculars. Please restore the edit. Thank you. Jackstormson (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck,

What can you tell me about the IPs listed here? I just left a note at the topmost one's Talk page in the interests of informing the user of how to play nice here, but I then found that you'd already blocked the other two IP addresses. Have you (or has anyone else) tried contacting this user before? If so, and they're just pernicious and stubborn, perhaps an IP range block is in order... Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The results of Geolocate are identical to those for all of the IPs used by that wizarding waste of time from England that we've all come to know and love. That, combined with doing bad edits on supernatural subjects, Japanese, Chinese, and almost always combinations of two or more of the above, and it's pretty easy to spot this idiot.

As I've said elsewhere, I've started to block him on sight on grounds of misusing multiple accounts (or disruptive edits, if I see he's already doing those). My reasoning is that he's been given instruction, pleading, warnings, threats, and blocks over a couple of years, but hasn't changed his ways in the slightest- so it's best to just stop him from editing as much as possible. Unfortunately, there are others who use the same ranges of IPs, so long-term or range blocks are out of the question. If we block him promptly, though, multiple shorter blocks will work just as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, that guy. Understood. I'll give his current incarnation one more chance, and if the edit is bogus, I'll block him. (Or maybe "her"? Somehow I'm pretty sure it's a "him".) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be better to use the preview function and thus reduce the high number of subsequent edits in Wikisaurus:horse? Great job, by the way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do, but I always forget something after saving, and I'm paranoid about having something go wrong after I've got a whole bunch of changes. Also, I've been editing sections, and I tend to save when I switch sections. Those are all bad habits, I know, but I've been going through a bunch of WP articles and checking against WT and checking against Google Books, so I've been mostly concentrating on content rather that good editing practices. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the easiest way to do this is create a local plain text file on your computer, and edit it in Notepad. Each time when you think you are done with the entry, take a break and wait whether new ideas come to mind. When no more ideas and research come to mind even after a pause, you can copy it to Wiktionary. You seem to have made around 80 edits to Wikisaurus:horse in couple of hours, which is really quite many. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

why you changed it? give me a good reason for choosing indivisible as a way to say it in english. do you know greek dictionary Babniniotis? do you know anything about the history of science? by the way i am greek and living in Greece all my life

You may know Greek very well, but your English clearly needs work. To a fluent English speaker, indivisible is definitely the best word to use, as that is literally what the Greek means, as I'm sure you know — τόμος (tómos) implies cutting, but is negated by the alpha privative, therefore it can't be cut, i.e. is indivisible. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

yes my english suck but that's a different issue. take a look at my comment here ] and read some things about philosophy and Democritus. that 'definitely best word to use' needs to be reconsindered. i ll put my comments in the talk page and i wont tangle with the english version again. temnō is also used in geometry, it means to cut through or to be tangent with a line Wassermagier (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your edit was clearly wrong, since Liddell & Scott had "unmown", and πώγωνος (pṓgōnos) in the first paragraph- neither of which is compatible with "individual". On the other hand, the existing sense was an extreme oversimplification by itself. I haven't read the author(s) in question, but I think we're better off giving the whole range of meanings of the word, and letting those who follow a link from an etymology decide which sense applies. Going into the intricacies of what was meant in a particular text isn't something a dictionary should do. That's for a translation, or at least for an encyclopedia's treatment of the text and/or its author and/or its author's theories. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

	Hello, Chuck Entz. You have new messages at Grolltech's talk page.
	Message added 11:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

Regarding http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/make_someone%27s_teeth_itch For what it's worth, I added the second reference in good faith as a valid and used usage. In fact, I stumbled across your page here whilst searching in hopes that someone had YouTubed the very clip from The Benny Hill Show (the original being more than a decade pre-digital, of course, and possibly pre-videotape). The scene had Benny watching after a particularly curvaceous dancer, shivering, then looking into the camera and saying, "Kind of girl that makes your teeth itch." Classic Benny Hill: seemingly simple statements which keep setting off new interpretations every five seconds for a while. If I ever do find a digitised version of the clip, I'll come back here and edit the link into this paragraph as a definitive reference. In the meantime, enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Btt_6qEu7U in memory of Benny.

Hi,

I was wondering why you reverted my addition of the Japanese meaning of katai, as given at かたい… Japanese romaji are listed on here, as at tsuyoi and shiroi. Being pretty basic vocabulary ("hard"), I think the romaji needs to be added for this.

161.130.142.78 08:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the reason I reverted was due to all of the stuff that should really be at the kana entry, romaji entries are basically for referring to kana entries, and not as entries in their own right. The main thing that attracted my attention, though, was your including interwiki links for the kana spelling (i.e. ]): interwiki links have to match the headword exactly. If other Wiktionaries had an entry for katai, you would have had interwikis for that, but not interwikis for かたい- those go at かたい Chuck Entz (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, I'll see if I can do that properly then. 161.130.142.78 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you use edit summaries in Wikisaurus, especially when you are alphabetizing things and when you are removing things? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any reason for your vandalism on wiktionary page "pensarci"?

Not vandalism, per se- apparently an honest mistake. It really looked to me at the time like you were duplicating Etymology 1, but with etymology and definitions- which should only go on the main entry. A lot of people who know more about their own languages than about how we do things at Wiktionary don't realize the mess it can create when content is spread out over several inflected forms- it's almost impossible to keep everything in synch. I normally don't do reverts of languages I don't know well, but this seemed pretty straightforward. I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion, and for not checking further to see if you really were an inexperienced new editor. By the way, there's at least one typo ("thnik"), so you might want to look it over again. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I fixed typo. And apologies for jumping to conclusion myself. By the way, do you know what would be correct way to refer to particular etymology? For example, "ci penso io" and "pensaci tu" both contain "etymology 2" verb "pensarci". Is there any way to show this? Anceurs (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, there isn't any. If you were to refer to "Etymology 2", someone could rearrange them and make Etymology 2 into Etymology 1, or add another etymology in between and Etymology 2 would become Etymology 3. The best you can do is refer to whatever it is that distinguishes the two etymologies (not easy in this case). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for butting in. This was a real mess. I've tried to clean it up somewhat, but I can't help noticing that Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 are the same! (I've deleted the so-called adverb that didn't have a definition.) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

For cockpunch I am absolutely certain that it is used euphemistically to refer to punching ones cock in another's orifice. How can we get that definition included?Bipalabras (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You know the rules: three independent cites in durably-archived sources. The one you provided for this sense could have "punch" substituted and would make perfect sense: "may someone punch you in the mouth". No penetration required. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Chuck, I didn't get that. What the hell is that "common misspelling" "meaning" ("etymology")? Josh L. (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I thought we were talking about the noun. You would look at viral to see the etymology of the adjective, because that sense refers to people who mean to write viral and get it wrong. We're missing an adjective sense under Etymology 2, which is where the noun came from- but that's not an etymological problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nah, what I mean is that misspellings is a bullshit (sorry for my "French"). Or, while we still must consider them, we'd better devise some special marking for this stuff.
Hm... I just thought — if a misspelling is some sort of etymology, you mean that?? Josh L. (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Misspelling of" isn't strictly speaking an etymology, but I had to separate the misspelling from the correctly-spelled scientific senses, and the way specified by our rules is by etymologies. If you think about it, the misspelling isn't derived in any way from the same source as from the other senses, so it really is a separate, unspecified etymology.

As for why we have a "misspelling of" section at all: we're a descriptive dictionary, so we describe how people actually use words, not just how they should use them. If someone sees a reference to a "virial video" and looks up the words at Wiktionary, they need to know that the real word is "viral", so they can look it up under that spelling. If all they see is a reference to forces between microscopic particles and a figure in an obscure equation, it won't help at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

«for why we have a "misspelling of" section at all» — but we don't: that was an ordinary "etymology" section - with no noticeable differences pointing at that this is not a meaning of the article's word at all (Let alone the words "Common misspelling of" — cause they are not marking but only words in a row - without any formatting differences.).
«we describe how people actually use words»: WORDS. Another word misspelled is NOT the word of the article at all. IT SHOULD BE ISOLATED into a special reference.
«If all they see is a reference to forces between microscopic particles and a figure in an obscure equation, it won't help at all.» It will. It will help more than you think: it'll instigate people 1) to use their brains, 2) to realise that people (maybe including themselves) sometimes misspell something, and even maybe to realise that there are people who're inclined to do that, and/or there are words misspelled more frequently that others, and there are typos - which occur:) (I don't object the "misspelling" reference, to make it clear. I just tend to believe it should be out of the row - specially marked.) Josh L. (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you understand: Our entries include everything that's has the same spelling all on the same page. If there are words in other languages, they go there, too. In cases where there are completely separate words, such as wind (meteorological phenomenon vs. what you do with a string and a spool), we have separate sections for each (see WT:ELE). There's no place else to put the "misspelling of" entry. The definition line says says "misspelling of viral", so it's not like anyone is going to assume that it's a correct spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

«I don't think you understand...» I think now I do understand: that Wiktionary is not a dictionary about words/ lexemes; it is rather something about letter sequences, huh? :/ Josh L. (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No you don't. It's a dictionary about words/lexemes, which is organized by letter sequences. The OED isn't about alphabetical order, but the entries on a given page all start with the same letter. You wouldn't conclude that there's some kind of connection between "alpaca" and "alphabet" because some dictionaries have them on the same page, so why conclude that the "misspelling of" sense is connected to the "term in an equation" one? Chuck Entz (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me show.
I make a piece of text SOMEWHERE on the web. Then, having noticed a typo, I, instead of editing it (or being unable to), go to the Requested entries and REQUIRE the typoed word to be put onto the database. Is it that? Let's do an article on every typo, aha? Josh L. (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC) PS: Yes, I'm exaggerating - still it's in the same paradigm. Josh L. (talk)Reply

If you are going to revert the edit I made, please may you take a look at the definitions here on this page. They could do with improvement. I don't really see why this got reverted, most other dictionaries don't break down the definitions like in the version you have reverted it back to, see http://www.onelook.com/?w=adjust&ls=a for how other dictionaries define it. I was tempted to add a comment to the feedback page, but last time I submitted feedback about a particular issue nothing was done about it.

On Wikisaurus:alcohol (drink): For one thing, as of now, we don't use brackets in Wikisaurus headwords. For another, there is Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage, a hyponym of Wikisaurus:beverage. The entry Wikisaurus:alcohol links to Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage in "See also". Furthermore, searching for "ws:whisky" gives me the following pages:

• Wikisaurus:beverage
• Wikisaurus:horse (whyever, but you would probably know, having created the entry)
• Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage

Thus, a similar search should help you find whether a Wikisaurus page already exists.

A note on categories that you have been adding to Wikisaurus: I don't like them, but I will not ask their deletion via RFDO for the time being. They are in part made redundant by the hyponymy network, like:

• Wikisaurus:beverage
  • Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage
    • Wikisaurus:wine

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was aware of Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage, but there's a hole in our coverage: all of the items refer to specific alcoholic beverages like whisky or beer or wine. There are several terms that refer to the totality of consumable alcohol, as in phrases like "I don't drink alcohol", "he's been hitting the sauce/the juice quite a bit lately", "you've been drinking booze again", etc. That's what I was trying to capture, though I wasn't all that happy with the name I used. If there's a better way to include this information, I'd be happy to hear it.

As for the categories, they're sort of an experiment to work out ways to make it easier to find things. As it stands now, all the lists of entries are completely unstructured: in order to find if a topic is covered, you have to read all the entry names and figure out which ones might be relevant. Although you can certainly search for keywords, that method is dependent on using a search term that matches the title of the entry. If I were to search for "ws:Booze" I would get nothing. If I searched for "ws:alcohol", I might figure out that "ws:Alcoholic beverage" would lead me to what I want.

It seems far too easy for redundant entries to be created simply because people don't know the magic words necessary to find out that an entry already exists. We desperately need some kind of topic or theme page to organize entries that aren't, strictly speaking, -nyms of the same Wikisaurus entry. Given the countless ways things can be paraphrased, and the large number of synonymous terms that might be used in the entry names, strictly-text-based ordering and searching is pretty close to useless. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is not true that all the items of Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage refer to specific alcoholic beverages; check the synonyms section, which contains e.g. "drink". I have now expanded the synonyms section with "alcohol" and "booze", but there were synonyms even before my last edit. If you thought that Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage was incomplete, you could have expanded it. What you seem to be concerned with are uncountable broad terms for alcoholic beverages as opposed to countable ones. I think both can comfortably be hosted in one Wikisaurus entry.

People should not need to use any magic word to find a Wikisaurus entry; it suffices when they use the word for which they are seeking synonyms. If the particular synonym they have used is missing, the search fails; so much is true. Nonetheless, you say you were aware of "Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage", so you did not really seem to have a problem finding the page. Moreover, there are links to Wikisaurus from the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I noted in edit, the second sense shown for "intimidate" is not supported by OED or any dictionary I checked. That sense was not included in the original entry for "intimidate"; it appears to have been added by 67.186.211.126 at 21:02, 5 February 2007. Please delete the second sense or support it with an authoritative reference. Jwpat7 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you doubt the existence of a term or definition, please submit it to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 18:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you agree CodeCat moved that aggenda to User:KYPark/withy? --KYPark (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that it came to that, but, yes. Four screenfuls of text, including wholesale duplication of large parts of entries, lists of "possible cognates" that have little in common but superficially similar consonants, and long discussions about why you think everyone else is biased, wrongheaded, and out to get you. Maybe a couple of sentences out of all that has any relevance to Wiktionary, making it about 90% wasted space. It's bad enough that you bring up irrelevant topics, but then you add voluminous and elaborately formatted supporting material (most of it just for show), and no matter how anyone responds, you just keep going on and on about a given subject until your attention shifts to something else. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

By that unfair move, CodeCat in effect freed you from answering in the blind alley. Otherwise, why don't you respond to my last, most critical, conclusive talk at User:KYPark/withy? Simply I win if you give it up. --KYPark (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that Chuck failed to respond because even on April fool's day he had more productive things to do. Please step back and evaluate the function and mission of Wt (and don't bother to tell us your evaluation; some of us have already done that and are doing very nicely thank you) then if you find your evaluation incompatible with what all the other idiots opposing you seem to think, then favour a more deserving enterprise with your talents. You will win and they will have learnt a lesson, and serve them right. Have a nice day. JonRichfield (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your nice advice indeed. --KYPark (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

exactly an example of WikiDenail http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/WikiDenial — This unsigned comment was added by 58.153.92.150 (talk) at 13:55, April 18, 2013‎.

This is a descriptive dictionary: we include terms in actual use, not mini-essays about words someone would like to be in use. If you can provide three independent citations of actual use (with the same spelling) spanning more than a year in durably-archived sources, the entry is welcome (with an actual definition- if you want to hold forth or vent, get a blog somewhere else). Please note that wikis aren't considered durably-archived). A helpful hint: you can add citations to a non-existent entry, so that when you re-create the entry, others will know that it shouldn't be deleted. See WT:CFI for details. There was nothing personal about this- it just wasn't suitable for Wiktionary, as far as I could tell from the evidence I have available. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you reverted my references to 'cilemeatair'. The two items I'd put down as references are online dictionaries familiar to Scottish Gaelic users. Should I format references to online dictionaries (note, neither of these exist in hardcopy) as

cilemeatair, in Am Faclair Beag online dictionary. ?

Thanks for your advice! Thisissusanbell (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Giving a naked URL is not especially helpful. I have readded this specific URL in a better formatted way. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's great thank you. I'll follow that format. Thisissusanbell (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly new to wikiediting but I can't quite see why you removed my link to the swedish equilvalent of article: egotism. Care to elaborate? Bforsbe (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{se}} doesn't stand for Swedish; it stands for Northern Sami. This is why we have robots add interwiki links instead of humans. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you think would encourage contributors to put in a vernacular "translation" into the translation table? Is what is there now good enough? DCDuring TALK 20:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Translingual entries are not actually supposed to have transtables. Those are stored at the English name for the organism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That can't be our policy, because it would be stupid. Not every taxonomic name has an English vernacular name, though many, especially mammals, do. It is more than possible that there would be a local vernacular name for a taxon, but no English one. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is our policy. Go and look at WT:ELE#Translations.

Whether or not it is stupid is totally unrelated. If you disagree with it, raise the issue in the BP. If people seem to agree and there are no major complaints, then we can edit the page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The word is not scientifically proven, but is based on a theory of radical feminists who after all have an interest in providing men in a bad light why I think you should make the reader aware of the fact in the advertisement. --89.249.2.53 07:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's really no such thing as scientifically proven (everything is falsifiable), also how and why would you scientifically prove a word? How would you scientifically prove the word 'house'? What would that even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Words don't need to be scientifically proven. Theories need to be scientifically proven, but we're defining words, not theories. The way you randomly stuck those words in the sentence was ungrammatical and made no sense. You need to understand the grammar of what you're modifying before you add to it. Once you're able to make a coherent, grammatical sentence, we can look at whether your content is suitably neutral in tone. Hint: you might want to look up the words you use to make sure they mean what you think they do, and think about things like sentence structure and punctuation. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hope you don't mind but I made it so only autoconfirmed users can edit it. As you'll notice, another idiot was vandalising your page. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Actually, it was the same idiot, using a different IP. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation, I mostly contribute in Wikipedia and I am not familiar with Wiktionary customs and rules. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just find it sad that everybody keeps irritating you, as I think that you are a good, intelligent contributor. No matter how many flies you swat, they just keep coming back. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just dont understand the need to go and police the internet like you do! What makes you so important beyond us that you would delete pages? A simple apology might make it stop... You know, because that'd be the nice thing to do. But for now, just keep asking why? :) — This unsigned comment was added by 75.249.96.66 (talk) at May 20, 2013 21:43.

I'm not policing "the internet", I'm policing Wiktionary. I was elected by the people here to be an admin, so it's my responsibility to enforce the rules and policies of this site. This is a dictionary, not a place to express your opinions. My only regret is using the delete reason of "Stupidity", since it obviously hit a nerve. I was completely justified in doing so, because defacing a dictionary to add an inane comment like that is a pretty stupid thing to do. You posted a comment insulting the people who freely donate their time and effort providing this resource, so you don't exactly have the moral high ground here. Please note: I never accused you of stupidity- just your actions were stupid. And you'll have to admit, obsessing like this over a single word on a single website isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to do with your time and energies.

If I had known you would take it as a mortal insult, I wouldn't have used the word "Stupidity"- I'm certainly willing to apologize for that. I'm not going to apologize for deleting your comment, or for blocking you- yours was one of literally dozens of attempts at vandalism I had to deal with that evening. If I hadn't done it, someone else would have had to deal with it an hour or so later.

If you're willing to accept that much of an apology- fine. If not, you should realize that everything you've been doing is a minor nuisance, at worst- a click or two, maybe 10, 15 seconds, and it's gone. If you want to waste your time like that, I can't stop you- but I'm not about to alter what I do because of it. I don't get upset over such things, nor do I take them personally. If I had to spend a minute or two a day for the next 20 years dealing with it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Nothing personal, but I've got a job to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Who the heck is 5.70.215.243 (talk • contribs) and how do you know? o.O User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 02:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

An English anime fan (probably adolescent or pre-adolescent) who's really into magic and everything supernatural- and East Asian languages. They don't really know much in the way of Japanese or Chinese (or anything else), but they insist on adding lots of entries, anyway. I think they run things through Google or Bing Translate to get the Japanese or Chinese, then create the entries. But that's not the only reason their edits are bad- their English-language entries are awful, too.

They've been driving Haplology and Eirikr up the wall with the sheer volume of really, really bad edits, and the Chinese editors have gotten pretty tired of them, too. I suggested that we start just blocking them on sight, because they've ignored suggestions, hints, pleading, threats, blocks, and just about every other way to way to get through to them that you can think of, with only minor changes to their MO. They've amply demonstrated that they're not going to stop, so at least we can slow them down enough to limit the damage.

After going through years of their edits, I've gotten a pretty good feel for their editing style and choice of subjects, but they also are the only IP that edits Japanese and Chinese who geolocates to Sky Broadband, London. There's another IP who uses Easynet in the UK that edits religious subjects in Japanese, but they're pretty much harmless.

In this case, the subject matter looked like what a kid would think about (probably their dinner), the timing was right (this is their second block of the day), and Geolocate matched, so I blocked them. And in case you think I was totally off base, you'll note that Haplology has since reverted both of those edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• FWIW, many thanks for your help in halting the anon idiocy before it gets very far. That is an intensely frustrating situation, not least as the one or two anons involved actually manage to enter correct information every once in a while (meaning we can't just nuke their additions automatically).

Now I see that other anons are persistent in vandalizing your page. My sincere condolences. I noticed PalkiaX50's note above about protection, but this edit by an anon suggests that the protection isn't configured quite right. I note that the page properties show that anyone is still allowed to edit your page.

Whatever the case, thank you again for your help, and good luck with the anons! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Eiríkr, I protected his user page, not this, which is his talk. I figure talk may as well stay open for good anon, if any come by. Though no one's stopping Chuck or some1 else protecting this too if need be. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 04:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Like PalkiaX50 says, I can't protect my talk page, because it wouldn't be fair to deny access to anons who disagree with my reverts, blocks, etc. My user page is protected, though. As for this anon, it's a minor annoyance, at worst. I made my case in a message posted above, but I'm not about to change what I do because of any harassment campaign- in general, the more people try to manipulate me with garbage like that, the more stubborn I get. At any rate, carrying on a one-sided vendetta gets boring after a while, so I expect that they'll go away, eventually- with an occasional cameo reappearance every once in a while. They may be annoying, but I doubt they're so pathetically obsessive as to keep at it forever. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, I was wondering why my edits on they're, you're & there're were reverted? Cheers CokeHanx (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because you had all of them as derived from these + 're, which makes no sense. They're really from they+are, you+are and there+are, with elision of the a. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am curious why you reverted the edit for Telugu. If you believe that I made a mistake, let me know what it is. Xit vono (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not a huge problem, but the word nyelv doesn't seem to have been necessary, and being added outside the template made it look suspicious. See the Hungarian translations for some of the other language names. Still, I seem to have overreacted. Feel free to add it back- but check how other Hungarian translations are formatted. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm gonna revert it as I did originally. I decided to follow the pattern of other translations, such as bahasa Telugu and lingua Telugu, with only Telugu as part of a link. I checked hu.wictionary, where it had just telugu, but for Quechua it was kecsua nyelv. Xit vono (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed a disturbing trend where our anon has started crapflooding EN term translations with mostly bogus JA listings. See Special:Contributions/96.26.200.203 for an example. I've gone through and cleaned up that lot; they were almost all execrable, but again not entirely, so nuking from orbit might be overkill.

I'd softened slightly on our anon and had reduced my penalty block to one month; this change in tactic increases my concern, so I'm going back to three months.

Just FYI, and TIA, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a participant in an associated discussion, you are invited to contribute to the list of terms and criteria at Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English. Cheers,   — C M B J   11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the Usage notes/See also issue. It was a matter of copy-paste and I didn't even realize. Sobreira (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

"When ūnus is used to form compound numerals, such as ūnus et vīgintī ("twenty-one"), the masculine nominative singular is used, and does not inflect."

The same for "duo", "tres". Is this statement correct? Google Books gives many instances for "viginti unius anni", "viginti uno anno", "viginti una" and "una et viginti", but only one for "viginti unus anni" (perhaps a typo) and none for "viginti unus anno". Cicero also used "unius et viginti": . A comprehensive Guide to Wheelock's Latin seems to have mistaken (and also mistakenly named "viginti unus" etc. ordinals instead of cardinals). "Twenty-one horses" is certainly "viginti unus equi", but this word combination should decline: "viginti unius equorum", "viginti uni equis", etc. Burzuchius (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're asking about this rollback, I only did it because the templates added don't exist on Wiktionary, which should have been obvious to anyone who actually looked at the results after they were added (it was rather ugly). Wiktionary doesn't do things the way Wikipedia does- we have far fewer editors, let alone admins- so we can't afford the detailed procedures that are the norm there. The correct thing to do would have been adding {{attention|la}} to either the entry or the talk page, in order to bring it to the attention of someone who knows Latin (I know the basics of the morphology, but I'm not much help on the finer points such as you're addressing here). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my experience, Burzuchius is correct. I will remove that line. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Check,

Thank for your "welcome to dictionary" post on my talk page. However, would you tell me the purpose of this post? I'm a wiktionary member and participant for years (even if my contribs usually are small).

However, I take the opportunity to ask how to make interwiki links that display correctly. See exemples below:

• fr:bonjour
• w:dictionary

Salutation, Denispir (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The welcome template has links to pages with a great deal of information, which your edits showed you needed. As for how to make links display properly: add a pipe character ("|") and put the text you want displayed after it: ] shows as dictionary this also works for wikilinks: ] displays as car. There are templates that are more useful for linking within Wiktionary: template:term creates an italicized wikilink suitable for use in etymologies ( {{term|car|lang=fr}} displays as car), and template:l creates a plain link ( {{l|fr|car|lang=fr}} displays as car). This is especially useful with other scripts: {{term|γλῶσσα||tongue, language|lang=grc}} displays as γλῶσσα (glôssa, “tongue, language”). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Corrected just now so that "live" version won't have a module error. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Botany seems to be chock full of terms such as the above. I think we should enter them as we notice them because a botanically naive person like me could believe that they have something to do specifically with Asparagoidea or Asparagoides (apparently obsolete, but attestable) or with species:Asparagoideae, whereas such terms leave open the question of what taxonomic level, or clade for that matter, might be associated with or assigned to the grouping. Could you take a look at and improve the entry or characterize how such terms are used? The idea would be to have a generic definition which might be improved and made more specific for individual cases.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am somewhat certain that you probably have much more important things to be attending to, rather than responding to questions, but in your pursuit of studying linguistics, how difficult would you say it was? Porokello (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you use edit summaries in Wikisaurus, especially when you are alphabetizing things and when you are removing things? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this rollback is in error. Jnestorius (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I undid my rollback. The quotes aren't the greatest, IMHO, but they didn't really merit removal. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the translation? I think it should be there.

Because that's not the lemma form for the verb. The definitions should go at לחבל, which is in fact where they already are. And please remember to sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Lincolnshire http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User:Chuck_Entz All other pages inform of neighbouring counties, this one does not if uncertain about validity please check: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Lincolnshire

Why did you delete my page with the translation of ღვთის პირიდან გადავარდნილი? — This unsigned comment was added by 186.204.54.157 (talk) at 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC).Reply

Because it was a translation of a sentence, not a dictionary entry. See WT:CFI for what we consider suitable for dictionary entries, and WT:ELE for what an entry should contain. The only reason we have sentences is to either give examples of how a term is used in order to help people understand it better, or to give samples of how it's used in order to document that the term is really in use with the definition we give in the entry. In both cases, the quotes go right after the definition in the main entry page, or, for the second, in the Citations tab for the entry. What you posted was useless for dictionary purposes without an entry to add it to. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you undid an edit for the Slovak word motýľ meaning butterfly. I don't actually speak Slovak, but I know Czech and I think his edit looks legit, since it is a masculine animate noun. Xit vono (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The content might be legit, but they also deleted the language header and otherwise mangled things. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry aboun mangling things. The changes in the declension are legitimate, but I didn't know how to correct the declension pattern, so I deleted it. It is declined by the "stroj" patern, but only in plural . In singular it is declined by "chlap" pattern. It is a special "gender", it is called "masculine, animate, animal" in Slovak language. Kirkekol (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

81.129.16.101 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Hello (re:North Yorkshire) please check the validity of my edits from: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_image.php?q=User_talk:Chuck_Entz/2013&sq=User_talk:Chuck_Entz/2013&lang=en&file=File:Ceremonial_counties_of_England_labeled.svg and http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/North_Yorkshire after all wiktionary is "Designed as the lexical companion to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia project" The form of this page is out of sync with other county pages eg take nottinghamshire for an example it gives the neighbouring counties where as 'north yorkshire' and 'east riding of yorkshire' I keep correcting this an then an admin undoes the changes and asks to leave a comment on their page which I initally do then another admin comes redoes the roll-back and ask the exact same question if the roll-back is in error then please leave note on their talk page. Some even block you and don't allow you to do this.Reply

I think the key is the difference between a county and a ceremonial county. At any rate, I'm following the lead on this from SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) who's from the UK not too far from there and knows more about this than I do- discuss it with him. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi

You have reverted back my edit on Kamboh/Kamboj. But you have not given any reasons for doing so. The edit I did on citations on kamboh/iKamboj is for the general interest of the common readers so that they can form an independent view about the kamboh/Kamboj and their link to the kambojas. if you want to discuss this issue further, let me know and we will discuss and agree to an acceptable view. Please do not revert it back without assigning reasons for doing so. I am reverting back and inviting you for general discussion on this page.

Thanks

71.193.5.163

@Chuck: As long as it is just the user page, I'm fine with it. You'd probably need cascading protection (if that exists here), if you protect the main user page. Razorflame 03:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Chuck Entz. I have recently proposed in the Beer parlour that since WT:RFD and WT:RFV are perpetually backlogged with discussions that should have been closed long ago, it would be nice if editors adding a new section to one of these pages would help to move some old sections towards closure/archiving. Since you have added some new RfV sections, please consider closing or archiving some old ones. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe that your rollback of my edit was quite in error. Can you explain why you did it? —Dajagr (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. The word poeciliid isn't directly from Ancient Greek. As the etymology currently says, it's from the scientific name Poecilliidae, which in turn is from the generic name Poecilia (to be precise, per the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, from the genitive of Poecilia, minus the inflectional ending, plus the family ending -idae). As for where Poecilia came from, that would probably be ποικιλία (poikilía, “being marked with various colours, striped, spotted”), though a case could be made for ποικιλίας (poikilías, “a kind of fish”). The original description doesn't give an etymology, so it's anybody's guess. You claimed that the English word came from ποικίλος (poikílos, “many-coloured, spotted, pied, dappled”), but that's correctly transliterated "poikilos", not "poikilios". I'm sure ποικιλία (poikilía) itself comes from ποικίλος (poikílos)- but that's not what you wrote. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I realized that what I initially wrote came across as passive-aggressive, so I wanted to try to adjust it to a more neutral tone. I appreciate that you are trying to make sure that the entry is accurate. I think it would have been more helpful to provide corrections or, if you felt those were not ready to hand, at least an explanation of why the information was being completely reverted. I have done further research into the term and am basing the current etymology on information in Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionaries, both of which cite ποικίλος (poikílos) (OED as the direct predecessor; M-W as the basis for the poecil- prefix. Whether the direct predecessor is the -ia or -os form seems to be a matter of some question in the specific term, but I think this provides at least a starting point. —Dajagr (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to say without full access to the older scholarly literature, but at Google Books the use of Poeciliidae (1820) predates the use of poeciliid (1859) by nearly forty years and Poecilia (1801 for the official description) predates them both. It seems implausible that the latter terms were invented without reference to the genus name. The sequence of use in the community of scholars was Poecilia > Poeciliidae > (p|P)oeciliid. I'd be fascinated to see the evidence that poeciliid had a meaning that was not basically "like a Poecilia" and instead had reference to the underlying Greek or New Latin. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What I found is that in slang and insulting usage, "up yours" is essentially a short form for "shove it up your ass", and it actually originates from that term. Therefore, "shove it up your ass" seems like the real definition of "up yours" — This unsigned comment was added by 'Samaria-Mack' (talk • contribs).

Perhaps, but we don't do redirects, especially if it means gutting an entry that's been there a while. We may need to rearrange things- but not with chainsaws, bailing wire and duct tape... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I hope we can figure this out without more drama on our user pages...

Who are you to italicize "will" in your threatening post on my page?

"You don't need to editorialize (and if you insist on continuing to do so, you probably will be blocked, after all)," you write.

What's up with that aggressive claptrap, guy? I never "editorialized" anything on any Wiki property. In regard to your irrelevant example, pea, pease and peasen—unlike "crostinis"—are defined in many credible dictionaries.

I'd consider any credible definition of "crostinis" sufficient. Is that too much to ask for?

You're right: I "don't seem to know the rules" around here. What I did: I removed a word that in fact..."isn't a word."

You want me out? Save me the trouble of learning the rules by pulling the trigger, bud.

Mcormc (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

From what I can see, there isn't anything wrong with Chuck Entz's edit. The revert was justified because the information you added did not belong in the dictionary entry. He also tried to explain how Wiktionary works with regard to what is a word and what isn't, and you just more or less ignored him. He even gave you a helpful link: WT:CFI. He wasn't threatening you at all, just stating a fact which I can certainly corroborate. Edits such as the one you made to crostinis are indeed undesirable and will result in a block, if you keep making them despite being asked not to do so. Your self-righteous and aggressive attitude on this page and on your own talk page certainly does not help your cause either. —CodeCat 02:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

(after edit conflict) Funny, "according to The New York Times, whose credibility remains in doubt" certainly looks like editorializing to me. As for "credible dictionaries", you need to read the CFI: dictionaries have absolutely no role in deciding whether Wiktionary considers something a word or not. We're not Wikipedia, which requires references to authoritative sources (like dictionaries). We go by usage. Period.

As for what you did: you didn't remove anything. You added your personal opinion on the headword line where it didn't belong- we put explanations under a "Usage notes" header, where, in fact, there already was one. Wiktionary has very strict formatting requirements, which you seem to have no clue about (as no one would expect you to). It's sort of analagous to writing corrections in a printed dictionary with a big, fat, black marker.

As for being aggressive, you're the one who re-added content after an admin removed it, and you're the one who's posting an angry message on my talk page. The problem is that you're trying to change things without understanding what you're changing, and in an inappropriate way. I can guarantee you that any other admin would have reverted the edit that you've added twice, and some would have blocked you on the spot to keep you from doing it again.

Simply put, you're trying to change Wiktionary into something it's not, without checking to find out why it isn't that way. There are any number of decisions that have been made over the years that you would disagree with, but they were arrived at by debate, compromise and consensus among the people who edit here. You can't just wander in and demand that things be changed the way you would like just because you think they should be that way.

If you don't like the rules, make a proposal at the Beer Parlor, and see if anyone agrees with you. Otherwise, don't expect a meat market to switch to selling produce just because you're a vegetarian.Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Strictly factual—The New York Times' credibility remains in doubt. That's a joke, mostly. I'll take a look at the CFI and then do the Eight Clap.—Mcormc (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why not give readers a plain-language definition in addition to the one with all the jargon they'll have to look up?

Hi there, I have left a message at Talk:tarkhan.

What was that? Keφr 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not something I actually typed- that's the first time I've seen it. I evidently substed to get the language name, and the system put the actual code from the template into the wikitext of the revision instead of the template. Very odd. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion after a while. {{subst:langcode}} still works, though, while {{langname}} has not been yet adapted to be suitable for substitution. And it was not at the time either. Keφr 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know that it was kind of a random question, but I was thinking that user discussion pages were pretty subjective compared to stuff in the mainspace; hardly restricted areas. Can't I ask it anywhere on Wiktionary?

Oh well, I guess I'll enquire somewhere else... --66.190.69.246 00:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

User and talk pages are for dictionary business, though those who've made valuable contributions aren't held to that as strictly. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kinda useless if you hide the content, but not the user name. Also, I made a contribution to another entry under the same IP. Delete and undelete maybe? I can redo it... Keφr 14:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just forgot to select that option. As for the other edit: given no one else knows it's associated with your user name, does it still need to be hidden? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess not. Thanks. Keφr 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

After looking at the contributions listing for the IP, I realized that it would allow someone to figure out the connection- so I hid the author info from the revision. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

These were my recent edits: 1, and I think your redemptions were rollbacks, since I only wanted to expand the etymological section of a several words. If you think I should reduce/expand or improve the information content of my last edits, please designate the criterias. --2001:638:505:102:0:0:0:90 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your edits were simply wrong. It takes more than a vague, superficial resemblance for two terms to be related: they have to come from a common source. You obviously have no idea about how etymologies work, so you shouldn't add anything to etymologies without a reference from a reliable source. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please stop undoing my corrections on the IPA for these words, I'm taking my material from the HarperCollins Russian dictionary, so I think that's a credited source. ThePhilologist (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

We don't have the same policy toward references as Wikipedia does. We follow usage, not reference works. For one thing, Russian has a well-known tendency to devoice final consonants- союз has a final z only when assimilating to a voiced sound in the following word. If you listen to the audio file, the final sound is "s", not "z". I'm sure there's regional variation, but that's the standard pronunciation. Also, the person you're reverting, Stephen Brown, is a linguist and professional translator who's fluent in Russian. I would trust his judgement as to how people actually speak the language over that of a mass-market paperback.

Why don't you ask Atitarev (talk • contribs) what he thinks? He's a native speaker who's also a linguist and professional translator. If you can get him to agree with you, I'll stop reverting you. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

So you are saying a dictionary has no professionals working on it? ThePhilologist (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Stephen G. Brown (talk • contribs) has fixed the pronunciation (changed it back). Re: союз (/sɐˈjʉz/) - the difference between /u/ and /ʉ/ is not great but the latter happens between palatalised consonants /j/ precedes /u/. In скорость, it's more natural to pronounce /ˈskorəsʲtʲ/ - the last palatalised consonant affects the previous, so /s/ get palatalised as well. /ˈskorəstʲ/ is also possible but less common and less natural. I'd prefer just one version - the current in both entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, If you think you have arguments, state them. I don't mind if you revert my edits, but please tell why. --80.114.178.7 03:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't speak to the details of the Dutch (though I trust CodeCat's judgment), but you also messed up the headers. See WT:ELE. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, would diff 23410263 do?

I have no reason to revert it based on my limited understanding of Dutch, so I'll leave it to CodeCat to decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, but did I align the headers according to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained this time? And if I did, how can I avoid the wrath of the WT:ELE brigade next time? --80.114.178.7 05:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As you are someone with a significant contribution to Wikisaurus, I'd like to bring Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus_and_attestation to your attention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Than what do you think of triple-distilled peach brandy, then?

151.226.228.106 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whether it exists or not, I have my doubts as to whether it passes the requirements of our Criteria For Inclusion (WT:CFI): peach brandy might be idiomatic, and maybe triple-distilled (I have my doubts), but combined, it looks like it would be covered by some combination of the definitions for the terms that make it up (See WT:SOP). single malt whisky might run into the same problem, but I don't have terribly strong opinions on that. At any rate, I would probably nominate it for deletion at WT:RFD rather than speedily deleting it as I've done with your "single malt brandy" entry- it would need more than just my opinion to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn’t one week a bit harsh? I’m sure that he was just making innocent mistakes. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, he/she was systematically changing Serbo-Croatian to Croatian to make a statement. The language header might arguably be chalked up to confusion, but changing all those interwikis isn't the kind of thing one does by accident. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have been attempting to improve our taxonomic entries by putting a little more into their definition and placing a little less emphasis on taxonomic placement, especially not trying to have a "latest", "correct", or even best available placement. There is also the question of changing membership of a taxon. The latter I think can be handled by:

1. referring the user to WP, which often has at least some explanation of the uncertainties;
2. some summary text if things seem clear; or
3. some explicit grouping under Hyponyms of current and past members.

At Protozoa I am attempting to address the question of multiple placement.

Recognizing that this is a wiki and that I am only trying to improve the entries, which have been rather terse and inadequate, as perfection is far beyond my capabilities, does this look like a sufficient improvement to apply elsewhere? Any thoughts you have about multiple definitions would be appreciated. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I edited boba's English etymology and somehow it was reverted by you. I am from Taiwan and I know what the Chinese characters are. When the term 波霸 first came out back around the 1990s, we simply knew what it meant and why it was called that way. And if you can read Chinese, you should read the Chinese version of bubble tea on Wikipedia http://zh.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%E7%8F%8D%E7%8F%A0%E5%A5%B6%E8%8C%B6. Timluo (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

There were not Russian but Belarusian grammatical glosses - I did copy them originally from Russian, modified to work with Belarusian and translated each term into Belarusian. Mzajac (talk • contribs) also removed my Ukrainian translations from Ukrainian conjugation tables but for a different reason - he didn't want Ukrainian glosses. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry- I should have asked. Feel free to revert. It seems odd to link to a bunch of non-existent entries, but that's not my call. Unlike Mzajac, I'm unlikely to work with the language, so my opinion isn't important in this case. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Same reason, really: I couldn’t think of a good rationale for linking an English term to a non-existent Ukrainian dictionary entry. Confusing for readers, and clearly also for editors. The link didn’t work. If it did, then a link imperfective aspect would take the reader to an entry for недоконаний вид, that would simply gloss it as “imperfective aspect.”

I had no idea Anatoli thought of these links as translations or glosses. But I didn’t merely remove something, I updated the links to pages that actually offered definitions and translations of the linked grammatical terms.

I could see some value in pointing out that en:imperfective aspect = uk:недоконаний вид where it is used in a Ukrainian entry, but I can’t see a justifiable way of doing that in every inflection table without cluttering it up (e.g., in plain text), or that is mainly inaccessible (e.g. as merely a tooltip). It also seems odd to inject monolingual translations into English working copy in an English-language dictionary. For foreign-language readers, entries already have multiple foreign-language entry links in the sidebar. —Michael Z. 2013-10-27 18:10 z

Was this edit intentional? (Specifically the Romagnol part.) Did it result from some sort of automation? If so, has that automation already been fixed? —Ruakh_TALK 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't have automation- I must have tried substing something and been unaware of the mess it left. I'll be very careful to click edit after I subst anything in the future- if I do it at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck,

When you patrol an edit and clean up after it, please remember to mark it as patrolled. Otherwise it stays in the patrol queue until another patroller investigates, which is just a waste of time.

Thanks in advance,
—Ruakh_TALK
17:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have taken a crack at this, but I have so far found support only for the obsolete definition. It seems that this name has been recycled to be a tentative home for the taxa represented by new specimen fossils recently discovered in China. French WP may have something on this, but my pitiable French makes even simple search there unrewarding. If you find this interesting, please take a look. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

French Wikipedia has nothing on this. As for it being "recycled", a better term would be "revived". The one place I saw it used in Linnaean nomenclature was with the Chinese fossil taxa added to Archaeopteryx to form an expanded Saurornithes. I also saw a PhyloCode-type clade representing all descendants of the common ancestor of Archeopteryx and Passer domesticus, which would basically include all birds, as far as I can tell. In both cases they're using the old taxon name, but changing its scope to include more than Archeopteryx. I'm not that much into paleontology, and my main areas where I'm comfortable with obscure taxonomy are terrestrial arthropods and plants. Have you checked with Metaknowledge? He's pretty knowledgeable about zoology, though perhaps with more of a focus on aquatic organisms. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the false lead to fr.pedia. I had the impression from Wikispecies that it was something like that. But I haven't seen anything at Books or Scholar that makes me think the new sense is attestable in English, which makes me wonder whether it is used in multiple languages. I'll also check with some folks who can advise on the Chinese literature, maybe Jusijh. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Um hi Mr Entz,

I was notified that you reverted my edit "widening the def" of all, and specifically vaginal sex. It is my opinion that mammals and particularly humans are unusual in/when regarding this, and it could be documented as an exception from a purely scientific point of view. I also consider that using a fish to illustrate the "usual" understanding of this term implies I am a fish; you are a fish; we are all fish somewhere deep down inside (I took a while to finish this sentance, it's meant to arouse a sense of nervousness from being out of one's depth and references a quote from science fiction. I was carried away by all those meta usernames, sorry I'm trying to remain neutral, how am I doing?) I understand that the community of editors here and now, and particularly the Wiktionary:Administrators are unlikely to side with me on this usage however I feel I should leave this comment here seeing the Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#vaginal_sex is now Closed. no consensus to delete. Riverstogo (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you're saying. However I will say that just because an organism reproduces sexually doesn't necessarily imply sexual intercourse. The inter- is the clue here, a male fish fertilizing a female's eggs outside of her body isn't intercourse because there is no insertion. I hope this helps. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would really like everyone to understand, can you show me the thrust where you are expending most of your energy (are you working from Chuck Entz's edit summary?) Thanks for hinting at a wider definition of reproduction but the other definitions of intercourse do not appear to imply insertion, only when regarding mammalian sex and humans in particular does this arise. 'inter-' would suggest simply a duration within which, among mutually consenting partners a reciprocal exchange occurs, amid some activity or course. I hope this does not deflate your helpful assertion that the subject of intercourse or communication must be inserted, though twice as small a thing might be said if it were left unsaid. This section illustrates the anatomical crux of how unusually penetrative human beings are in regarding ,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

My main problem was with cluttering a general definition with details about just one of very very many variations on sexual interaction. Just looking at spermatophores, there are a huge number of ways to get them from males to females (or from one hermaphrodite to another, or from a hermaphrodite to a female, for that matter)- I know of spiders where the male leaves a packet of sperm for the female to pick up, for instance. Since the definition says "usually", the fish in question are included- so why open such a huge can of worms? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand your reluctance towards eating worms. I have come to believe the first subdefinition widens the def beyond what Mr Gardner has asserted above, which I found difficult to swallow. I wish well being to all beings sufficient for inclusion, and those used at least three times, estimatedly within a metre or two of being found or squashed. I hope I can reemphasise especially for captured FISH, releasing from cells.

From this distance my identification with one of the 1680's thinkers leaves much me much divided. If you want to see why, please create User:Riverstogo/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you might create meta:User:Riverstogo/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across Wikipedia.

What kinds of fish, being marked with various colours, striped, spotted, many-coloured, spotted, pied, and/or dappled are we trying to entice with our worms then? For instance Poecilliidae is the incorrect spelling of the scientific name but you probably have no need to correct yourself with a full mouth, we are only humane after all. Mr Gardner deserves twice as little mention, i.e. June 5, 2009–May 19, 2010; May 24, 2010 (second appointment).

Fine, you believe us. No need to be graphic at all. To mate equally, we are not fluent or expert in this, but we see lots of connections others do not yet consider connections. The direction taken by ourselves is an interactive path, sequence, development, or evolution.

Typically becoming unusually involved. Riverstogo (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does the speed continually surprise us, despite the rate of incomplete gender, with which language has united or joined two or more https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Cyrillic_alphabets into one velocity?

It is the act or fact of communicating, this transmission: ii_tao_foctt

What?] Riverstogo (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

What? Ii tao foctt (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for inserting {{taxlink}}. Once there are more than 5 it pretty much guarantees that the taxon will be added after I run a little Perl script against the next dump. I have put in a category designed to help me keep track of new uses of the template, mostly so I can express my gratitude. To suppress the (hidden) category, you can insert "noshow=1" in any use of taxlink.

This tracking will almost certainly be a temporary thing, so don't be too alarmed. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You never thanked me. Is it because I make insensitive jokes? --Vahag (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've just started thanking (only 3 so far). Chuck happened to be making a few score uses of {{taxlink}}. I 'thank' for the taxlink-using edits that I find, as they are generated by Mediawiki categorization or as I stumble across them. I'm sure that I'll be finding yours.

Insensitive remarks are bad-ish. Using taxlink ensures entry into heaven. It's like a plenary indulgence. DCDuring TALK 02:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

:D Cool, I'll use {{taxlink}} more often to repair my karma. --Vahag (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not a get out of jail free card (poorly defined IMO. It only works for past sins. Go and sin no more. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'll probably tone down my trolling in the future. Not because I regret annoying people, but because I love Wiktionary and my previous shenanigans have caused some psychologically fragile but useful editors to leave the project. --Vahag (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I feel that your reversion of Styx is wrong. One: 'Styx' means 'Hate'. Two: In Greek mythology, Styx is both a river in the underworld, and the goddess of then same river. She was the consort of Pallas, and the mother of Nike and co. I did the research, its on both Wikipedia and on theoi.com -- a online encyclopedia of Greek mythology!

2.126.218.20 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're going to have to learn about the difference between encyclopedic and dictionary content. There may have been some dictionary-worthy content in your edits, but most of it is totally unnecessary to understanding the meaning of the word.

The problem is, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and we have no reliable way to communicate with you to explain what you're doing wrong. Right now, I would say that you're causing far more damage in terms of wrong information, bad formatting, invalid links, and just general useless clutter than any useful contributions- the effort required to clean up your contributions outweighs the minimal amount of good information in them.

In order for us to stop blocking you and reverting you, you'll need to set up some way we can let you know what you need to improve on, and show that you're actually listening to us and working to clean up your act. I've looked over thousands of your edits going back at least 3 years, and most of them are just garbage. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I repeat, non of the information was wrong!

2.126.218.20 23:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was. An encyclopedia can have all kinds of details about who's related to whom, their background, attributes, etc. We're a dictionary: our job is to tell people what the term means, not every possible thing that someone may find interesting about the subject referred to by the term. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for inserting "noshow=1" with {{taxlink}}. I am somewhat embarrassed at the amount of extra keystrokes and low-value editing that a recent change to {{taxlink}} requires. I was looking to provide a way of keeping track of new uses of {{taxlink}} to thank the contributor (not for every use!!!) and to make any adjustments to the entry and to the linked entry that seemed appropriate. I track new additions to a category for that purpose. "noshow=1" suppresses membership in that category.

By some time in January, I hope to have superseded {{taxlink}} with frequency lists for taxa in Wiktionary created from the XML dumps. The list is intended to lead to:

1. linking one use of each taxon in each L2 section in which the taxon is used.
2. a frequency-ranked list of redlinked taxa.

I have other ideas to use this kind of capability. For one thing, I would like to extract all the vernacular names in Wikispecies and the associated taxonomic name(s) to create lists of such names to be added by vernacular language. I do not particularly want to add all taxonomic names to Wiktionary, though that might be appropriate at some time in the next decades.

I have some Perl to learn to do this. The effort needs a clean list of all taxonomic-name headwords (plus redlinked taxa) in Wikispecies, possibly with some additions from Wikipedia's headwords, which is why I had resorted to the labor-intensive {{taxlink}} approach.

I will continue to produce the lists of multiple occurrences of taxlink until the alternative will be available.

This may affect the contributions you choose to make. Adding taxa, preferably those with vernacular names or in some way topical or interesting, is definitely a Good Thing. Taxon entries need lots of work and the paths to improvement are clear. Deployment of {{taxlink}} in the course of other work is definitely useful. Among other things I will want to see whether the Perl-created actually would include all the taxlinked items without specifically looking for "taxlink". DCDuring TALK 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Chuck, I am back editing after a school induced hiatus, and have noticed some changes. Before I make too many mistakes would you mind pointing out any major changes over the last year. What I already noticed was the change with the {{context}} template. Also I believe I saw that (X)Sampa is no longer utilized.

Anything else you could point out would be helpful. Thanks Speednat (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The word ساەت is wrong, it should be سائەت. --Oyunqi (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two things:

1. We're a descriptive rather than a prescriptive dictionary. That means we keep anything that's used by fluent speakers whether it's considered right or wrong- we may mar it as a misspelling, or as non-standard or prescribed so that people know not to use, but we have a page for it. See WT:CFI for details. If you're positive no one actually uses it and that it's a simple mistake like a typo, there are a few options. If it's so obvious that no one would disagree with you, you can request speedy deletion by adding {{delete}} to the entry, preferably with an explanation as a parameter: {{delete|this is a typo}}, or something like that. If it's not completely obvious, you can add {{rfv}}. The best way to do this is to click on the "+" symbol in the box created by the rfv template, which starts a topic at Requests for verification, and explain what's wrong with the entry. Someone will check to see whether it meets the requirements of WT:CFI as far as evidence that it's used, and if it isn't, it will be deleted.
2. As far as making the entry into a redirect: because there can be many languages with words that have the same spelling, at Wiktionary we strongly discourage redirects unless there's no possibility of overlap with another language. See WT:REDIR. That's the main reason I reverted your edit rather than waiting for an admin who knows something about Uyghur to look at it. Of course, the fact that it was created over five years ago by an experienced editor weighed on my decision (though she isn't fluent in the language, as far as I know), and the fact that you were basically throwing away all the previous edits.

At Wiktionary, we have very few people checking huge numbers of edits, so we don't have as much time to issue warnings and follow detailed procedures like you might be used to at Wikipedia or some of the other Wiktionaries. As far as I can tell, your edit was done in good faith and you couldn't be expected to follow rules that you didn't know about, so you shouldn't interpret the rollback as anything like a sign of official disapproval. Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Chuck. Now I know how to edit it.--Oyunqi (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thera are no problem on my second edit. Rollbacking is error.--0lympic (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The worst errors were still there. See WT:ELE. If you can't write a simple sentence in English without several major errors, you really shouldn't be editing dictionary entries in the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The "rollback" removing "approaching flyer" as an additional gloss for "anfloga" is unwelcome. A precise definition given for this word in Bessinger's "Short Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon Poetry", 1960, is "attacking flier". He specifically gives the meaning of the prefix "an-" as "against, opposite, towards," etc. Both "attacking" and "approaching" as modifications for "flyer/flier" should therefore be added as fully acceptable glosses for "anfloga". I will now make this re-correction. Newsailormon (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz, could you please help me with this request? Regards, Mathonius (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not an urgent request, but not responding at all seems a bit strange in my opinion. I hope I didn't do something wrong... Mathonius (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, why was the initialization for steam removed? Should I create a new page 'STEAM' instead of adding it to 'steam' page? Thanks.

Two things: we're case sensitive, and we go by usage. That means adding an initialism sense to steam would only be valid if people are actually using the lower-case spelling of the initialism, and I only saw upper-case examples. You need to read WT:CFI to understand what's permissible here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand, and i know that there is thousands of Gothic words not yet with entries, but they do have romanizations. I've been trying to look at what those words are, but the net doesn't really have any information on them, what can we do to improve that? Moonspell Bloodlines (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that these words are not vulgar,and are spoken and quite acceptable in oral speech. Even the majority of the population about bird droppings always says "birdshit".```` George

Disagree, lots of people use vulgar language in oral speech (as you put it). But these terms are vulgar, you wouldn't use them in situations that require non-vulgar language. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I moved this discussion to Talk:writable.

Dtrebbien (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have added a possible etymology for this genus (hamster). Century, which has a lot of taxonomic name derivations doesn't have this. Is there any good source for this kind of thing? DCDuring TALK 12:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't look right. Here are some etymological sources. Medieval Latin cricetus looks solid enough, and a Slavic source seems plausible. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Leske is credited with the species identification. He was born in Muskau near the German-Chech border, which might have influenced his choice of name, but perhaps his competitors has already published using Hamster. It was not in Classical or Late Latin. I don't have access to any Medieval Latin reference. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Leske just described the genus, which he probably took from Linnaeus' Mus cricetus. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you actually think of any prescriptive dictionaries? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

To start with, they all were- if it wasn't in the dictionary, you knew you weren't supposed to use it. The major print dictionaries have been moving away from prescriptivism in the past decades, but if you go to http://www.onelook.com and try looking up ain't or irregardless, it's not just the older dictionaries that won't have anything at all, while some of the new ones will have entries, but you can almost hear harrumphing, throat-clearing and sniffs of disdain in the background as you read them. The major ones, though, mostly say something to the effect that it's ok to use those words in informal speech, but they're nonstandard, so don't use them in formal settings. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply