User talk:Chuck Entz/2014

Any reasons to revert my changes to zestawiać? I've recently updated the zestawić entry and both are just the same words, there's no need to duplicate the definitions of both or even worse - revert the former to the incorrect version (I've also corrected a misspelling in a conjugation table). You make so many changes and don't justify any of them unless people report back to you, why is that so?

-- Quagmind (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the solution is, but you shouldn't have "see..." as a definition. Perhaps you could ask at the Information Desk, or see how similar entries handle it. I have no clue about the other corrections, which are no doubt ok. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please restore 從……出發. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You deleted User:Trollaxor. On what grounds is it, according to WT:USER, an inappropriate user page?

True, it's borderline, but the fact that your only edits to Wiktionary consist of setting up a pseudo-entry for a word you apparently made up, and your user name is based on it smacks of using Wiktionary solely to promote your interests. There are quite a few contributors who have various bits of nonsense on their user pages, but the body of their contributions shows that they're primarily contributors, not self- or agenda-promoters. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

In California it has come too mean high grade marijuana with strong medicinal qualities specifically marijuana, exclusive of other items, its understood to mean marijuana

The bot does not have any 'blacklist'. I could implement it, but I think the better way is to remove the problematic file from Commons. There are many Wiktionaries and most don't use my bot for pronunciation files, so it would be not fair to leave the English one correct and let others use the erroneous recording. Actually my bot is not capable of removing pronunciation files from entries, so wrong pronunciation will stay forever, until someone removes the file manually. Note that people who remove files from Commons have bots that remove such files from all wikis that use them, which is a proper solution to the problem. Could you consider filing a deletion request of the file on Commons? I have no knowledge of Portuguese so I don't feel competent for discussing the file deletion. --Derbeth ^talk 07:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

"haus" is not the imperative singular of "hausen" because every imperative singular has in the german language a "e" at its end. — This unsigned comment was added by Impériale (talk • contribs).

@Impériale I am aware that you may not be a native German speaker. In German, one can omit the final e in words, just like what we do in English: heaven->heav'n, given->giv'n. _{(Français: En allemand, il ne faut pas écrire toujours le "e" final en un mot.)} --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am a native German speaker and you can trust me that the right form is "hause" and not "haus". Take a look at "hausen" in the german Wiktionary. --Impériale (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, sorry, I'm not a native German speaker. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I may not be a native speaker, but I can find references showing haus as a correct singular imperative . Please note that hause is also listed as a singular imperative. The point is that there seems to be some variation, so that some people use the form without an e, and since we're a descriptive dictionary, we document that. @Kc kennylau: the elision of vowels in English poetry isn't really analogous. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck EntzYou may want to use {{ping}} next time. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or not. I reverted the edit, which should be enough. Also, it's not necessary to use a template: User:Kc kennylau does just as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

One would agree that @Chuck Entz is more convenient. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you please let me know why you have rolled back an inclusion I made to the pronunciation of the word "valued"? The current audio file on the page is not very good, and since I'm not an American or British or Australian (and the list goes on), I put my own recording under the label "International". Have I done anything wrong? Can a word only have one audio pronunciation file by any chance? Thanks for your response. Prubini87 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Prubini87 Firstly, then where do you come from? There is no such a country called "international". Secondly, I don't think the format of the name is correct. We don't use quotation marks. Please refer to the format of the name of the first recording to see what I mean. NB: Since I am not the worm in his stomach, I have no idea whether he is thinking about the same thing as I am thinking. Please use my points only as a reference. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau Hi there. I'm from Brazil. The reason I labeled the pronunciation "international" is because, even though there are recognized, distinct accents for American, British and Australian English (to name a few), there is no such thing as "Brazilian English", or at least not in official terms. I have been to the U.S. a couple of times and I believe my accent is brazilian-american, but once again, what category can it fall on but International? I'm open to suggestions. As for the format of the name of the file, I will certainly take another look at it and change it to an acceptable pattern. Thanks! --Prubini87 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck Entz, thanks for watching this page and protecting it from poorly-explained changes, but yes in this case I do contest your rollback (here).

"To give something a value" implies it could be a low value. "Your spoon trick is useless" would not be valorizing the spoon trick; "your spoon trick is amazing" would be.

"To fix the price of something artificially" calls to mind price-fixing, a bunch of private entities getting together to set a price for something artificially higher than the free market would. Valorize definately does't mean that, it basically means the government mandating a higher price for something than a free market would, for whatever reason. (I said "usually" government action because I'm not 100% sure that something like "We'd make the most profit selling our high-end watches at $10,000 but let's sell them at $100,000 even though few will sell and we'll make less profit" (for the cachet or whatever) wouldn't also be valorizing.

I basically got this from other online dictionaries, also a quick google and looking at a few other sources. I didn't put in any refs because I'm a little rusty on how to do refs here, and I figured since it didn't have refs before it was no loss anyway. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

! —CodeCat 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to politely dispute your reversion of my edit on the first definition of irreverent. My addition was not created by myself, it was taken from the Oxford Dictionary, a source I would consider pretty authoritative on the matter. I think the original definition did not cover the word comprehensively enough. If you would consider revising your change, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Xwoodsterchinx (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was mostly reacting to facetious as a synonym, since you can be facetious without being disrespectful, but the addition to the definition seemed unnecessary. Not that either issue is huge, but together I felt they merited a revert (not a judgment on you- it was definitely a good-faith edit). I didn't notice the second definition at the time, which I'm going to rfd as duplication. That's much worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you please re-add the information you removed from this Chinese-language entry? I am a long-time editor and know what I am doing, relying on authoritative Chinese-language sources such as the Zdic online dictionary. Thank you for having this consideration.

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%BD%BE&diff=25553322&oldid=25553174

204.11.189.94 14:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I think your modifications on spectaculum, etc., were inappropriate: please see this. About osculum: "the resulting suffix -culum (from *-ko- + *-lo-) is different from that resulting from *-tlo, since diminutives in -culus do not have variants without the u as **osclum" (next to saeclum, poclum). And spectaculum, ientaculum, habitaculum are not really diminutives (of what nouns?). --Fsojic (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good enough for me. This was prompted by their presence in the non-existent Category:Latin words suffixed with -culum. Should I create that category, or is there another way to do the etymologies of those terms? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It might be useful, I think. At any rate, I've completed -culum now. But I see there is a lot of questionable material in Category:Latin suffixes... --Fsojic (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to Wiktionary talk:About Latin#/au.sum/ > /au.zum/ > /au.sum/.

So you rolled back my addition to the Phoenix page without a note or discussion. Maybe you think this is the way Wikipedia works?

I'm sorry to tell you that you were wrong in reverting my addition since there are plenty of references about the persian Simorgh being substantially the same as the Phoenix. For example, read this article from the Encyclopedia Iranica:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/simorg

"Fauth (p. 125ff.) has argued that all the mythical giant birds—such as Simorḡ, Phoenix, Garuḍa, the Tibetan Khyuṅ, and also the Melek Ṭāʾus of the Yezidis—are offshoots of an archaic, primordial bird that created the world."

This is not the only one. You can easily find many other authorities saying the same.

For the derivation of Phoenix from the Sanskrit word denoting a falcon or hawk, this is linguistic matter and, yes, I am a linguist, so if you think to know the subject better than a linguist, well, we are all waiting for you to show your credentials.

P.S. I have read the other entries in your user page. It seems that this misbehaviour does not represent an exception for you. I think you should stop doing that. Your incompetence is embarassing.

What I saw was someone inserting a collection of seemingly unrelated facts, with no explanation as to how they might be related, or why we should assume that a Sanskrit term would show up in a Canaanite language. You may indeed be a linguist- I see nothing to argue against it- but without the "credentials" you speak of, you're just another IP. You may have the benefit of extensive studies in the subject- you may even be the world authority, but you haven't provided anything here to distinguish you from the fellow who keeps adding Turkish etymologies to terms in European languages because they're sort of spelled the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The rollback in the entry for the concept "eigengene" is in error. SemperBlotto agreed to that via e-mail earlier today. Please see the citation page created by SemperBlotto for proof. Thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by Orly.alter (talk • contribs).

• <butting in> I did no such thing. The citations page, by itself, is used to show who first used a word.</butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
• Thank you for explaning the citations page. I note that notes on the first mention of a word are possible, e.g., see "sociology," and that qoutations can also be used in addition to citations, e.g., see "jump_the_shark." Orly.alter (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please express your view in here. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

When you will that "sınalgı" word? There is no that a word at Turkish. Also, look at TDK and turkish wiktionary. You will see too. Television is televizyon at Turkish. --188.3.72.189 19:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, we have to follow our rules. Right now, sınalgı is being considered at Requests for verification (rfv), so it shouldn't be deleted. I've been reverting your edits for two reasons: most important is that you don't write comments, requests or arguments in a dictionary entry itself- that's what the Discussion tab is for. Also, the {{delete}} template is only for cases where the entry is so obviously deletable that no debate is necessary. In this case, it's tricky enough that verification in necessary to decide whether to delete it.

Here's what you can do to help with the verification:

1. Read our Criteria For Inclusion (CFI. These are the rules that say whether we can or have to delete an entry. Whoever has been posting these made-up terms has learned the hard way that anything that doesn't meet the requirements there gets deleted, so they've gotten fairly good at using these rules. The better you know the rules, the better you'll be at using the rules against them.

1. Go to the section on the word at rfv, and explain what's wrong with the examples that have been given to prove that the term is in use. Since our CFI are based on usage, not other dictionaries, enough examples that meet CFI will force us to keep the entry.

As I understand the rules, there have to be at least 3 examples of usage (we call them "citations" or "cites") covering a period of more than 1 year that are:

1. Independent. If they're all copies of the same text, or by the same author, or referring to the same text, they only count for 1 cite.
2. Conveying meaning. Just mentioning or defining the word doesn't count: they have to be saying something like "I was watching the sınalgı", not "sınalgı is a word for television" or "use sınalgı instead of televizyon"
3. In a durably-archived medium. Websites don't count- even ones that are in the Internet Archive, which can be deleted at the site-owner's request. We consider Usenet to be durably archived, though. Books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. that have appeared in printed form are usually considered durably archived.

The problem is that most of us don't read Turkish, so we have trouble telling the difference between cites that just mention a term and those that actually use them. We also aren't familiar with the background behind some of the sources in which the cites are claimed to have appeared. An opposing viewpoint from someone who knows the language and can provide background would be helpful.

It's entirely possible, however, that they'll be able to scrape together enough to meet the cfi requirements, in which case we won't be able to delete the entry. We can, however, keep them from adding it as a translation for television, since it's too rare to be useful, and we can explain in usage notes (as I did at sanalgı) about what these really are. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here is the source: Journal of Eurasian Studies, Volume V., Issue 4., Supplement, Mikes International 2013. ISSN 1877-4199.

I hate to break it to you, but whatever the author of that paper may know about Turkic languages, he's abysmally ignorant about Germanic and Indo-European historical linguistics. Starting from his citing lexicostatistics and genetic evidence as if they prove anything about word origins, to his including all kinds of words with known and attested etymologies as Turkish substratum words, to his talking about the Kurgan theories of Indo-European migration, which have long been replaced by other theories, to his tendency to treat phenomena hundreds and thousands of years apart as if they all happened at the same time, etc., etc.- it's very amateurish and totally unconvincing to anyone with any background in Germanic historical linguistics- or just the basics of historical linguistics.

You're welcome to discuss it at the Etymology Scriptorum, but I hope you have more evidence than that paper if you want to be taken seriously. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It actually calls "eat", one of the clearest reconstructed roots in Indo-European, a Turkic loan into Proto-Germanic? —CodeCat 04:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. It seems like the author of this "Eurasian Journal" is not credible enough. Anyway, is this a better source?

• Schenker, Alexander M. (1996), The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology, 2.66. Lexical borrowing, pp. 159-160.

Some years ago this was also used in the wiki article History of the Slavic languages. Hirabutor (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

And what about this guy:

• Valentyn Stetsyuk: Turkic-Slavic Language Connections Is he credible? -- Hirabutor (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Those may very well be credible, and, given the existence of Indo-Iranian loanwords in Proto-Slavic, Turkic ones would seem plausible. Of course, that's Proto-Slavic- not Latin. Its use in Latin goes back well into the Classical period, so a Turkic borrowing seems out of place, though I'm not qualified to make a categorical judgment on that. My main objection was to the comment: "It is also worth mentioning that the whole horse-related diverse and fractured lexicon of the Indo-European languages ascends to the Turkic vocabulary" which is hogwash. The rest seems implausible, but not out of bounds as idle speculation. I should also mention that caballus originally had nothing to do with cavalry- it was a colorful term for the kind of worn-out old nag that would be totally useless in warfare. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching my goofup in the etymology of transclude. I meant to put "See transclusion", where there is an etymology of the coining of that word. I have undone your reversion, with that fix (there were no intermediate edits). --Thnidu (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, interesting finding, regarding transliteration of the Persian word, you are right that it is shambalila, the practice for transliteration of Persian in Wiktionary is transliterating based on modern Iranian Persian accent, in which it is pronounced shambalile. (see also شنبلیله#Pronunciation) --Z 16:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. Your rollback was correct. I inadvertently duplicated 'Related terms' and didn't realize the mistake. Thanks!--91.61.106.95 22:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to let you know that I realized the next morning I had messed up, I blanked and forgot hortari was a deponent. You got to the page before I could undo it and make a note though, so now I will look stupid for eternity! Anyways maybe including (deponent) like on the page for hortor would be helpful, since if you search for just a specific form you might not see the main page that lists it as a deponent.

Couldn't have you have moved this to the protologism area for me instead of deleting it and losing all my saved work? Now I'll have to redo it all from scratch. Harsh.

Hi, Chuck

I did not coin Persianoid on my own, it's actually part of a series of anthropological terms, as various human populations have divergent bone structure that a forensic scientist can use to identify the race of a skeleton with, this is due to common genes found in geographic populations of the same ancestral and natural origin and have predictable traits such as con hair in negroid people, staggered fingers in Araboid people, fair hair and eyes in Caucazoid, and other unique traits among Mongoloids or Indianoid, such as distinctive eyes or particular melanin epidermal content. I myself have distinctive Celtoid feet with Hellenoid hands, the later of which predominate among humans of Greek genetic ancestry demonstrated as having a longer middle finger than pointer or big toe, a trait passed down onto millions of the descendents and diaspora, also knownas Hellenic people. The modern people of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and surrounding areas including the diaspora and people that originate in this area such as Jews and Zoroastrians are Persianoid people and form a genetic commonality group or race of people quite different from Araboids (Non greek non arab fingers and toes) and also different from Indianoids, whom are genetically descendent of Persianoids, that descend from Araboids, that descend from Ethiopians. These more genetic terms to refer to the various humanoid forms of the greatest ape, man, allow us to explain evolution tribally as opposed to using denonyms for national origins that no longer correspond to nations once known for having everyone be of the sane tribe race language and religion many with arbitrary boundaries, it also serves to educate people about national origin, history, and biodiversity in addition to celebrating diversity and people need to be able to look these words up, here is a google search that shows the term is in use,

No, you didn't coin it yourself, but I see no evidence of usage with your definition. A few of the hits in your search are ambiguous enough that they might be interpreted that way, but most of them refer to Persianoid culture, language, lions and kittens. Besides, they don't count for our Criteria For Inclusion because they're not durably archived. You need to show that the term is part of the language, not just used by you and a few other people. Remember that we're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, and we're descriptive- which means we go by actual usage. For that matter, you haven't even shown that these terms are in use even among forensic anthropologists and not just your own idiosyncratic version of the terminology. Read the CFI, then add examples of usage that satisfy the CFI requirements to the citations tab for the term. When you meet the requirements of the CFI, the old content can be restored, or you can create a new version. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is two genders, not one, so it shouldn't be entered like this. You should specify them as separate genders. —CodeCat 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Just trying to clear script errors so I can see the forest for the trees. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems that quite a few have been showing up since I made this change. —CodeCat 00:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This isn't the first time someone has expected this information (that a term is both masculine and feminine) to be enterable in this way ("m-f"). Perhaps it should be added as an "alias" of sorts. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's only because all the Romance languages allow "mf" as a gender if you ask me. I'd prefer it if we moved away from that practice and used the g2= parameter, like many other languages already do. It reduces the mental load of learning templates if they are more alike. —CodeCat 01:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If several common templates/modules/languages already allow "mf", and people continually expect others to allow "mf" or "m-f", then it seems to me that the direction we should go in is towards making the templates alike by making them all allow "mf" (and/or "m-f"). That would remove the mental load of learning which ones allow "mf" and which ones don't, and reduce the amount of typing one must to do. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

But that would mean adding an exception to a system that makes sense otherwise (at least to me). I'd rather not water it down. —CodeCat 02:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It makes sense, but so does "mf". Are we more worried about the conceptual integrity of your user-interface scheme, or having it usable by actual human beings? Whether it makes sense or not, this is how people are expecting it to work. You can still have your logical way of doing things, but you can also provide for those who don't learn it the way you think they should. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

They're only expecting it to work that way because of past practice. Practice can be changed, logic and structure can't except if you find a better logic. —CodeCat 02:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing conflicting about the entry page sh|šport having qualifier|Croatia and the entry sh|sport having an Alternative form (a link to sh|šport) that describes sh|šport with that same qualifier. 93.136.167.71 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Did you already read my e‐mail? It was about a telephone number, but I forgot which entry it was inserted into. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components" the mentioned phrase can be considered idiomatic because the meaning "dull" or "not dissolute" can not be derived literally by any of the parts of the phrase.

In this case, this phrase should be accepted rather than treated as a SOP.

The phrase apparently only occurs in The Assassin's Creed so it is not in general use. Equinox ◑ 04:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. This is regarding the adding of a link to infographic as a reference for software development process article. Is it an inappropriate link or infographic?

Hi Chuck, Noticed you reverted my edit on the etymology of the word pleasant. I appreciate it was unnecessarily long-winded and included a lot of extraneous information, but I do think some of it was relevant.

What I originally put: From Old French plaisant, present participle of plaire. The verb please is also derived from plaire, and the use of -ant (either borrowed from Norman French or used as an allophone of originally Anglo-Saxon, then later Old English and Middle Scots and English -and) to form the present participle was also previously common, so in some older texts "pleasant" may be an attempt to form the present participle directly from "please", rather than being a direct borrowing from French.

What is there now: From Old French plaisant.

The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue however gives an etymology that common sense would suggest is cognate to the point of identical to that in English: (or search "plesand" at http://www.dsl.ac.uk/)

Plesand, -ant, ppl. a. Also: pleis(s)-, pleys(s)-; pleas(s)-; plais-, plays-; pless- and -ande, -aund, -aunt, -end, -ent; plesan-.

(could dive further into the etymology of Ples(e , but that's probably overkill)

I'm no philologist, but it seems that claiming "pleasant" is simply an adjectival borrowing is ignoring part of the history and evolution of the word. Would something like the following be to your taste?: Partly from Old French plaisant, partly (Middle English) present participle of please.

I look forward to your reply. - Ryan White (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Appendix: Just in case you think it would be relevant to trace the full etymology back, here is the DOST's etymology for Ples(e:

Ples(e, Pleis(e, Plais(e, v. Also: pless(e, plece; pleisz, pleiss(e, pleice, pleys(e, pleysse; pleas(e, pleais; plaize, plays, plas(e; plis. To please, in various senses.

I think that your rollback for katsu, (喝, かつ), is wrong. Just check out the wikipedia entry for Katsu (Zen) to varify if you don't believe me.

90.217.135.110 00:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Although there are some similarities between your version and Wikipedia's version, yours wanders off into the weeds here and there due to invalid assumptions. Sifting through everything and coming up with a version that's not misleading or wrong takes a lot of time and work. Given your track record of basing many edits on bad guesses, it was safer just to revert the whole thing.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

On Wikipedia it lets you connect an article to a number of other articles in other languages. Only a bot is able to do that it seems. Is it possible for me to do this as well? If so, how? LalalalaSta (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

] — Keφr 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

{{poscatboiler}} and templates like it should automatically add a TOC. At least I thought they did, because I remember adding code to that end when I converted it to Lua. Either way, you probably shouldn't manually add this. —CodeCat 00:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think I see why it's not added automatically. {{catboiler toc}} looks for language-specific TOC templates. But it doesn't fall back to this generic one. Then again, I don't know if this generic template should really be used, because it uses the English alphabet, which obviously isn't right for other languages. —CodeCat 00:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit to Gay, I put the right info.--MRivera25 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MRivera25. P.S. Sorry for taking 2 mounths to respondReply

MRivera25: You misformatted it as a part of a quotation, the definition was wrong (the noun gay refers to people) and the entry for this meaning is at ]. — Keφr 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Kephir well you should said that in the first place--MRivera25 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MRivera25Reply

Hi, birdem word has written here. But there isn't that word at Turkish. University is üniversite at Turkish. --81.213.46.176 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, düşerge isn't camp at Turkish. Düşerge is "miras" and türküm there isn't at Turkish. Türküm is Uzbek.--81.213.44.144 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comment on User talk:Conrad.Irwin/creationrules.js. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert this without explanation?! Lysdexia (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

To start with, a deception is not necessarily an error, and an error is not necessarily a deception- it's something completely different. Also, errors are actions performed by someone or something, but something can be amiss without any actions being involved at all. In short your edit was completely in error. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

This was under the Latin entries where other dictionaries agree with me: http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=err. Error is the abstract case of erratum, where the latter (errata) could be actions. If you are ignorant of the meanings of words, don't edit them. Lysdexia (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I didn't see that you were editing the Latin section. My mistake. I should have at least noticed that when responding to your first post. My apologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no policy about obscure terms. A revert is only valid if the term worsens the entry, and this obscurantist reaction can only be a PoV move that can only make the term more obscure. Whether the terms are in the Etymology or sense sections you don't want them listed or linked at all. Where are they supposed to go? or do ye want them forgotten altogether? Am I supposed to make a See also section only to show one word? Lysdexia (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Hyponyms is accepted for 花御札, yet not for the 12 suits of 花札?

2.216.211.42 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, it's a bad idea for both, but I hadn't thought about it at the time. I've now removed it from 花御札, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

In Italian language, tata is the colloquial form of bambinaia and its primary translation into English is nanny. —“Collins Italian Dictionary” 1st Edition © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, and Ragazzini/Zanichelli 2nd Edition 1984.
It also has the secondary meaning of elder sister. —Il Nuovo Zingarelli/Zanichelli 11st Edition.
Happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that seems to be covered by the existing definition: "governess (or any young woman looking after children)". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sir, Please contact my user's talk page regarding your continued deletion of my User Page. I have removed all and any links which may be viewed as advertisement or otherwise. I do not see what the current problem with my User Page is. Please contact my Talk page, Thank you. DJ Colonel Corn (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see you're interested in insects. Actually I think that's quite amazing. I think bugs are really cool myself. They look really creepy and weird, but that's why they're fun! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sticky-backed plastic was a term invented on the BBC television children's magazine programme "Blue Peter" because of their policy not to use commercial product names. It referred to the vinyl sheeting sold in the UK under the name "Fablon" (see http://www.vinylwarehouse.co.uk/alder-blue-fablon-sticky-vinyl---67cm-x-2m-827-p.asp).

Sellotape (http://www.sellotape.com/desktop/#/home/) is an entirely different product manufactured by Henkel (referred to on Blue Peter as "adhesive tape"). In the US the equivalent product is manufactured by 3M and is sold under the name "Scotch tape".

Nicholas Aleksander

Why revert?
If the format is wrong, what is the correct format? SzMithrandir (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. So, r plural entries not supposed to be under any categories except for "English plurals"? Because if that's the case, I need to go back and fix a couple of other entries that I did the same thing to. 108.95.130.150 03:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's correct. Only the main entry should be in categories that apply to all the forms: all those extra entries can really clutter up the category pages, and if you've seen one form in a category, you've seen them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cf. difference. I think the rollback is in error.

• In German "Rasse" and "Unterart" mean the same. The difference is that "Unterart" may appear more like a biological term while "Rasse" may appear as politcally incorrect, "bad" (as it's used in "Rassismus", "Rassentheorie" ). But even if it may appear that way, it isn't. "Rasse" is just another word for "Unterart". Duden says so too: Rasse, Unterart.
• In English one meaning of "race" means the same as "subspecies", even though "race" can also mean "a contest in running, contest in being fast" etc. Oxford Dictionary says so too: race.

-Quark8967 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that races are lower in rank that subspecies: a subspecies could have multiple races. Also, zoological subspecies are regulated by the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, but races aren't. Although subspecies and races are both subdivisions of species, they aren't the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

German: Rasse, Unterart (and also Subspezies or Subspecies) mean the same, a sub group of a species (Art in German). Art (also Spezies or Species): Animals belonging to the same species can mate with each other, but not with animals from other species; e.g. dogs are Art, cats are another Art. Unterart, Rasse (also Subspezies or Subspecies): Animals belonging to the same species (thus they can mate), but 'different' from other animals of the same species; e.g. like the Hunderassen (dog races, dog breeds) German Shepard and Jack Russell Terrier are different.

English: Dictionary.com: race has multiple definitions of race:

• Definitions which lead to something like "race = sub group of species" without clear definition of that "sub group" part respectively with different definitions of it.
• "Science Dictionary race A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.". That means that race and subspecies are something different but similar in that science dictionary, and reads like race being colloquial, subspecies being scientifical.
• "World English Dictionary race² a group of animals or plants having common characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species, usually forming a geographically isolated group; subspecies " and "Medical Dictionary race A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies." . Thus race can mean subspecies.

synonym: "synonym" also means "A word with a meaning that is the same as, or very similar to, another word ". So synonyms can have a different meaning. So race and subspecies in the definition of that science dictionary might be synonyms even though they are different.

-Quark8967 (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

module error happens if you change the IPA-based spelling in a template to a transliteration, but don't replace it with something else.

Hang on: is this supposed to be a feature rather than a bug? (I was planning on going looking into what's up w the errors at some later point.) What's the method we are supposed to use for citing material from a language variety that has no orthographic standard? (For etymological purposes, before you ask.) --Tropylium (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I disapprove of your depopulating the category, and then deleting it because it was empty. I am going to re-add it to the pages it was on, and I would appreciate it if you did things properly, with an RFD/O. I am quite confident that there are enough pages on Wiktionary to populate the category Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I have decided to recreate the category. As it is no longer empty, please do not delete it without a discussion. And, per BRD, please do not remove pages categorized with it, as another editor disagrees with you on their removal Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome and for your advice, I can work through my changes and modify them as you suggest.

As an example, should your recent edit (revert) to the Bembicinae page not contain the ultimate etymology of Bembix, or where should that go?

Uppsilon (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

In that case, it was pretty straightforward: you removed the reference to Bembix and replaced it with an origin in Greek. To replace that edit, you could add the etymology of Bembix after the reference to it. The fact that Bembicinae is formed from the genitive of Latin Bembix explains the fact that the stem ends in "c" more easily than a strictly Greek-based etymology could.Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've added it back. I used the parentheses as your original comment suggested. Are they required? Uppsilon (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not really. They just make it clearer which etymological details apply to which part. My problem was mostly with the substance of your etymology, not the style- and it's not a huge one at that. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please remember to assume good faith. You failed to do so in this edit Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Assumptions can only be made when there is no evidence either way. I don't think that's the case here; there is no room left for assuming anything. (You might compare it to assuming that a car is green when you've already seen that it's red) —CodeCat 00:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not clear why an impoverished and partial ety is preferable? Timpo (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anything's preferable to a blatantly wrong one. It's not your fault- the etymology at sanctio is wrong too. Some Proto-Indo-European words had forms both with and without an n, so sanction is actually related to sacred. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hope I'm not driving you crazy with all these changes to the categories. If I am, I'm sorry. —CodeCat 00:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, no. Wyang was nice enough to come up with a working version of my topic cat front-end template idea (KcKennyLau came up with a fancier one, but it tried to do too much), so I just paste {{subst:tcez1}} and hit submit for cases where I know the language code and category are good, preview otherwise. Creating a topical category takes me just a few seconds of typing, and I never misspell anything. It doesn't work for the root categories, and it fails everywhere manually typing in the topic cat template would fail- but it saves me hours of time. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, y'got me. I had thought about doing exactly what you requested beforehand, but I hadn't the time when I had first noticed the issue that I presented.

I had hoped that someone else would put the definitions under there correct etymologies so that I didn't have to, but whatever. Sorry about that.

Regarding the etymologies themselves, I can indeed tell you for certain that the "magical or fairy-like" meaning, at least, is not a derivative of the "destined to die" meaning, and is instead derived from what I have previously said it was. Anent the others... it's difficult to figure precisely, but I'll try nonetheless. Tharthan (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deleting it won't keep anyone from recreating it again... If it shouldn't exist, it should be emptied out. —CodeCat 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You do know you can lock pages from being created on wikis, right? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

She certainly does. She was really telling me to correct the template parameter in an entry that was adding a redlinked category to the entry that was causing her bot to think the category needed to be created, instead of just deleting the category when her bot created it. Sometimes you have to know the context in order to understand what other people are talking to each other about. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I am really bad at this kind of thing. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please help me with the citations on Beyblade? The term is in clear usage, do not doubt me, and I have given citations, but I do not know the year these books were made. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Except that we don't include brand names if they're just brand names, so none of those citations will help the entry. You have to show that they have some other meaning. See WT:BRAND for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The definition does not define the brand, it defines the toy itself. I will just go and add a whole shitload of citations, not just the minimum three, to help keep this entry, tomorrow. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Read the policy I linked to. At any rate, it's not the quantity of citations you've added, but the quality. Adding more like what you've already added won't make your case, it'll just make a mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can't someone go in and improve them though, by like putting the year in and stuff? And no it doesn't matter, however the definition doesn't define the brand, it just defines a toy that happens to only be made by this brand. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your definition refers to a specific company by name. It simply does not do well as a definition of a generic type of toy. As for finding citations, you could find QQ quite useful. On your Gadgets tab. Input your search terms, click "pick" to the left of the citations, go to "Picked citations", copy and paste what you get, make corrections, save. You still have to be a bit cautious, make sure that the quote shows the context, that the OCR is correct and avoid re-published editions (QQ takes the publication year as the quotation year, which may be misleading sometimes). But it speeds up the process greatly anyway. — Keφr 07:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That my social skills are very bad and I have about no idea how to interact with people even online.... Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm well aware of that, which is why I went to the trouble of explaining things. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for respecting me by doing that, I very much appreciate that. You're very nice, and I really look up to you for that. Being nice is one of my favorite qualities in a person. I am bullied almost every time I'm around people my age, in little ways but it still hurts. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Something went wrong with a recent edit to Module:compound so a lot of these are now in the wrong category and appearing in wanted categories. Just letting you know that you shouldn't create these, if you were intending to. —CodeCat 22:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll be careful to check before creating. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=truc&diff=27776442&oldid=27773250 What's wrong ? --Ludela (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quotes in the entry are supposed to give a brief example of usage. Yours was really two quotes, with lots and lots of verbiage in between. If it's more than a line or two, it should go under the Citations tab. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted my translation of "bottle opener" as "destapador" in Spanish?

I am from Argentina, and "destapador" is actually the only word we use here for a bottle opener. Yesterday, I was trying to remember how to say that in English, and I couldn't find it here (because I was looking for "destapador"), until I eventually came across the word. So I thought I'd contribute this word so others wouldn't have the same problem I had trying, to find it.

I admit I didn't know (I do, now) that in Spain it's called "abrebotellas" as is mentioned on the page. But I can asure you that is not a word I would use or likely hear in my country. Moreover, here's a link to an entry of the Real Academia Española dictionary including "destapador" as an Americanism for "abrebotellas": http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=destapador

Maybe I should have labelled the word as locally restricted, but I don't know how to do that. I actually had a hard time (and a couple of failed attempts, if I recall well) trying just to post my contribution. But if you show me how to label words, or if you refer me to a page that teaches me how to do it, I promise I will do it next time.

Thank you.

Eduarodi (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't the translation, it was the stray text that went with it. Take another look at the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but I still don't understand. I checked the edit history, and my final post, which you reverted, reads:

Spanish: abrebotellas (es) m, destapador (es) m.

I sincerely don't know what is wrong with it. Eduarodi (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you didn't realize at the time that you were doing it, but look at this diff. Like I said: it had nothing to do with the translation itself, which you're welcome to add back. I didn't have time right then to do any editing, but I didn't want to leave it that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, 88.XXX.XX.XXX in IP writes false words. "emes, yağday, karadamazdan..." Those words aren't Turkish. It's lie of Jalpi Turkic Language. Those isn't with relative. Trying to show like Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I know that. BUT the rule is too COMPLICATE. The only convenient way to Add translation is use cmn code. --Dingar (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You deleted, without even trying to attest the deletion in a discussion.

The REASON I added these entries was because I went on Google Books myself and found 3 books with the usages of each of these definitions. Want me to give them to you? I can happily do so. But could you please revive the pages and let's discuss them in an RFV if anything instead of a speedy?

I don't know how to cite a page, but I do know that these books are valid citations. LalalalaSta (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please give me the cites. I went through hundreds of Google Books and Google Groups hits (to be precise: all of those found by searching the exact phrase "flippy thing" in quotes), and there was nothing even vaguely resembling your definitions. The closest I saw were using it to describe some kind of whatchamacallit or doohickey that could be described as "flippy" because it was something anchored on one end and movable or flexible.

More importantly, your term is extremely SOP: it basically boils down to flippy + thing, with any number of possible off-the-cuff meanings for flippy, and using thing as a sort of dummy noun so the adjective has something to modify. You could probably find similar cites for "green thing", "stretchy thing", "electronic thing", etc. About the only sense I saw that has any prayer of passing rfd is one used in romance novels to half-humorously describe what's described as "having one's heart skip a beat" or "having butterflies in one's stomach", and that's only because it might be a set phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes that's what I saw too, "my heart did that flippy thing again", couldn't this heart thing go in a definition? I mean, certainly, I saw this used describing the heart several times in these books. LalalalaSta (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for removing that nonsense from my talk page. Cheers, BigDom 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am curious why you tend to hide edits (such as this one) that are vandalism, but do not contain anything harmful (personal information, libelous accusations, etc.) --WikiTiki89 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It has to do with why people do such things: it's normally for the purpose of either showing off how clever they are, or demonstrating their power to make marks in highly-visible places in order to feel important. In both cases, having their deeds visible in the edit history provides a sort of "trophy" of their "accomplishments". Hiding their edits is designed to get rid of any visible long-term evidence of what they've done and reduce the ego rewards of vandalizing.

Anyone who deals with graffiti vandalism in public places will tell you that the most effective way to discourage it is to paint graffiti over as quickly as possible so the vandals have nothing to show for their efforts. I'm just applying the same logic to online vandalism.

Of course, you can only do this if there's nothing that can be construed as usable content in the edits hidden, in order to provide the attribution required by licenses- if someone makes a legitimate edit before the vandalism is removed, you can't hide that edit unless the edit is harmful for the reasons you mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If "Aglaea Asclepiades" is not the epithet that defines Aglaea, daughter of Asclepius, from Aglaea of the Charites, then what is her epithet?

90.216.73.136 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Who says she has to have an epithet in English, or that there should be a dictionary entry for it?

I checked Google Books and Google Groups. Neither has the words "Aglaea Asclepiades" in any book or Usenet post. The general Google search has nothing but the reference in Wikipedia that you just added. No one uses epithets in English to distinguish between people in Ancient Greece--at least not phrased the way you do. As usual, you figured there must be some way to say something, so you made something up. We're a descriptive dictionary: if people don't use a particular word or phrase in a given language (or haven't done so in the past), we don't have an entry for it in that language. Period.

Please read WT:CFI before you add any more made-up stuff. You've been adding so much of this nonsense that we haven't gotten to it all, but eventually everything you've added to this dictionary that doesn't match the way actual real live people use or have used words and phrases will be gone.

What you've been doing is far worse than the the vandalism from idiots who replace entries with "poop" and obscenities. That kind of thing is easily spotted and removed. Your edits look like the real thing, but they're based on your guesses, faulty sources and misunderstandings, and more often than not are just plain wrong. The only way your edits can be fixed is if someone who actually knows something about the subject checks to find what the real information is. That's time they could have spent adding real, genuine information to the dictionary.

Not only are you misinforming the people who use our dictionary, you're reducing the quantity and quality of the work that others contribute. Please stop! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I just found the "Asclepiades" meaning and assumed. I was told that there was a distinguishing name to separate Aglaea of the Charites from one of Asclepius' daughters, Aglaea. You have since told me that this guess is wrong. While I'm grateful for the correction before I could make a further fool of myself, this does not get me an answer. I even sent away for a book, "Goddess in World Mythology: A Biographical Dictionary", having been told by a friend about it, but it only mentions the Aglaea who is one of the Charites.

This is very fustrating. I just want answers.  :(

90.216.73.136 01:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi chuck, I am following up on your revert. I think there may have been an error because the additional definition is clearly unique and distinct from the first. Perhaps the sentence could be trimmed a bit (remove the second sentence?). The original source can be found here. Cheers, Xtraeme (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that we're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the way people actually use (or have used) terms (see WT:CFI). A definition that's not in use except in the writings of the one who coined it isn't appropriate for a descriptive dictionary. If you can find enough examples of it being used with that sense in the right kind of sources, and add those examples as quotes in the entry or in the Citations tab, no one will object to your adding it back (or if they do, you can successfully defend it from removal). See the Criteria For Inclusion linked to above for details.

Your definition was esoteric and counter-intuitive enough that, after looking through a good number of examples in a Google Books search, I took the calculated risk that it's not out there somewhere in actual use. Prove me wrong, and I won't take it personally- but I won't be holding my breath waiting. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope that now you could make your own idea about how to manage Wiktionary:Blocking policy in the future.

Personally, I've noticed that whereas I was more experimented than you in the Wiktionary adminship, you've blocked many many more accounts than me in the past. Actually, I use to patrol every day and have never blocked indefinitely anyone who could give us something sooner or later, so I didn't feel that I deserved to live it "from the other side", and especially during the beer parlour cherry picking presentation.

I've also seen that you're doing a great job (even if I could avoid to lose one detail with a precision this morning) and we must try to retain something valuable from this little adventure.

Yours sincerely. JackPotte (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your silence is putting me in a difficult position, I'll be forced to refer your detractor behavior to somebody. JackPotte (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, it really depends on what the block is for; if they are idiots spamming URLs and such trying to promote their shitty websites or youtube videos, etc. they deserve to be blocked for all eternity. Also, you have to realise that some of these accounts could be bots. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 21:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I assume this regards, directly or indirectly, the block of JackBot. I have commented in the BP. - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I created a lemma yesterday and today I noticed that I misspelled it. This is the page: pauwaun wojoku#Wauja The entry should be paunwaun wojoku, not pauwaun wojoku. I will be very careful in future when I enter the name of the lemma. I read about changing mispellings on this page: m:Help:Moving a page and it appears that I will have a permanent page with my typo pointing to the correct spelling. Is there any way to simply correct my typo? I hate to keep a permanent record of a typo that is not an alternate spelling a native speaker would use. Thanks! Emi-Ireland (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The page has to be moved. An admin can move a page without leaving a redirect (which I just did), but the usual practice is to move the page yourself and add the {{delete}} template ({{d}} will work, too ) to the redirect page so an admin can delete it. It's a good idea to include an explanation as a parameter: something like {{delete|Created in error- misspelling}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much! You did it so quickly I had to blink to make sure I was reading it correctly. I will make note of the procedure for future reference. Emi-Ireland (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Regarding my edit that you reverted for 枯萎, well, I understand, because I left it as an error. But actually, what I was trying to do is to change the pronunciation. Because 枯萎 is one of those words in Chinese that have different official pronunciations in Beijing and Taiwan. In Beijing it's ku1wei3, but in Taiwan it's ku1wei1. Some examples of these kinds of words are 星期 and 垃圾. Well, I simply don't know how to show the variant pronunciation like they show it on 星期 and 垃圾. If you could tell me how to do it, that would be great. Because there are a lot of Chinese words here that don't show the Taiwan official pronunciation which I would like to edit. Thanks in advance.

P.S. sorry I left the article with an error. I tried to ask in the community portal and I thought that I would get a quick response. Turns out that I didn't.

See my response at the Information Desk. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hope you don't mind but I'd like more input here; I'm thinking maybe someone with more solidified knowledge of grammar (not that I don't have confidence in my own) might make this guy clam up or at least be less objectionable to our standards. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 16:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me why you removed it? I hate Tory Ailes (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's a really odd way to illustrate the word "dust", and the caption isn't very good style for a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll fix the caption. I hate Tory Ailes (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The etymology I provided was a valid one. I provided the older, previously accepted etymology (that scholars of Irish history have accepted and studied since the 11th century). Wikipedia itself has 2 articles, to which I linked as reference, that provide the detailed basis for this etymology. I understand another individual has provided another etymology, based upon a Welsh-origin for the word. I did not delete that theory. I provided the reader and researcher with the previous etymology for the sake of allowing scholastic integrity and further inquiry and debate among those interested in this subject. To outright delete my valid etymological entry is to choose a theory that is not yet proven, and is newer, less tested, and has significant flaws of its own. Throughout wiktionary there are words with multiple etymologies. Why should we treat this word the same? It is the name of a Culture and People. The Gaelic people are based on this word. So you are against providing the etymological basis that was relied upon by the Gaelic people since the 11th century? That is heavy-handed. So, the etymology that the Irish people are named for a Welsh-word is a proven fact? I don't think so. You will find that is not the case. John Koch proposed this concept in 1994. Before that, it was not a serious consideration. It has not been further proven. In fact, look at the etymology that he proposes. He claims that the welsh word means "Irishman." Well, that seems a bit difficult to grasp considering that I doubt Welsh speakers of the 10th century or early heard Irish people calling themselves "Irishmen." Isn't it more likely the Welsh word is derived from Goidel instead of the other way around? Be that as it may, I am not deleting that etymology. I am simply putting the earlier and alternate theory into this article for the sake of completeness. The Gaelic people believed themselves to be the people descended from Goidel Glas, since the 11th century into the modern age. That is a sufficient basis to allow the entry explaining that fact to be included in this article. Please explain to me why you think otherwise. Thank you. Oghmatist (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the event you have yet to read this, I want to direct you to your own words from a few posts above. In that post you said, "The problem is that we're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the way people actually use (or have used) terms (see WT:CFI). A definition that's not in use except in the writings of the one who coined it isn't appropriate for a descriptive dictionary. If you can find enough examples of it being used with that sense in the right kind of sources, and add those examples as quotes in the entry or in the Citations tab, no one will object to your adding it back (or if they do, you can successfully defend it from removal). See the Criteria For Inclusion linked to above for details. Your definition was esoteric and counter-intuitive enough that, after looking through a good number of examples in a Google Books search, I took the calculated risk that it's not out there somewhere in actual use. Prove me wrong, and I won't take it personally- but I won't be holding my breath waiting." So, if your premise is that you are a descriptive dictionary that describes the way people actually use (or have used" terms, then why would you delete an explanation that Goidel has been used since the 11th century through at least the 20th century as a derivation of Goidel Glas as found in an 11th Century Text (a text that carried significant import to an entire culture for hundreds of years?). Would we delete etymological definitions that were based on Biblical references? What if they were based on other cultural or ethno-linguistic materials? Do we delete them because they are "Medieval?" as another poster commented in his deletion of my entry? If Wiktionary is meant to serve the purpose I quote you as saying yourself, then why would you want to eliminate all explanation that the word Goidel was once considered (and may still be considered by some) as derived from an eponymous ancestor? If you did a Google Book search, you will find Wikipedia itself accepts this theory, and even has TWO articles devoted to the theory. Along with cites and references galore for you to verify. Should that be sufficient to allow my one-sentence etymology to stand? Or do we have to delete it because a new theory has hit the books and it sounds more "Scientific" (as the other poster claimed in his/her validation to delete my entry)? I see no reason why Wikipedia would allow the other two articles I cite to be published as they are, but that it would delete my etymological explanation. I am summarizing what those two articles painstakingly detail. I reference both of them. I believe I've provided far more depth and detail for further research in my Etymology than the one that the other poster provided, and yet you deleted mine and let theirs stand. You are an Admin for Wiktionary it seems. But, are you being fair and equitable in how you apply Wiktionary standards? You explain that you are a student of linguistics. Fair enough. Do you believe that the Irish (and Scottish) Gaelic people's 900-year old self-explanation for the origin of their name, with its various attestations and attributions by various authors and scholars over those 9 centuries, is not worthy of a one-sentence mention in the etymology of the word itself? But, you think that the Gaelic people are self-named because they borrowed that self-name from another culture altogether? And that makes such etymology more valid? In order for the Welsh-origin theory to have any scientific merit, don't we need to see more evidence of other Welsh-based words in the Gaelic language? Don't we need to see more evidence of a cultural transmission from Welsh to Gaelic? The current consensus is that Welsh and Gaelic both derive from a Celtic or Proto-Celtic strata. There is no evidence that Gaelic evolved from Welsh. There may be borrowings of some words, but that is not a given. In fact, some words may BOTH be derived from a Celtic predecessor. But even if that is the case, and even if the Welsh word did precede the Gaelic word - there is still the incontrovertible fact that we have in our possession an 11th century manuscript with a claimed origin of the word "Goidel." Do we dismiss it because it is old? That is the reasoning provided by the poster that deleted my entry the first time. And when I reverted his/her deletion of my entry, you then reverted that reversion. So, I retyped the entry fresh. Let's see who deletes now. As a linguist, do you think Medieval texts have no bearing or importance on a word's origin? What if the word is older or at least as old the Medieval period? What then? We have extant texts of the use of this word, and a claimed origin for this word. That is worth referencing. I don't have to be "Correct" in this being the "Right" theory. The fact that it was the established understanding for 900 years should be weighty enough for Wiktionary to be willing to publish it. Particularly based on your own description of Wiktionary as a descriptive dictionary that wants to describe the way people ACTUALLY used the word. Well, the Gaelic people actually used the word Goidel as an Eponymous ancestor for about 900 years. Particularly the learned class of the Gaelic people. The rulers, poets, artisans, and boaire of the Gaelic people used the word that way. So, what is the problem with identifying this reality to the readers of Wiktionary? Is it because another poster and many like him/her are driven to try and prove a "Brythonic" origin to the very name of the Gaelic people themselves? Perhaps its worth considering the other motivations behind the other theory. Maybe they are less to do with linguistic process and more to do with politicization of a concept for other motives. There is no evidence the Gaelic culture derived from the Welsh any more than vice versa. Both were heirs to the Celtic culture. Their languages are likewise found to be parallel, not derivative, to one another. The Gaelic people self-identified as being named for an Eponymous ancestor. The purpose of Wiktionary is not to pass judgment on whether those 900 years of self-belief were accurate or not. Wiktionary is not the arbiter of whether a culture's traditions or language or theories of genesis are "scientific" or not. Wiktionary is the forum by which those words are described, in the context they were known by at the time. If there was a culture that clearly had its own theory about the origin of a word, but it didn't comport with modern theories of the origin of the word, should Wiktionary arbitrarily decide that 900 years of cultural inherited perception is irrelevant? Your own quote would say otherwise. I strongly urge you to not delete my new edit, and to reconsider whether your rollback of my previous edit was proper. I don't see why other posters have a problem allowing a very old and very well known etymology from being published. I didn't invent this theory. I didn't craft it in a work of fiction and paste it here for self-promotion. It is as old a theory as the 11th century manuscript I cited on the Wikipedia Article itself. So, if you want to delete my etymology, you should delete those two articles as well. In fact, if you think the entire Irish Mythological Cycles are "unscientific" why not just delete those too? And while we're at it, why not just delete the entire Irish history from Wikipedia too? Then you can insert whatever you want. And call it Welsh. Thank you. Oghmatist (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of the "also" link at the top of pages before even the Translingual section is to connect visually similar entries. ΔΝΤ and ANT look alike. They do not need any other kind of relationship. I'm unreverting your changes.

If the policy has changed away from visual similarity, please reply here and include a link to the policy. — 58.172.68.199 08:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the anon here. --WikiTiki89 11:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel strongly enough about this to make an issue of it, but Delta and A don't seem quite the same type of visual similarity as C and the Cyrillic S. Should we have Russian лит on those pages, as well? How about putting W on the ש, ա, ш and щ pages? Are people really going to go to ANT instead of ΔΝΤ? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

To me personally, лит looks nothing like ANT, but if someone feels strongly that it does, I won't protest. I do think that w does belong at ש, ա, ш and щ. --WikiTiki89 12:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why you removed Cornwall from the Appendix:Countries of the world as it is a country just like Brittany, England and several others which are not independent countries but countries regardless. As Cornwall has a people with a language and a region. It is recognized by the Celtic League as a country and by the UK as a Royal Duchy and ceremonial county. Spshu (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

And I see you decided to ignore this statement regarding the Appendix and rolled back the Cornwall country definition. Since, you were informed before about Cornwall there was no reason for the roll back at Cornwall. --Spshu (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of your block comment "block evasion", but I quite appreciate his/her effort to this dictionary. Is it possible to unblock him/her? --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have no idea how much garbage this person has added to the dictionary. They've been adding some innocuous stuff about asteroids combined with all kinds of misinformation and pointless minutia. They have no comnmon sense and don't understand anything about sources or dictionaries, and they've added an enormous amount of Japanese and Chinese content even though they don't speak a word of those languages and their only sources are anime fansites and Bing Translate. At one point they even added a Cantonese section to a Chinese entry, complete with Mandarin pinyin for the romanization! There's no reliable way to communicate with them, and they keep making the same types of mistakes over and over even when you can briefly get through to them. Sure, they've improved in some ways just by imitating other editors, but they also make some real boneheaded mistakes because the don't understand what they're copying.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way I would stop blocking them is if a) they stop editing in areas they know little or nothing about (but first they have to realize how vast their ignorance is), b) there's a reliable way to communicate with them at length, and c) they show that they're willing and able to learn how to do things right. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you clean up this page for me as an example? I'll do the rest. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not a good example- they copied it word for word from Wikipedia and converted it to Wiktionary formatting. The asteroid sense was the only original part. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Sophrosyne. Sophrosyne is an important word in the study of Ancient Greece, it is multivalent, and not translatable as one single English word. The definition of the word is extensively discussed by Socrates, and discussed by Artistotle. It is an idea that underlies several ancient Greek plays. It is a doctrine that gets at how man should live. It is certainly not a "Goddess" -- that is a ridiculous mistake. It is such an important word that this should be corrected as soon as possible. I'd be willing to work on fixing up this article, which as it stands is not well expressed or well-sourced. But if contributions are to be deleted with no reason given, then the error may live on. What are your thoughts? Barklestork (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Our entries are case-sensitive. The entry you're looking for is at sophrosyne. The entry at Sophrosyne is about the goddess who is named after the virtue she personifies, because proper nouns are capitalized. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid you are mistaken to suggest that there is any such goddess. It is an error and is unsupported by any reliable source. Pardon me for repeating myself in this regard. Barklestork (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

That may be, but there are proper ways to deal with such things. Your addition just made a mess out of the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

First, thank you for listing “sophrosyne” at the Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Just to remind you — you had reverted my edit to the definition of Sophrosyne, so I thought I might write to you about this word. I think that the definitions in Wiktionary for both forms of the word (with and without the initial upper case) contain errors and need to be edited. In the Sophrosyne entry, the first and third definitions should be deleted. In the lower-case sophrosyne entry, the definition is misleading — sophrosyne is more complicated than to be attached a simplistic definition like: temperance. And in fact, I can’t find the word being used in that way. (Such as: ”Fred used to get drunk but now he’s a sophrosyne type of guy.) Instead the word only ever seems to be used in reference to the more complicated ideal or concept. I believe that a better definition for the word with an initial lower case would be: “sophrosyne is an ancient Greek concept of an ideal of excellence of character and soundness of mind, which when combined in one well-balanced individual leads to various other qualities, such as temperance, moderation, prudence, and self-control. Sophrosyne is especially important to Ancient Greek dramatists who contrasted the idea with its opposite: hubris. The definition of Sophrosyne was notably argued in Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Charmides.” The etymologies in the two Wiktionary don’t agree and it appears that the lower-case etymology is better, and could be used for the upper-case entry also. By the way, the word in its English-language Arabic-lettering form seems to be fairly new — perhaps 60 years old, and isn’t in the old OED. The word is very important in certain areas of scholarship, and it seems to be subject to people getting it wrong. I’d like to see the handling of this set right here at Wiktionary. Do you have any thoughts about this? Thanks again. Barklestork (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Theoi Nomioi, not made up. Check out this link: http://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/rustic-gods.html

90.194.199.198 03:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

As an English term, yes it is. Just because you didn't make it up doesn't mean it's a valid word according to Wiktionary standards (see WT:CFI). Basically it's just the transliteration of a Greek phrase mean "gods of herders/shepherds", and I don't see it in anything that's not derived from theoi.com. The guy who created the site wasn't trying to deceive anyone, because his goal is to explain things from other languages and cultures in English and show off his expertise- not to provide documentation of English usage. For all I know "θεοί νόμιοι" may be a common phrase in Ancient Greek (though I got only one hit from a Google Books search), but it's not English, and transliterating it into our alphabet could be construed as making up an English phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted my edit in the word "sial". However, the word "sial" is also Indonesian word. The word "sial" in Indonesian, if translated into English, it means "suck" in the best translation, or "damn" or "shit" in the worst translation. The word "suck" is not considered profanity in English. — This unsigned comment was added by YolentaShield (talk • contribs) at 05:04, September 5, 2014.‎

I have no problem with your creating an Indonesian entry, but don't put all that discussion on the definition line(s). That's for defining what it actually means, not talking about how different things in English have different connotations- those would go in the entries for the terms English terms, themselves. Also, you had no part of speech header. You used {{id-noun}}, but what you were describing doesn't sound like a noun, though I'm not completely sure, because, among other things, it wasn't clear whether there are two meanings, or whether you were translating one meaning two different ways. If there's just one meaning, it should be all on one line, and the definition should describe in English what it actually means, so readers can decide for themselves the best way to translate it. If you still need to explain things, add a "Usage notes" section after the definition. Please see WT:ELE for more details.

If I could have fixed your edit, I would have, but that would have required either knowing the Indonesian term, or being able to figure what you really meant to say. Neither was possible, so I reverted your edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Chuck :) WritersCramp (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure adjectivation/denominal adjectives in English can be described so simply/brutally, but I'm not sure of the opposite either, I see your point. The section was only meant as a different way of that "adjective" label, but I understand it's not ok. Thanks for reverting! --Nemo 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re: beating around the bush edit: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=beating_around_the_bush&oldid=28960319&diff=prev

No biggie but I thought that the information provided a useful background on the phrase. I had checked content at a number of sources and was happy with the content.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re: overpopulation and edit: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=overpopulation&oldid=28960323&diff=prev

In the first definition my intention was to make a clearer link between overpopulation and the environment as is the general definition in the Wikipedia:Overpopulation article. An area may be able to give temporary support to a population because it happens to have an oil well or a diamond mine but this is not the general conception of overpopulation.

I agree with the second definition which, while being supported by some scholarly opinion, is not in common use.

Gregkaye (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re: smoke out and edit https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=smoke_out&oldid=28960293&diff=prev

I'm not to sure of the conventions on Wiktionary but I would have thought that the two entries has notable commonality.

Gregkaye (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

First of all, we don't use notability here at Wiktionary. This is a dictionary, so we keep to the terms themselves and leave interesting facts for encyclopedias. But even if we did, I think the terms are distant enough from their origins that the connection is rather trivial. I have a feeling that most users would follow the link and wonder why the two have been connected.

We do have categories for navigating within groups of terms that have something in common, in this case you would add Category:en:Hunting to the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have begun spending more time on specific epithets. I have a reference on Botanical Latin which has been helpful and I had gotten one on zoological names from a local library. But some of the epithets are used for only one species that I can find are compounds that can be puzzling. For example spilorrhoa at Ducula spilorrhoa might be σπίλος (spílos, “stain, spot”) + ῥόα (rhóa, “pomegranate”). w:Ducula spilorrhoa mentions that the heads of these mostly white birds are often stained by the fruit they eat. IOW, I was lucky that the WP article provided a clue, as other Greek words would be possible components of the compound. I like the guesswork, but I am not comfortable having Wiktionary rely on it. Is there some reference you would recommend, especially for zoological names, that would help on etymology? DCDuring TALK 00:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any specific reference. The first thing I do is track down the original description () to see if it has any explanation or clues. I usually do this by first doing a Google search containing the specific epithet, the author and the year (), which, with any luck, will turn up a catalogue or website that will reference the publication, the volume/year, etc. & the page (). I then track down the publication itself (I prefer the Internet archive, but Google Books has more bells and whistles to aid your search). In this case, it's not very helpful, so I go to Perseus. After looking there, I would say that ῥόα (rhóa, “pomegranate”) isn't the best candidate: ῥοά (rhoá, “stream, flow, flux”) strikes me as more likely (the lemma is actually ῥοή (rhoḗ), because the Attic dialect has eta where the other dialects have a long alpha in endings, but it's usually changed to "a" when converted to Latin). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I suppose there is no getting around going after the original description. For fish there is actually a site that provides the missing link: why a given epithet was used for a species. In this case, as in many others, it is not obvious, whichever interpretation is given to "roa". I use images and any physical or behavioral description of the species that I can find to help with that. In this case I can't get a plausible rationale for the "stream, flow, flux" interpretation, either with σπίλος (spílos, “rock, cliff”) or σπίλος (spílos, “spot, stain, fleck”).

I don't think that the Etymology Scriptorium is much help as they don't seem to take much interest in the applied semantics of why a person selected a given word for a specific use. I suppose that the alternatives, in this case for both components of the epithet could be presented and a guess hazarded favoring whatever seemed more likely after a bit more research and thought.

In the meantime there are many New Latin compounds with multiple uses that have no Wiktionary entry at all. But I still don't have a sound basis for assigning an L2 header to many New-fangled specific epithets: Latin or Translingual in many cases; language of other original or derived vernacular name or Translingual in many others. The only obvious cases are those for which the epithet is a use of something which is in Lewis and Short or my Late Latin glossary. I don't even have access to a Medieval Latin dictionary online and library access at nearby Fordham University would have to be specially arranged. Semperblotto has entered the genitives of "pseudo-Latin" personal names as Translingual. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not the part of the world where one would find pomegranates, and pomegranates aren't the sort of thing that's often used metaphorically in scientific names. As for flow: the pattern of dark feathers looks sort of like what you would get if the bird were partway immersed in black ink. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose a description of that vintage was likely to rely on accidental features or behavioral characteristics such as fruit stains, except as a mistake. There was another name that used spilorrhoa: Myristicivora spilorrhoa (probably now Ducula myristicivora.

This image might support "rock flow". DCDuring TALK 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I undid your revert. The only flaw was the added etymology was off, I fixed that. Choor monster (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I would put it another way: the original edit was wrong, and you replaced it with the right one. Either way, I agree with your edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Whatever works, it's all good. Choor monster (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why are you removing these? By what legitimizing process? DCDuring TALK 19:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have a tendency to create one-off categories that you never populate- apparently because you forget about them- and this seemed to be one of those. I only remove these if there are only one or two members after a good period of time in what should be a huge category- which seems to indicate total lack of interest. If you care enough to object, then I was wrong in this case.

If you ever run across actions like this that you disagree with, feel free to revert them. They're not based on any rule, but just on the principle that it seems wrong to leave a redlinked category that's deceptively empty and is unlikely to be ever used. In other words, it's me exercising my own personal discretion as an editor, and you're free to use your own personal discretion to change it back. It's not something I care enough about to edit-war over, so your action will probably stand. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK. As you know I have a bee in my bonnet about our categories. The basic difference between CodeCat's whimsical topical categories and mine is that s/he has a bot. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, the basic difference is that I actually create and maintain the categories, whereas this category was abandoned and left redlinked. I agree with Chuck that if someone adds entries to categories, they should also be responsible for creating the category page and placing it in the appropriate place in the category tree. My bot can create categories easily, but only if they have a recognised name and place in the tree, so it doesn't know what to do with categories like these. That means that redlinked and unrecognised categories like this one are left for human editors to deal with, which Chuck did, because you did not. —CodeCat 21:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The topical categories, such as they are, are "maintained" and populated largely because of the destructive misappropriation of the usage context categories. Instead of reversing Daniel dot's original unapproved misappropriation you continued and extended it in the high-handed manner that has marked your contributions for some time now. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

When I see a category that I think should be kept, I often spend an hour or so adding it to as many of the applicable entries as I can easily find. This also gives me a feel for how useful the category is. I've come up with a number of ideas in my time here. Some were great, some were ok, and some truly stunk. There's nothing wrong with brainstorming, but you have to accept that not every idea is ready for prime time, and that some need further development and/or implementation before they will work. I've only been targeting a few items that have been in Wanted Categories for a long time with no change and that I'm not really sure what to to with (not just your categories, by the way). My feeling is that a category in just one or two entries may not have the critical mass needed to make it useful as a navigational tool, regardless of its potential. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

What issues do you have with my edits to rime that you reverted? Tharthan (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, rhyme is a direct descendant from Old French via Middle English, so the (influenced) seemed wrong. True, the spelling reflects the Ancient Greek ancestor, but that's just a learned "correction" of the spelling, not replacement of the entire word. On looking further, I see that the etymology at rhyme disagrees with me. I've taken it to the Etymology Scriptorum for confirmation one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds swell. Things should indeed be deemed there in this instance. Tharthan (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look, especially at Hyponyms, not that that wouldn't have attracted your attention anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might have missed the fact that I added a note to the sophrosyne section listed up above. I don't mean to prompt you in any way -- but just in case it went unnoticed. Thanks. Barklestork (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You reverted the usage "swathes of territory". I'm not wrong- try googling itǃ I have no idea if this is chiefly a UK usage, however, as I am from UK. I have reverted your reversion. (PS, the tilde button isn't working for some reason, so I'll leave this un-signedzzz.)

That's covered by "alternate spelling of swath". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re:Deletion requests

Hello! I'm aware of the {{rfv}} template usage, but it's quite obvious for a Spanish speaker in the case of *cervezería since, according to the spelling rules, the combinations ze/zi are not permitted (except in very few cases, usually loan words – see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2011/May#Category:Spanish words with ze or zi). In case of doubt, many of these are properly documented in the RAE's Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas (enzima, Azerbaiyán...). Regards :), Peter Bowman (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the minor Roman deity, Pestis:

• http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Nosoi.html & http://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/personifications.html
• http://encyclopediaofmyths.wikia.comhttps://dictious.com/en/Nosoi
• http://www.mythindex.com/roman-mythology/P/Pestis.html

90.194.201.117 05:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

None of your sources say Pestis is a deity, except the theoi personifications page, which seriously overgeneralizes things: For every personification that was genuinely considered a deity, such as Eros, there are lots that were just referred to allegorically in poetry. Both of the pages on Nosoi refer to them as "daimones" or "spirits"- not deities.

Chuck Entz (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Then why not simply edit the entry instead of deleting it? And you did the same thing to Nosos (Nosoi/Nosi) as well.

90.194.201.117 18:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

---

Per request, posting to talk page. Newer user here to doing edits. The word was used for a company and I was curious if I was allowed to tag it from wikionary in that aspect with abbreviation spelled out? I held off on doing that, after I had put up the english sub-header on the page as I was looking up rules still. — This unsigned comment was added by 167.136.142.165 (talk) at 08:27, October 7, 2014‎.

What word are you talking about. I couldn't find anything in your contributions history. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

"madidos" ... the question remains unattended, is a link to the blog of the same name allowed?

I removed the long history concerning sub iugum, the brief entry now reflects the etymology of the phrase "pass under the yoke." Please be aware that it was not solely a Roman practice. I'm sure you are already aware of this site, but just in case: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj for all your Greek delights. ---

Hi, Chuck, I'm not quite sure whether I should ask you or someone else how to do this. I just added an entry for "aitsa ha," which is an interjection, but I suspect I didn't set it up correctly. I think I need to set it up as a non-lemma term, but I'm not sure how to do that. Here's the word: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/aitsa_ha Thanks for any advice you can offer. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You put "intj" as the part of speech, instead of interjection. There are some customized templates for specific languages such as Chinese that use abbreviations, but {{head}} just takes the part of speech unabbreviated. As for "non-lemmas": the lemma is the main form for a term, with inflected forms being the non-lemmas. Your entry is the only form of the term, so it's the lemma.Chuck Entz (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. I was using the French interjection "non" as a model, but it now appears that page may be using a special template. I'll check more than one model next time when I'm doing something new.Emi-Ireland (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck,

Today was my first experience to write on Wiktionary. I found out that my article was deleted ,but I don't know why? I believe that I might have made some mistakes against the rules of writing.Could you please advise me?

Thank you,

Tamer Osman

This is a dictionary. We don't do articles, we do dictionary entries in a very specific format (see WT:CFI and WT:ELE). Also, user pages are strictly for dictionary business, not for publishing personal content (see WT:USER and WT:NOT). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I just wanted to ask you a question about linguistics degrees.

I've told some people before (in my real life) that I was considering a linguistics degree in college, since I've been interested in many multiple languages for a long time (which is why I joined Wiktionary in the first place), but some ask me "what would you even do with a linguistics degree?"

Some people would respond that it's mostly in the field of academia, meaning that most of the jobs I could get would be teaching jobs. I don't really want to be a teacher though, because of my social anxiety as it is, I don't think I can handle teaching a class every day. But then that would mean I'd have to go for 2 degrees, 1 in teaching, and 1 in linguistics. So that doesn't seem like it would work out.

I'm already aware of the translator job which doesn't seem too bad, but what other (general) opportunities are there out there for linguists? What jobs? What can a linguist do for a living that can pay the bills, so to speak? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a good one to ask, because I've never done anything with my linguistics degree. My impression is that computational linguistics is the only part of linguistics where there's much non-academic work available (and maybe intelligence- I believe User:Stephen G. Brown knows something about that). That's not to say that there isn't work out there for linguists, but I'm sure it requires quite a bit of investigative work and/or resourcefulness and/or networking to find it, and you have to already have credentials and be good at it to get a job. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

• To chime in, I've made my career as an applied linguist, of sorts -- translation. Networking over the years, it's become clear that most of us, at least in the Japanese-English language combination, don't have backgrounds in linguistics. Actually, having such a background can be an impediment to getting into the field because of the time involved, as clients are looking for people who are 1) at least passively fluent in the source language, 2) functionally fluent in writing in the target language, preferably as native speakers, and 3) experienced in whatever field is at hand, in terms of life and job experience. So coming right out of school, with studies that aren't immediately applicable to the subject material on offer (the great bulk of which is business-related), translation can be difficult to break into. One of my colleagues didn't get into translation until he was in his late forties, after spending the first half of his career as a salaryman working at injection molding companies. Because he knows that business back-to-front, and because he's got lots of former coworkers and other contacts in that field, he has a relatively easy time securing work.

If you're thinking of translation as a job, another factor to consider is the language combination. English-Spanish doesn't pay that well, simply because there's so much competition. English-Igbo has a lot less competition (in North America at least), but also little demand. I stumbled into English-Japanese by pure dumb luck, and that has a nice balance of higher demand and lower competition.

That said, I wouldn't say don't go in for linguistics, if that's a subject that floats your boat. My point in writing the above is to try to make sure you don't have any overly rosy ideas of landing a dream job in translation right after school. (But then who knows, you still might. :) ) In any higher education, it's probably best to choose fields that make you happy. University is a lot of work, and (at least in the US) also a lot of money, so best to choose something where you won't resent the work (and you'll get less out of it if you're unhappy) -- and if you like the field, chances are that this will come through in a positive way in job interviews.

Anyway, my advice is worth what you paid for it, so no worries.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious why you're removing the templates from all of these. I would think having a template is more useful. —CodeCat 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's the wrong template. {{ja-readascat}} is only used for "Japanese terms spelled with kanji read as", not "Japanese kanji read as この‎". The first categorize into Category:Japanese terms by kanji readings, while the second categorize into Category:Japanese kanji by reading. I didn't notice the difference for a long time, so now I'm fixing my mistake. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

And there's no template for the latter kind of category? I think we might as well have one. —CodeCat 22:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but that's for Japanese editors to devise. If it's just the one cat, I don't see the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I often see you remove visibility of edits with the reason "Graffiti/Vandalism". I'm just wondering, I understand it's a vandalism edit, but why is it that you have to remove its visibility? It seems like it could be the same person, since I often see this visibility removal on talk pages. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not the same person. I check pretty much all the IPs that I block, and they come from all over the world- though there are some repeat offenders.

As for why I remove these edits from view: my philosophy is that no one who deliberately defaces or sabotages a resource like this should have the satisfaction of seeing their handiwork in the edit histories. It's all about eliminating the emotional rewards as much as possible. I don't do it for edits that are due to ignorance, incompetence, or errors, just the ones where they do things like replace content with things like "poop" or delete things, or deliberately put misinformation into entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Clever tactic. So there wouldn't be anyone who went over there and "laughed at the troll" so to speak. This system is a way to keep spammers off the site. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

You reverted the changes I made in the entry topic a few days ago. Can you tell me why?--Sae1962 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes: the US IPA looked wrong and the hyphenation wasn't hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

albatross around one's neck got a rollback despite the additions being significant, accurate and more precise than the original definitions. No reason given in the revision summary. Throw me a bone so I can fix it?

2 reasons:

1. The definition is much too verbose for a dictionary definition- it reads like something from an encyclopedia. That's understandable, because:
2. You ripped it off verbatim from Wikipedia's article on w:Albatross (metaphor) without attribution, which is a violation of the Creative Commons licenses for both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. Understood, I'll work on it.
2. It was attributed per the license, check the references section. Please be nice, I'm just a stranger on the internet.

Did you read my edit comment explaining why I edited "instar" ? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter. You very clumsily tacked on the new etymology without editing the existing one, leaving the etymology section contradicting itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick question about the revert on sanctus. "proclamata est" is the third person, passive perfect form of prōclāmō, isn't it? If it were to be "Kateri Tekawitha is proclaimed a saint", it would need to be "Kateri Tekawitha sancta proclamatur ." As such, "Kateri Tekawitha sancta proclamata est" should be translated as "Kateri Tekawitha was proclaimed a saint."--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you're right. It's a bit tricky because "is proclaimed" in this context seems to have perfective qualities: the implication seems to be that this is something that just happened, or that is accomplished by the utterance of the sentence- not something that is still going on. To translate "proclamatur" accurately, I believe you would need to say "is being proclaimed", rather than "is proclaimed", unless you were talking about a general or habitual practice, since the English present tense isn't really, strictly speaking, a true present tense: "whenever x happens, y is proclaimed" or "every day, x is proclaimed", for instance (w:Present tense refers to "habitual or usual actions or daily event"). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Passive verbs in Latin are weird because the present conjugations, when translated into English, often have a "past" sense to them (ie, "amatur" is "I am being loved"). However, "proclamatur" can be translated either as "he/she is being proclaimed" or "he/she is proclaimed" (Here's a good cheat sheet I found, which shows that the passive present form of cano, canitur, can either be "it is sung" or "it is being sung"). It's kind of like the different between "I eat" and "I am eating" (edo), or "I love" and "I am loving" (amo); the difference is apparent only in the English. With that being said, "proclamata est" is still a perfect tense ("proclamata" is specifically a perfect participle), and should probably be translated as such. However, I'm wondering if its a Classical Latin v. Newer Latin issue, too, because I know that many modern languages use "est" or a variation thereof (for instance, is) to form perfective verbs and verb phrases (such as "is proclaimed", which has a perfective sense but also uses a present verb). Anyway, sorry for my rambling... tense is weird.--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I created two lemmas and then I created the category (expressions of time) https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:wau:Time but it doesn't show up when I go to All Topics. I must be leaving out a step. Please tell me how you fixed it so I don't have to bother you next time. Thanks very much! Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can look at the page's history, and then compare versions. That would show you what changes were made. —CodeCat 01:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) That's because the categories such as Category:wau:All topics are usually added by category boilerplate templates (in the case, {{topic cat}}). if you didn't use a template, you would have had to type the categories in by hand. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there any Kurdish evidence before Yunus Emre? --198.27.126.148 08:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for your help a few minutes ago. I just created the page for the plural, but I set it up manually, which seems wrong. Please see https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/amunaunaun#Wauja. I suspect I should be using a convention instead. Also, I want to set up a category of countable nouns, but the examples in English and French I looked at did not seem to have a line for that category at the bottom of their entries. Is plural a special kind of category? Thanks Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Possessives in Arawak languages are very important, and there are numerous classes of possessives. It would be good to include the possessive form for nouns that have one. Could you point me to some advice as to how I should set that up? I did not find any. Thanks very much. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I added onamula as a Related Term to the Wauja lemma amunaun. I'll add a page for onamula as a non-lemma. Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC).Reply

Chuck, I tried adding a non-lemma page for onamula with the following code: # {{possessive of|amunaun|lang=wau}} but that triggered a template issue. I did add the possessive in the head of the lemma form, as you did with the plural. (Because there are four forms of any possessive (e.g., my chief, your chief, his/her/its/their chief, your(plural) chief), I am listing the third person singular/plural form in the lemma page, because that's usually the root form). Then on the non-lemma page I could list all the forms. Is that a good way to proceed? Thanks for your advice.Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ideally, on the non-lemma page, I would have a table similar to this one: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%C3%A1din#Navajo, except the first column could be headed 'Possessed by' and there would be rows for only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person. There would be only two additional columns, singular and plural. Is there already a template like that available? Thanks for all your help.Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)Just remember that the headword line is for a few selected forms to give an overview, not to cover everything. For a complete version, you would create an Inflection section on the lemma page. It would be a good idea to learn how to do wiki tables so you don't have long lists running down the page, or to get someone who knows templates better than I do to create templates.

If Arawakan languages are anything like the North American Indian languages I've studied, I'm sure the hardest part would be figuring out how to manage all the rows and columns. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks, that's what I needed to know. I agree, it needs to be mentioned on the lemma page, but not on the first line. Only the plural on the first line. I moved the possessive info to an inflection section as you suggested.

Wauja doesn't have some of the options I've seen for Navajo. I think Wauja tables will be a bit simpler. I will try my hand at learning to do wiki tables.

My remaining question, please: How do I handle the non-lemma page for the possessives? I tried adding a non-lemma page for onamula with the following code: # Template:possessive of but that triggered a template issue. Should I just code it manually? Emi-Ireland (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

For onamula, I would recommend using {{head|wau|noun form}} in the headword line. For the definition line, {{inflection of}} would work, since you can have just about anything as a parameter (i.e. {{inflection of|amunaun||third person|possessive|lang=wau}}, which gives: third person possessive of amunaun. I might be tempted to use {{conjugation of}}, in spite of the inappropriate name, because it handles person and number better. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you. Will do. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know why you removed my contribution to the entry http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/lee.

With respect, Shawn

It belongs in the plural entry (lees) since it was for a sense the only exists in the plural and is completely unrelated to the senses listed at lee. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dissentio amice. I believe it refers to the plural of lee in the nautical sense of 'a protected cove or harbor, out of the wind'. May I reinstate my addition?

No, it definitely refers to sediment/dregs being stirred up. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I concede you may be right. It seems unclear to me now which meaning is meant and thus I agree it ought to be omitted for fear of error. Thank you for your feedback, friend.

Hi, why have you please reverted this? Is it because I explained the meaning in a clumsy style? Or do you think that what I wrote belongs to pages "jsem", "jste" etc. but not to "be"? Have a nice day --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

To start with, "werb" isn't a word in English. More importantly, we have very strict formatting requirements and your edit wasn't even close- it would have taken more time than I had to fix it. I've added our standard welcome template to your talk page, which has links to the information you need to meet the requirements (and a lot of other helpful information, as well). You should also take a look at some of our auxiliary-verb entries to see how others have handled the same type of definition. The English ones such as have, be, and will are probably the best examples, though you can look through Category:Auxiliary verbs by language as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for the links. I will try to do the same edit in a better manner. Thanks for warning me. --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. You gave me some advice about formatting Etymology relating to this page: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/keweintsapai but I can't find your advice now for the life of me (it's bookmarked on another machine). It was not on this page (your talk page). I apologize if I am not referring to your original advice. The format you gave me for including a prefix (with its definition) in an etymology was: From ke- (relative, attributive) +‎ uwein (replacement) So I tried modifying your example to use it for a suffix, like so: aupepei (are numerous, populous) (nominalizer) +‎ -ki Alas, it triggers an error, as you can see. What am I doing wrong? I want to produce an etymology that glosses each part of the etymology separately, like this: From aupepei (are numerous, populous) + -ki (nominalizer) Thanks for your help. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I fixed your example- you need to put an empty parameter so it knows that ki is the suffix and not the base. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

An alternative is to use {{affix}}, a recently created template. It detects the type of affix (base, prefix, suffix, interfix) based on the parameters given, so there is no ambiguity. —CodeCat 01:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks to you both. You are so helpful. I'll study it in the morning. Emi-Ireland (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why you can't use Talk:MGTOW? -- 71.208.37.30 02:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I want to add the Wauja interjection atso, but there is already a Finnish proper noun Atso, and I cannot get a new page for atso to come up. Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

To bypass the usual search, either search for something that doesn't exist, and use the search in the search results section, or bookmark Special:Search. Both of those show the search results (including redlinks) without going to a page. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much. I was able to add the word. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to review all the words I added today. Is there any way to search for words added by myself on a certain date? Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Just look at your user contributions page. There's a link to it on the left side of your user & talk pages, and also after your user name in the edit history of any page you've edited. There's even a checkbox so you can look only at contributions that are page creations. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks again! Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC) I realize I added a few terms before I remembered to log in. How do I see all the changes made for the Wauja language on a particular day? Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think there is any. The Mediawiki software doesn't recognize language sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Ah. Another good reason to remember to log in. Thanks for your very prompt reply. Emi-Ireland (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know of this category convention. I added the categories in good faith, but seeing as it is only convention to add them on main entry words, I will follow this from now on. --Devin Murphy (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing as "Racial anthropology" in todays world, the racial anthropology of the pre-1950s is today considered a kind of scientific racism.Maunus (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, racial anthropology was definitely racist, but the way you did the wikilink was wrong. If this were Wikipedia, your method would make sense, since the goal would be to direct the reader to the existing article on the topic. This is Wiktionary, however, and we wikilink to dictionary entries, not to articles.

We have no dictionary entry for Scientific racism (the capitalization is wrong, and it's probably SOP), so the few who clicked on the redlink would probably be wondering why they were creating a page for something they didn't click on. I tried to modify the page to address your concern, though it probably could use some tweaking to get it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware, there is no reason to believe it is not derived from fidus.— This unsigned comment was added by 167.88.16.146 (talk).

If we were talking about the dog name, I would agree with you, but the entry in question (at least the English section) is for a very specialized term restricted to coin collectors- one of the few types of usage where terms are regularly created from acronyms (if you think about it, there's absolutely nothing "faithful" about a defective coin). Besides, if you had checked, you would have found references like this one at Google Books that are very clear about the origin of the term. The only thing open to dispute is whether the entry should be at fido or FIDO. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is a specialized term and does not belong on the same page.— This unsigned comment was added by 167.88.16.146 (talk).

It's not- the dog name is capitalized-see Fido. But even if it weren't, Wiktionary is arranged by spelling, so everything that's spelled the same (including capitalization) has to be on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi I have a question and have no idea how to talk to you! So here I go... Why did you take down my thing on fangirl lingo??? What rules were broken that that could not remain up??? ALL of that was accurate, ask any fangirl alive! I just thought that mabey somebody might need to know the lingo who is new to the fangirling community! — This unsigned comment was added by Band geek35 (talk • contribs).

@Band geek35 It's very simple: this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Entries have a uniform format, and throwing in a bunch of random text about words that aren't the subject of the entry just makes a mess of things. For the rules about what goes into an entry, see Entry layout explained. Believe it or not, we already have entries for many fangirl terms, and you're welcome to add entries for any we missed that meet our Criteria for inclusion- just try to format things correctly, and be more careful about your grammar and spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you might not like the tongue in cheek style of my edit, but the point i wanted to add was: a hospital pass is so named because it leaves its recipient liable to be hospitalised - this wasn't clear from the definition. Also, the reference to "law" variant is just a figurative use of the football hospital pass, and is not specific to law: in any collaborative environment being assigned a task or project that the passer has neglected and is doomed therefore to fail or create a lot of extra work for little reward or recognition is called a hospital pass. ElectricRay (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

We do try to maintain a neutral point of view, so that style wasn't a good idea. My main problem, though, was making the entry into a sports essay rather than a clear, concise dictionary entry. Defining a term in a single, relatively short sentence isn't as fun- and it's certainly a lot harder- but that's what dictionaries do. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with Nike as a definition when it comes to shoes? Revert.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

See WT:BRAND. We don't have entries for company and brand names as company and brand names. If they've become part of the language with other meanings, such as jello referring to any gelatin dessert, whether Jell-o™ brand or not, then we include that. We're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia and we don't have a notability criterion like Wikipedia does, so we avoid that kind of entry altogether- otherwise we'd be nothing but brand names. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why does Apple have Apple Inc. too?

Why does Apple have Apple Inc. too? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I tried to edit the entry on the etymology of τί. I do not think that the wording ultimately derived from Proto-Indo-European is sufficiently neutral or objective for a dictionary with international users. PIE is a theory with many critics and at the very least the entry should refer to the fact that it is a reconstructed form. Heorotlives (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

What critics? PIE has been almost universally accepted for at least a century or two. The only debates are about details of the reconstructions, not about whether PIE exists. As for the fact it's a reconstruction, that's what the * is for. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

whoa, steady on. Your ignorance of the critics somewhat casts doubt on your authority to edit these articles. PIE is a fairytale. You might as well ascribe ultimate origin to esperanto. PIE has definitely not been accepted for a century or two - big fail for you I'm afraid. Heorotlives (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any sources for this? So far all you've given me are vague assertions that don't match my own experience at all: I've read widely in the etymological literature, I've taken courses at a university in the subject (I have a degree in linguistics), and I've yet to hear of any serious opposition in the last century or so. There are lots of debates as to details- but not as to the validity of PIE. Having looked at cognate sets in dozens of languages, I can't see how one can explain the correspondences other than as inheritance from a common ancestral language, and I don't see how one could reconstruct anything all that different from what we know as PIE. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that PIE hasn't been accepted, but any rejection of PIE is definitely waaaay out of the mainstream. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree, talking about someone else's 'ignorance' when you're flatly refusing to produce any evidence is a big no-no. Chuck Entz asked "what critics"? Do you intend to answer that or just rant some more? Renard Migrant (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The point I am making is aptly illustrated in your response further down to another user regarding the Bulgarian/Thracian issue. You rightly note that it is not logical to assume there is a link between the two words given there is a thousand year gap in the 2 written records. For PIE we have zero written records, only a construct. Yet in the case discussed here, you have no qualms in ascribing a reconstructed form "kʷis" for "τί". That particular reconstruction evidently relates to the "que", "what" etc. However, I don't see how this form can explain "τί"? It "may" explain ancient Greek "έφατ" but there are some spectacular acrobatics required to explain "τί". I appreciate there is a whole PIE industry on the web that somehow has to justify its theories, however it should not be a panacea. For words such as this it should be sufficient to refer to an ancient Greek origin without feeling the need to ascribe a hypothetical proto-origin when this may equally have been in the Near East, the Steppe, Central Asia or why not all the way back to the Rift Valley. If you "must" fit a reconstructed PIE root here then at least find something plausible. I am sure you are familiar with the scientific debate regarding the supposed PIE homeland - I imagine it is of great significance into how word forms such as these evolved. There may not be a common origin in all cases.

There use to be a written disclaimer about these reconstructed forms. Does that still exist? It should. Heorotlives (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The issue of PIE labiovelars in Greek (as elsewhere) is complicated and not all that tidy, but there are definite patterns: a labio-velar followed by e or i usually becomes a dental (,τετράς,τί), followed by u (and sometimes i) becomes a plain velar, otherwise becomes a labial. This isn't all speculation, either. In Mycenaean Greek they consistently show up with the same series of syllabic characters which are different from the dental, plain velar and labial series, and there's some dialectal evidence. I wish I had time to go into it in detail, but it would require some research and I have to get ready for work. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agree, not tidy at all, a supposedly original form that could be anything. Interesting your allusion to the methodology used depending on reconstructing "τι" through its Mycenaean form? Is it attested in any of the tablets? If so, then it should be included in the entry. To define as "ultimately from PIE" is odd. I must say having browsed around Wiktionary for a bit now, it is evident that PIE is entrenched in IE language etymologies - so it does now seem a bit pointless debating a minor entry. I think my objections are more fundamental. Your point about Mycenaean is exactly right - the whole project would be enriched immensely by ancient Greek entries referring back to LinearB. PIE has numerous issues that need to be resolved before it is used so extensively as a catch-all for ancient etymologies and gives a somewhat artificial feel to the whole thing.. Heorotlives (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I entered the name of this lemma incorrectly. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/insityupai#Wauja It should be "intsityupai" and NOT "insityupai". I try to check carefully every time I create a new page, but I missed this one. Emi-Ireland (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. For future reference, you can move pages yourself: there's a menu to the right of "edit" and "history" at the top of the page that includes an option for moving. The only difference between when you do it and I do it is that when you do it, it leaves a redirect at the old spelling, but I can do it without leaving anything there. If you move something and want the redirect deleted, just add the {{delete}} template with an explanation as the only parameter ({{d}} will work, too), and one of the admins will delete it for you. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted the sourced information about the etymology of the word for a second time and replaced it with an unsourced claim. If you do this again, it might be construed as vandalism. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your "source" is a website that resolves to a DNS error. I've looked at an archived snapshot of it at the Wayback Macine , and the only relevant part is: "asn - 'I, me' , ." This documents that the Thracian word existed, but it doesn't make any link to the Bulgarian one. Given that we know next to nothing about the Thracian language or its history, and that there's a thousand-year-plus gap between the ancient word lists and the earliest attestation of Bulgarian, the really crucial parts of your etymology aren't sourced at all.

As for whether reverting you "might be construed as vandalism"- construe away! Your threat is the kind of empty bluff typical of someone who knows they have nothing to back them up on substance. I'm an admin here with a degree in linguistics and over 47,000 Wiktionary edits, and you're some anonymous person with all of 30 Wiktionary edits, a quarter of which consist of edit-warring with several contributors over this one etymology.

Let me turn your threat around: if you continue to replace the current plausible etymology with your wildly implausible, inadequately-sourced etymology, I won't construe it as vandalism, but I will definitely block you. If you want to make an issue of it, take it up at the Etymology scriptorium, but I doubt you'll get much better of a response there. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is my last warning; cease your vandalist actions immediately. Replacing sourced information with unsourced claims is vandalism. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Apple definition contains Apple Inc. you know. Why cannot Nike have the same thing? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

chuck how do you get people to be on your talk page? Playfulkitten238 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Playfulkitten238Reply

I have made a statement there that I think is almost always true about taxonomic names. Please express your thoughts. It would be very handy if what I said was always true, as it would focus etymology effort on simply finding the date when a genus was named. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I realize that the phenomenon I thought I saw was much more an exception than I thought. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, you reverted me 9 months ago. I didnt get the automated revert message, because I didnt have a talk page on wiktionary. you could have welcomed me and created one, but for some reason you chose not to. I just started the wiktionary talk page and got the revert message!

I dont know if you used some automated instrument it doesnt show. But its clear that you didnt look at my edit, before you reverted, because you wouldnt have reverted it. I am a veteran editor on wikipedia (if you care to check). I am no vandal.

Would you be so kind to CORRECT the edit with me, so I can learn ? This was my edit:

From the Indogermanic root mo- = to be strong willed, to strive intensely for something > Germanic. moda-, mōþa-, mōþaz, mōda-, mōdaz = Sense, courage, anger > Old High German (althochdeutsch) muot = power of thought, feeling, will, soul, spirit, mind.

There appears to be a different referencing system on wictionary. Clearly, my edit wants to be constructive /helpful. I am reaching out to you to be helpful too. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The revert wasn't because I thought the edit was vandalism or in bad faith- there were just too many things wrong with it and I didn't have time to explain. You need to realize that we have far fewer admins here, so we can't provide anywhere near the same level of warnings, procedural notes and other messages that you're used to at Wikipedia. We're lucky if we can deal with all the vandalism on a given day, let alone provide helpful information on the talk pages of everyone who makes a bad edit

We have a very specific format for etymologies, using our own templates, and most of the templates we have in common work differently here. If you had looked at other entries you would have seen that we always start from the present and work back, using the {{etyl}} template to display the language names. This standardizes our language names (what you called Indogermanic we call Proto-Indo-European, which has a language code of "ine-pro") and automatically categorizes the entry (see mood for an example).

There was also the matter of giving an etymology for the German word Gemüt in the entry for the English borrowing of the derived term Gemütlichkeit, when we don't even have an etymology at Gemüt.

More critically, the {{cite web}} template doesn't work here the way you thought it did, so there were error messages (as there are here), which should have tipped you off that something was wrong. It would seem, though, that you just clicked Save and didn't bother to look at the result. I will add our standard welcome template to your talk page- please read through the links and familiarize yourself with how we do things here. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain why you have reverted my edit? Given that the etymology, meaning, and quotations I gave are based on the entry for the word given in the complete Oxford English Dictionary (second edition, 1989). Coolmoon9 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

"the action of the verb..." doesn't belong in an etymology, and we don't use line numbers there, either. Also, anything from 1400 is Middle English, which we treat as a separate language, unlike the OED. The same goes for Scots. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, understood, and thanks for taking the time to reply. I may go back and re-do my contribution in line with what you wrote. Coolmoon9 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It appears that Arawakan languages listed on this page: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Arawakan_languages have no entries, when actually some of them do (Wauja does, for instance). Am I misreading this page? Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The entries are in the subcategories (or their subcategories etc). Only entries and categories that are in Category:Arawakan_languages itself appear in the listings. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

See, for example, Category:Chamicuro lemmas. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Wauja language has a category of nouns that MUST have possessive prefixes. In the etymology for the noun otukaka, I treated the bound morpheme as a suffix, -tukaka) (It's on this page: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/otukaka I wanted to prefix the bound morpheme with a hyphen to show that this morpheme requires a prefix.

I now realize that's no good. Such bound morphemes normally occur in only one lemma (that is inflected into several non-lemma forms). Example, "my brother," "your brother," "our brother," etc. Each of these examples is one word in Wauja. In Wauja, the morpheme for "brother" never appears as a standalone word. It's a bound morpheme. Should I simply remove the bound morpheme otukaka from the affix template in the Etymology section, and add -otukaka using the gloss template? Thanks for your advice. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The diphthongs I used, known to be part of the "Canadian raising" phenomenon, are certainly the General American pronunciation (if not as fully obvious as pronunciations heard in Canada). I didn't intend to replace anything showing they were the only US pronunciation. I'd be happy to replace all, showing "GenAm" only. Wells, in Accents of English, defines General American as "that majority of American accents which do not show marked eastern and southern characteristics, including both those deriving basically from the northern speech of the Hudson Valley and upstate New York and those deriving from the midland speech of Pennsylvania" (470), and William Labov's Atlas of North American English confirms: "where Canadian raising has traditionally been reported: Canada, Eastern New England, Philadelphia, and the North" (114). General American derives from the North with hints of midland. I know Forvo only presents "anecdotal" evidence, but if you listen to American speakers' pronunciations of such words as writer (http://www.forvo.com/word/writer/#en) and rice (http://www.forvo.com/word/rice/#en), they all follow the Canadian pattern throughout the US, including in non-North dialect regions such as California and even Texas. The only time I hear words in that set not conforming to the Canadian pattern in the US is from speakers in the Deep South.

OK, and for the Mary-marry-merry issue, A Handbook of Varieties of English (263) lists the square lexical set pronunciation as and the "marry" set as "" (which I wrote as , retaining the schwa, showing options for both this and the previous pronunciation). Rockrunnerthecard (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted my edit. What is the reason?

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Waldemar http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/boy/waldemar http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Waldemar.html

Please unrevert it.

--Phoenix84 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Phoenix84 Do you mean "restore"? Tharthan (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I mean restore. But I still dint get a reply for my question.

Sorry. I've been out of town and My computer isn't working well, so I haven't been keeping up with all of my messages. To answer your question: Your edit basically said that a Proto-Germanic root was borrowed from "Slavic". Slavic is not a language, but I don't believe there are any borrowings from Proto-Slavic into Proto-Germanic: the only borrowings I know of happened after Proto-Germanic had split up into individual daughter languages such as Gothic and Old High German. Given that the word in question is made up of sounds that developed the same in the prehistory of both the Slavic and Germanic language groups, I don't see how you can say for sure that it came from a Slavic source rather than by inheritance from Proto-Indo-European. After seeing your sources, I'm even less convinced. Wikipedia merely says that the name Waldemar was borrowed from a Slavic language. I don't know if that's true, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but even if it is, that's the borrowing of a distinctive compound into a specific Germanic language many centuries after some of the Germanic words mentioned in the etymology were attested (the Old High German word shows the Old High German consonant shift, so any borrowing would have had to have been centuries earlier still). I won't even bother with the baby-name sites, since those are notorious for providing hideously unreliable etymological information.

To sum it all up: your edit had all the marks of an uninformed amateur guess, the substance of it was pretty implausible, and the sources you gave above just strengthen the impression that you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you can show me real sources written by etymologists, there's no way I'm going to restore your edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The -a- of the OHG word is a specific Northwest Germanic development, from Proto-Germanic -ē-. The fact that Slavic has -ě- here means that, if it was borrowed, it was borrowed from either Proto-Germanic directly or from an East Germanic language (Gothic retains -ē-). —CodeCat 14:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you misunderstood: the etymology I reverted asserted that the borrowing went the other way- from "Slavic" to Old English weald or some ancestor. Given the sound changes apparent in the Old English word, it would have to have been pre-Old English, and given all the Germanic cognates with their own sound changes, it would have had to have been borrowed from Proto-Slavic (I don't think there were any separate Slavic languages that early) into Proto-Germanic. As I said above, it would be easier to assume common inheritance from Proto-Indo-European than to prove such an early borrowing. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain the why you reverted some of my recent edits on some transliteration systems? – Amateur55 (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Wiktionary is a community and one person should not be making wholesale changes to the way multiple whole languages are presented at a very basic level without discussing it first. See WT:RFC#Contributions of User:Amateur55. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Amateur55 We don't know you (you don't even have a user page with Babel) and it's not clear why you are changing transliterations, which are a result of discussions and agreements among editors. You can reply at WT:RFC#Contributions of User:Amateur55. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for blocking him. He also insulted me and didn’t apologize for it. If I were in a better mood, I would have just ignored it. --Romanophile (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm going much slower now. Around 48 seconds per entry. BTW, sorry if my "noob" comment insulted you, Romanophile. Just that someone called me a noob recently, when I'd been editing for years longer than him! --Type56bot (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply