User talk:Chuck Entz/2016

Hello, you recently undid my edit on Francois where I changed "misspelling" to "alternative spelling". I have seen Francois without the ç on many sources and it is generally not regarded as a misspelling. This is most often seen on English-language sources due to the language not usually using accents. Could you please replace my change? Thank you. Squiddaddy (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It may be an English alternative spelling, but you made it a French alternative spelling by using the language code "fr", and I didn't have time right then to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so sorry. I'm new to Wiktionary so I was somewhat confused by the language codes. Now that I've read up on them I've changed it to "en." Thank you! Squiddaddy (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Noun mercenary ‎(plural mercenaries)

A person employed to fight in an armed conflict who is not a member of the state or military group for which they are fighting and whose prime or sole motivation is private gain.

This definition is wrong, and should be corrected immediately. I have already corrected it, but the correct definition was reverted back to its original, false, definition.110.55.5.172 12:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

The basis of the word mercenary is someone who's in it for the money. All the stuff about "realpolitik considerations or for arbitrary reasons" goes against the history of the word and overwhelming usage- not to mention how it's defined in all the dictionaries I've look at- and comes across as Orwellian doublespeak. If anyone tried to use that in the real world they would be misunderstood and probably taken for someone with a political agenda.

Until someone comes up with a word with your meaning, or until there's a significant shift in the way the word is actually used, you're out of luck. Don't add back your definition unless you have some real good evidence that the latter has happened. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ignore how it's defined in all the other dictionaries. Consensus sometimes reaches false conclusions. As for the rest of that paragraph, I have no idea where you're getting any of this. You don't quite sound like you are just making this stuff up, so by all means demonstrate that you are not. Where are you getting this stuff, anyway?110.55.4.140 17:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're the one demanding that a definition be changed, so you're the one who has to come up with the evidence that it's wrong. Feel free to add {{rfv-sense}} at the end of the definition and request that the sense be verified according to our Criteria for inclusion. Based on my experience as a native speaker of English for more than half a century and on the circumstantial evidence of all the dictionaries, that won't accomplish much. Or, you could add your definition as a second sense, and I'll tag it for rfv-sense. It's entirely possible someone, somewhere has used it that way a few times, so it might survive as an alternative meaning. If it does, I won't remove it, and I won't take it personally, because it's all about the usage.

By the way, using my own words against me would only work if you made some sense. Otherwise it just shows you know you're in over your head and you're desperately trying to come up with some kind of gimmick to divert attention from the losing battle. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your definition 110.55.5.172 is complete nonsense, and any administrator would have reverted it. Simply, Chuck Entz got there first. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well for one thing I did not at any time try to use your own words against you. We are not in a battle, neither of us is losing, I am not trying to come up with any "gimmick", whatever that means, I am not desperate about this, nor am I in over my head. My definition is not nonsense, and it does not matter who got there first, wrong definitions are supposed to be corrected.110.55.4.140 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

These are arguments without support - how is the definition wrong in the first place? If it is attested, then it can be added, and that is final. Also, see WT:ATTEST. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

My definition is verified through clearly widespread use. Therefore, my definition is attested.110.55.0.124 08:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Talk is cheap. Saying it has widespread usage is meaningless, since everyone else seems to disagree and you only respond with more assertions. Evidence, please. You don't have to provide any, but as it stands now you have zero chance of getting your definition in the dictionary, and you haven't provided the slightest reason for anyone to reconsider that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

How convenient. Any evidence for anything you don't agree with, you can always call "talk". If you call something as important as WP:ATTEST "talk", then you don't have much regard for the very rules you've cited.110.55.1.97 08:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

So far, all you've provided are assertions- talk. Maybe in your world one person's claiming that the commonly-accepted definition is wrong constitutes clear widespread use, but in the real world that doesn't cut it. This is all pointless, anyway. You've already long since passed from merely being persistent into being a caricature. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've called me a caricature and called my world not real. You've gone too far after having been truthfully, repeatedly, politely and respectfully cautioned that you've gone too far. You're making a simple debate about the nature of evidence for an entry in a dictionary into a non-consensual, unwelcome, solemn and unprovoked insult measuring contest. Because you've finally succeeded in making this about Wiktionarians instead of what it should be about, which is Wiktionary, then I'll hereby come right out and say that my conduct in this matter in particular and on Wikimedia in general has been exemplary, and that your conduct in this matter has been less than acceptable. Even SchroCat - a notorious Wikipedia troll - was not that efficient at incivility. Even on Psychology talk pages, where some people are completely alien to common sense and logic, their conduct has been polite, respectful, and just plain superior to yours. So far, I've been a consummate professional about this, talking about the matter at hand, calmly, respectfully and rationally discussing your deficient, unnecessary, unhelpful, intellectually vacuous and incivil debate tactics, while you've made this not about the matter at hand, but into a prestige measuring contest, brandishing your seniority and greater entrenchment in the community and making hypocritical or ironic, but either way, extremely false, accusations that I am some sort of internet troll-themed, self-Juvenalian-satirical, postmodern, self-referencing, fourth-wall-breaking, street-theatrical/unwelcome farce. Well if you deserve your greater entrenchment or your greater prestige, it isn't because of anything in this matter. You and SchroCat both are resolute about that which doesn't deserve being resolute about. I have never called you a caricature or made even a single joke at your expense. Like SchroCat, you're a hardworking and proficient, but irrational, disrespectful, counterproductive and needlessly embittered member of the community. I have participated in countless debates on Wikipedia in which both sides have exemplary conduct, and a few in which the conduct has been un-exemplary and unhelpful but acceptable. I slightly dislike being subjected to unwelcome insults, but that is definitely not why I'm doing this. I am not easily angered and I am not even doing this because I dislike being insulted, but for the cause of upholding the quality of the Wikimedia Project and the conduct of Wikimedians everywhere, I'm reporting you and SchroCat to the Wikimedia Foundation. My report will not be admiring.110.55.1.97 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The definition was encyclopedic in the nature of its content and wrong as a matter of universal fact about mercenaries. I think we need not fear anything but the mild inconvenience of needing to respond to any WMF inquiries. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

110.55.1.97, is there anything we can say that will lead to you posting some evidence supporting your view? Because if not, I fear we're all just feeding the troll here. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Post edit-conflict) 110.55.1.97, please provide evidence. Be it from a dictionary or from unambiguous usage, please provide evidence of the following sections of your definition:

• “on the temporary behalf of their very likely future enemies” (viz. that the erstwhile employers will likely become enemies)
• “for realpolitik considerations” (viz. that the reasons may pertain to pragmatic governance)
• “for arbitrary reasons” (viz. that the reasons pertain to non-monetary, non-political motivations)

Again, I am only asking for evidence of different parts of the definition. The bread and butter of dictionaries is written proof that is unambiguous. Merely stating that “everyone uses it this way” is not enough, particularly when several native English speakers do not agree with you. —JohnC5 18:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I blocked this person a while ago, they are just trolling. - TheDaveRoss 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is apparently the same person whom I've reverted for a series of pondian prescriptivist edits a while back, and who has been screaming vandalism recently about not being allowed to put the German section first in one entry. They actually told Equinox "you must be new around here" because he indirectly suggested that WT:EL might contradict them rather than spelling it out chapter and verse. After giving them a chance to state their case initially, I've been engaging them mostly to see how far they would twist things to avoid backing down or admitting they're wrong (quite a lot, apparently). I don't know if they're actually trolling, or just stubborn and over-confidant. They're not sticking to one IP, so I'm sure they'll be back, whether we block them or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what I did there that warranted a revert, but at least some of what I did was worthwhile. Can you let me know what you objected to so I can redo the stuff that needed doing? embryomystic (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only problem was the module error caused by putting too many pipes in one template. There's really no excuse to leave an entry with a module error- if you had actually checked after you clicked "save page", it would have been blatantly obvious and you would have fixed it already. Instead, you seem to have no clue that you unintentionally trashed part of the entry. I can understand why you want to do things assembly-line style, but a module error isn't an improvement over the status quo, no matter what else you may have done. Check your work, if you don't want me to keep reverting whole edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, understood. I actually did check, believe it or not, but obviously I missed something. Which template was it, by the way? embryomystic (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. I see what I missed. embryomystic (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi why ddid you rollback me? — This unsigned comment was added by UK.Akma (talk • contribs).

See Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2015/December#Subarian. Remember, this is a dictionary, and etymologies need to be concise. Stuffing a dictionary entry with all kinds of encyclopedic information, complete with references to works that have nothing to do with the details of the etymology itself, is unacceptable.

Aside from that, speculation based on the similarity of Subartu to various names in various languages thousands of years separated from it is pointless and somewhat deceptive: to make a case for Turkic origin of the term, you need to account for the fact that the earliest-attested Turkic language is thousands of years later way off on the other side of China, and that the current distribution of Turkic languages is due to migrations centuries after that. There are similar issues with Kurdish and the others.

The mere similarity to any name, past or present, isn't enough: after all, the closest similarity of all is to the name of a modern Japanese car manufacturer, which no one with any sense would suggest as the origin. What little mention of the Turkic theory there is should be at Subartu, not this entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@UK.Akma It's also worth noting that Wiktionarians tend to use rollback for functions where Wikipedians would use the "undo" button, so don't freak out about being rolled back/reverted. Purplebackpack89 00:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you, i think i get it now. --UK.Akma (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck,

I just write because I was wondering what mistaken I made, when I added that the German funden was derived from the Latin fundo ? Having double checked on the Anglo-Saxon stuff, I might have been mistaken. I just thought that because the word funden appears in Beowulf, and there means 'found', and because Beowulf was written in Anglo-Saxon, that it seems likely that if the English word 'found' is a descendant of 'fundo', then the Old-English 'funden' would also be a descendant of the Latin. I am not a linguist, but I had a look at your talk page and it seems you are a linguist and have a great deal of experience in this, so I would obviously defer to you, and be interested in what you had to say on the matter.

Also, with the German, I had a look at the Duden and it mentions 'funden' derives from 'finden' - so would 'finden' be a descendant of the Latin 'fundo' ? Again if English 'found' is a descendant from the Latin 'fundo', it seems likely that the German word is too. Or have I got this totally wrong ?

I'm actually unsure, now that I think about it more, how to tell if a word is a descendant from another word, or not. How do we know that, say, the English word 'found' is a descendant from the Latin 'fundo', but the German 'funden' or 'finden' are not ? Is there a word book or etymological dictionary somewhere, that as a linguist you could suggest ? I'd be very keen to read it, purely out of interest.

Also if I have made a mistake of form, style, or convention, I hope you'll be kind enough to tell me what the error was, such that I don't make it in the future. I have not contributed here previously, as you can probably tell.

Thanks and take care, Pete 121.44.208.74 17:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I reverted you because you were wrong in a variety of ways, mostly from not knowing anything at all about etymology. First of all, neither German nor Old English inherited anything from Latin, nor did Old English inherit anything from German. What actually happened is that the ancestor to the Indo-European languages split up thousands of years ago into a number of daughter languages: one of them was the ancestor of Latin and other Italic languages, another was the ancestor of the Germanic languages. The ancestor of the Germanic languages itself split into more daughter languages with one of them being the ancestor to German, and another being the ancestor to English. To use an analogy, German and English are like cousins, and Latin is like a very, very distant cousin many times removed. To put it simply, all of your assumptions were wrong.

On top of that, Latin fundo isn't related to English find or any of its forms. By coincidence, Middle English borrowed words from Latin's descendent, Old French, that ended up as found, but only in the senses of founding, as in establishing the base for, and founding, as in what they do in a foundry. Anything having to do with finding isn't from Latin, but is instead inherited from the ancestor of the Germanic languages.

It's actually a lot more complicated than that, but I don't have time to give you a complete course in the history of English. If you want to learn more, you might start with Wikipedia's article on the history of English, though some of it will be over your head.

I know you didn't mean to do anything wrong, but pretty much every detail of the information you added to the entry was incorrect in one or more ways, so it was better just to revert the whole thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck,

I am unsure why you've thought that was an acceptable post. I was surprised when I read the response, because it stands in such stark contrast to my own - and I think that will be obvious, and should be obvious, to anyone who reads them. I'm surprised it is not obvious to you, and I was quite stunned, and frankly a litle hurt. Perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I don't think it is appropriate for a person of your standing to belittle an eager newcomer whose only provocation was being curious.

Would you respond the same way to Jimmy Wales, or to an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, or to your boss ? If not, then why would you respond that way to me ? Is it because you know there'll be no consequences, except a bewildered reply, when you insult a first-time contributor ?

I don't think I'm petty or thin-skinned - but I may be wrong. But I'm quite taken aback by your remarks. Having spent time reading your page and your posts, as well as your entries, clearly you're a prolific contributor and I admire you very much for it. I'm thankful, too, because I like this resource. But it is incredibly disconcerting when someone of your stature - someone who represents Wiktionary just as a journalist represents an online newspaper - responds to my friendly, modest and deferential inquiry, in a way that is unfriendly, pompous and just really condescending.

Aside from banning me outright, I can't think of a better way to actively discourage me or any other first time user from ever making contributions again. What reason would I have to do that ? To have the edit immediately deleted, and then another explanation like the one above ? Behaving like that is very effective at one thing: putting people off making contributions. I understand Wiki editors are not PR reps. But you don't need PR training to be decent and polite. When I read the post, I admit that I was irritated enough to consider cancelling my donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, something everyone in my family does. But I'm not going to do that, because I feel that would be like a demand to be treated differently as a donor, and I don't want to be treated differently.

You're the first admin who has spoken to me, and if you speak to other newcomers that way, then I can guarantee that you're tearing down the structure you've done (and continue to do) so much to build up. Very few people are going to even attempt a second contribution when their first is deleted, and you respond with the same barely concealed contempt as you did to me.

Most people don't like being insulted. Lots of people will tend to search for alternatives to Wiktionary, if they associate the website with such shabby treatment from an admin. And lots of people will feel incensed, as I did, and they'll go cancel their regular donations, and send an email explaining why. That is not unlikely. It is to be expected.

Nothing good can come from a sequence of events wherein a person eagerly contributes, finds their contribution rapidly deleted with no explanation, then when they request an explanation, are instead treated with open dislike, as if you're unable or unwilling to extend them the simplest courtesy, or respect. I realise I'm being repetitive. I'm doing so because I want you to understand that most people just won't come back if you treat them this way. They'll withdraw any support they've given to WMF, and they'll, again, look for alternatives. Possibly, it has been a long time since you first contributed, or maybe because you were a linguist, or just lucky, nobody ever talked down to you, as you did to me. But people don't like it. They won't, if they don't have to, put up with it. They won't stick around for it.

I've said enough, but I want to be clear: your response was inappropriate. It would barely be appropriate for someone who had insulted you directly, let alone someone with a real interest and keenness to contribute to Wiktionary. And I was undeserving of that, as an explanation for the deletion. Next time, if you cannot answer a users questions, then just tell them exactly why you made the deletion, and spare the remarks about their lack of knowledge, their lack of comprehension of a topic, and anything at all derisive. It serves no useful purpose,

All the best,

Pete 121.44.208.74 06:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck,

There is an elegant explanation, and some guidelines for administrators and how they should behave to encourage newcomer contributions, on the MediaWiki site. Now, I don't know whether those guidelines apply only to MediaWiki admins. But Wiktionary does use the MediaWiki software, I think, and in any case, the guidelines are just plain sensible. My hope is that you'll read them, if you haven't already, and apply them, such that another newcomer is not treated as abrasively as I was.

They come from this page, the MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook (https://en.wikibooks.orghttps://dictious.com/en/MediaWiki_Administrator%27s_Handbook/Being_a_Project_Leader)

The section I think most prudent is here, and the part I think realistically applies to all Wikimedia projects and resources, is highlighted in bold.

" need to demonstrate leadership both by showing examples, and gently trying to remind people when inappropriate content is being added. How permissive or how abrasive you are toward new users is going to have a huge effect on the growth and popularity of the project, regardless of the merits of what you do or the quality of the content."

The guide also says you can't please everybody, but a "successful leader will know when they are being abusive and need to pull back, and when perhaps they have gone too far and created too many enemies that should be their friends."

---

More suggested guidelines for administrators - and these may or may not be official policies, but in any case, are prudent and I see no reason why a reasonable person would have problems recognising their importance. They come from mi.wikibooks.org (https://mi.wikibooks.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikibooks:Requests_for_adminship) in a Request for Adminship section.

"The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wiktionary policies. Admins are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wiktionary. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wiktionary long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities."

Along with basic courtesy, and having a certain baseline level of decorum by which you deal with new and inexperienced users, I think these guidelines are very important, irrespective of their jurisdiction. Their content is what makes them important. I hope you're able to see that.

Because if you can, and if you can understand that there are no good reasons for treating a new user's first query with disdain, but plenty of good reasons for being instructive, helpful and courteous, then that would be a positive outcome. And if you can recognise that, as those guidelines state, the way an admin treats new users is going to have a huge effect on the growth and popularity of the project, then that is a positive outcome too, in my opinion, and I hope in yours as well.

All the best,

Pete 121.44.208.74 07:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

wot=new'eruh?

us-noentry

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Karaganda 62.235.177.10 10:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

   Your genders are incorrect, don't add genders for Russian nouns. E.g. Караганда́ ‎(Karagandá) is a feminine, not masculine. Cities are proper nouns, not common nouns. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC) ILSPIT4TOUT-1,1misteik,noplural2,onlicosUPPL4STEMPLEITS=2fukdup4getin3,propr-c/peror,tinki=mron(udun,butu=xseptn,ndenstil,c,dabuv,,waweistoftaim(wich=upplzpoint,rait?62.235.177.206 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Both of you, enough. Really. I know more about Chuck Entz than I do about the word "fundo", but Pete, you are not one of the people to which Chuck Entz was an proficient but unfit Wiktionarian and a total internet troll. I am. Just take a look at the "mercenary" section of the talk page. You and Chuck Entz both need to not be so easily offended. Watch out though, internet trolls are often well connected. Chuck Entz has SemperBlotto and TheDaveRoss at least, and SchroCat has at least Betty Logan and Cassianto. They'll erase any record of the content dispute, but I don't know why exactly. Just back down, Pete. Dictionaries and thesauri have contained falsehoods for as long as there have been dictionaries and thesauri, and for as long as doublespeak exists, as long as people are pretentious and hypocritical and ironic and illogical, they always will. No degree of civility or conduct disputes or debate or force will ever solve that. If you ever challenge the internet trolls that run Wikipedia and Wiktionary, you will be treated as the internet troll, as the live one, as the vandal. Also, the only reason why natural language is an unsolved problem in computer programming is because natural language is an inept farce. The only reason why I'm not a Lojbanist is that Lojban is the aftermath of a psychology experiment gone horribly wrong, known as Loglan. Wiktionary and natural language are valuable resources, but it's just not worth it.203.215.119.68 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You left out the part about your definition at mercenary being objectively, verifiably wrong. It may make perfect sense to you, but no one uses the word that way (if they do, add at least 3 examples that meet the requirements of WT:CFI at Citations:mercenary, and that will solve your problem). The purpose of Wiktionary is to document and explain how language is used, not to make stuff up that sounds right to you.

Your case is different from Pete's: both of you are wrong, but his was an innocent mistake, and he did have a point about the tone of my reply. I was very tired and grumpy at the time, and I felt it was better not to respond with something that would come across as more grumpiness. In your case, I'm probably not making my point forcefully enough: as far as I can see, you're making stuff up and lying about it, though I wouldn't mind at all if you were to prove me wrong.

As for the IP, above, that's a very complicated and unfortunate situation: he has extreme physical difficulty with typing, so he uses an indecipherable shorthand for communication, and people have lost patience with him. I'm not going to fight the entire community over this, especially since I can't understand him half the time myself. The worst part is when he makes mistakes, and his slow, painful work has to be reverted or fixed. Difficult cases like the above make your attitude particularly annoying- especially when you try to use them to justify it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I meant you, Chuck Entz, and also Pete, I didn't mean 62.235.177.206. Now on top of everything else, you're making false accusations that I'm some sort of ableist, that I would even criticize someone just because they have trouble typing. You're even accusing me of " to use them to justify it", whatever that means. That's not cool.110.55.4.90 15:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

On re-reading things, I see that you didn't mention 62.235.177.206 at all, though the location of your message gave that impression, at first glance- my apologies. Even if you had, I never said you were criticizing anyone but me. I did mean what I said about using others, even if I had the individual wrong: Pete's message was a convenient excuse for an attack. Not that I'm going to whine about it- it comes with the territory, and I've wasted way too much of my time on you, already. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chuck: thanks for your comments about handugaz and chędogi relationship. What do you think of this runes hunch in turn? Zezen (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

In case you weren't going to notice otherwise, I've just posted the following question in the scriptorium's discussion of common English words for animals:

"Do we know that chickadee was an intentional supplantation of tit, let alone that it was a supplantation motivated by prudery?"

131.92.84.38 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are no evidences to prove that "súp" is the Misspelling of xúp. Please check any notable sources. Alphama (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see what I wrote on your talk page. {{fact}} isn't used at Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What can I do if I see the wrong thing? Keep silent? Alphama (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, you use Wiktionary's procedures, as I explained on your talk page (the part at the end of the message). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding diff, I ask why? It does mean Yemen, see w:he:תימן, or is it a change/misuse to/of {{place}}? Enosh (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem is Category:Countries of Middle East, which is ungrammatical. More importantly, though, we haven't done Countries of ... categories for anything but continents. Where would it go in the category tree: if we put it under Asia, what about Egypt? I would rather avoid all of that, but it's a matter of opinion- so I'm not about to insist on anything. I'd appreciate it, though, if you would ask at the Beer parlour about the best name for the category, and how best to fit it into the category tree, since I can see the potential for a lot of similar categories with similar issues. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

So categorising as just a country. And yeah, I see how continents are problematic, I usually divide to 3 or 4 while some do 7. Enosh (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Enoshd, sorry, misclick! Please forgive me. :( —JohnC5 21:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

insted inanli+disrespctflirv:((

== nl-zekerstellen><zeker stellen ==

− − difrntmeanin?62.235.177.10 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC) (idunfinditi/bux-u=dict??62.235.177.206 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(cur | prev) 22:07, 18 January 2016‎ Chuck Entz (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (265,674 bytes) (-205)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 62.235.179.170. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.) (undo)

3:38, 26 January 2016 Chuck Entz (talk | contribs) deleted page nurkpot (Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP)

http://www.vlaamswoordenboek.be/definities/term/nurk ps-dotest'owmaniofFLEMISHDICwords=i/wt:((huKANSPEAKLEKTutink??62.235.177.51 07:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm brand new to editing the Wiktionary. I only meant to clean up a few dead wikilinks in the Israel entry, but perhaps I've done something else instead, because you reverted them. I apologize if I'm being an annoyance. Are those dead links necessary for translation? Even if that's so, why would you re-deadlink the word "Jezreel?" I don't mean to be contrary, I'm just new and I'm not sure I understand.TheCensorFencer (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@TheCensorFencer: Those aren't dead so much as potential links that haven't been created yet. Despite not being created, they are still valid if correct, and thus should remain in the entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck, Would you mind If ask you about the original reasons of your obsession about Iran and the Persian language? Do you remember your obstinacy on ignoring the etymology of "Gotarzes"? X.goodarzie (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This isn't really about Persian, it's about maintaining general standards across languages- I would respond the same if someone tried to make a Swahili entry in Assyrian Cuneiform. I'm sure you're very knowledgeable in all thing Persian, and I know I'm not- but you're not giving any thought about how your edits fit in with the rest of the dictionary, and with how other Persian editors have been doing things around here for years. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

cur | prev) 21:31, 28 January 2016‎ Renard Migrant (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (287,555 bytes) (-112)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 81.11.220.20. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.) (undo)

something is wrong with you... --Horsesongrassland (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a problem with the word?

Jdogno2 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. You seem to have made it up. It has some very rare usage independent of you, but I'm not sure if that's enough to meet the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion. Not only that, but you basically copied everything from godforsaken, so the definitions don't match what little usage there is. We're a descriptive dictionary, so it's not a matter of what might make sense, or might be a good word, but what is actually used in the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

"It has some very rare usage independent of you,...": Which is?

Jdogno2 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Power and Authority is not necessarily the same thing. Power is more accurate to refer to either physical, mental or emotional might of some sort. Authority is more accurate to refer to legal or political positions.

Jdogno2 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

""Powers" has a legal sense, too, and authorities isn't the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck,

bölcsész in Hungarian means philologist and bölcselő and filozófus are equivalents of philosopher in Hungarian. Same goes for bölcsészet (=philology) and bölcselet or filozófia (=philosophy).

Sources:

• Angol-Magyar kéziszótár (English-Hungarian dictionary), 1992
• I'm a native speaker of Hungarian by the way.

Oppashi (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not doubting whether bölcselő and filozófus are the primary terms for philosopher in Hungarian, nor whether bölcsész means philologist. It's just that the Hungarian app on my computer says that bölcsész means philosopher, and the definition at hu:bölcsész starts with filozófus, and the entry at hu:filozófus lists "bölcs, bölcselő, bölcsész, gondolkodó" as synonyms. In other words, bölcsész may not be the best term for philosopher, but are you sure that it can't mean philosopher? Ever? Besides, the definition was added by User:Panda10, a native Hungarian speaker with a solid track record around here. I was more concerned with the loss of the old information than with the quality of of the new information (I wouldn't know about the latter). Chuck Entz (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's weird because a lot of dictionaries say that philologist means nyelvész (=linguist) also some people say that bölcsészet is faculty of arts in English, although it's not a literal translation but a poetic phrase for the 7 liberal arts. Most of the universities in Hungary use the phrase faculty of humanities for bölcsészet so things got mixed here. Although it's obvious and sure that philosophy is filozófia or bölcselet in Hungarian and philosopher is filozófus or bölcselő (and not bölcsész, because it is not the same). Oppashi (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

How many of the articles I created have you deleted? Because their history doesn't even appear on my list of contributions anymore. Thus I have no way to know which ones were disagreed with by someone else.

Jdogno2 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

"One of a bunch of ineptly-constructed made-up (and mostly-speedied) terms by the same contributor, but this one has a couple of Usenet hits, so I felt it deserved consideration here.: Excuse me? What do you mean by, "One of a bunch of ineptly-constructed made-up (and mostly-speedied) terms by the same contributor,..."?

Jdogno2 (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong with this word?

Can I have an explanation? Please?

P.S. Sorry if I have said some things in anger shortly around this point in time but I was hoping that I would get an answer to a previous query concerning a disagreement about a word and I have yet to get it and more things have happened since.

Jdogno2 (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I don't take stuff like that personally (especially in this case, since my statement was pretty tactless). The problem with this one is that I couldn't find anything in Google Books or Google Groups/Usenet that used the term and, given the weird capitalization, I doubt anyone would ever think to use it spelled this way. It's not enough to have something that makes sense based on similar words: this is a descriptive dictionary, so we go by actual usage as specified in our Criteria for inclusion. This isn't Urban Dictionary, where you can just make stuff up. As for which of your entries have been deleted: if it's no longer in your contributions list, it's been deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck,

I trust this message finds you well. I noticed that you recently rolled back an edit for the word "dodgebow" on january 31st 2016. I represent Sports DodgeBow Inc. and I edited this page for the reasons provided in my edit summary. The use of dodgebow as a common word is incorrect. This word has come into use as a result of Sports DodgeBow Inc.’s extensive branding and trademarking efforts. Furthermore the use of “archery tag” as a synonym to “dodgebow” is also incorrect as “archery tag” is a registered trademark in many countries. Yes they are linked, but a more accurate description of this link is the fact that they are two brands that provide similar goods and services.

The incomplete/inacurate wiki page harms Sports DodgeBow Inc.'s intellectual property assets by genericizing Sport DodgeBow Inc.'s trademark. Please reconsider this rollback and do not hesitate to reach out for further information or discussion. Feel free to visit www.dodgebow.ca and navigate to our website's contact page to get in touch for more information.

Thank you, 174.89.209.213 04:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)AdamReply

I reverted your edit because it turned a dictionary entry into a heap of legalese. I fully understand your concern, but we're a descriptive dictionary: if the usage is there, we document it. In this case, I suspect that this hasn't entered the language as a generic term, so I've submitted it to Requests for verification, where people will look for usage that meets the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion. If they don't find it, the entry will be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

unoit???????81.11.219.30 01:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with your adding a West Flemish entry. The reason I reverted your edit was that you mangled the Dutch entry to do it. First of all, are you sure that the term has never been part of modern Dutch, even as an archaic or obsolete form? If you're not sure, add a section, don't replace the old one. Secondly, simply replacing all of the instances of "nl" with "vls" won't work if there's a template called {{nl-adv}}, but not a template called {{vls-adv}}. I'm surprised you didn't notice the big, fat "Template:vls-adv" redlink where the headword was supposed to be. On top of that, The language sections after English are supposed to be in alphabetical order, so West Flemish should have been at the bottom of the page, after Welsh. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid you lost me -- was your reply directed at me (as the indentation currently makes it appear), or someone else? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

At Carl Daniels. I'll have to check the indentation. If you've seen Monty Python's Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook sketch (linked to by that phrase), the connection should be obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• My nipples explode with delight. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see you deleted an Ancient Greek entry I've created. Well, I know nothing about AG and I've seen this saying used in some songs and other artistic works involving themes of spirtuality and demons, but I didn't know what kind of Greek it is. Then I googled it and found out it appears to have a ritualistic use in the Greek Orthodox Church, whose liturgic language is Koine Greek, a form (or dialect) of Ancient Greek. I'm sorry for creating an entry on a language I really didn't know nothing about, and spelled wrong, but I didn't get what's the relation of this to the policy of sum of parts you pointed out. - Alumnum (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I mostly took your gloss at face value, since I knew the component words of the phrase approximately corresponded to the parts of the translation. That would make it a phrase explainable by the parts. After looking more closely, though, both παντός (pantós) and κακοδαίμονος (kakodaímonos) are genitive singular. Now, ἀπό (apó) governs the genitive, so that's understandable, but "all evil spirits" would be plural- so something's not right. Also, I'm not sure how παντός (pantós) κακοδαίμονος (kakodaímonos) would be the thing to go away, and not the thing to go away from. I'm not that great at Ancient Greek, but this doesn't seem to make sense- I suspect something is garbled. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your comment at User talk:Mr. Granger#Reported vandalism:

• "Calling people vandals is about as ad hominem as you can get around here" - It was not like I started to call them that way without reason. I tried to discuss the issue, and in the end couldn't think of any other place than WT:ViP. It's not my fault that the admins didn't want to discuss the issue or didn't hint me to better places where to discuss the issue, but only replied with reverting and an ad-hominem.
• "but other admins have weighed in, so there's no need to bring it up there" - Yeah, they "weighed in"--with an ad-hominem, and that together with the reasonless reverting was a reason for brining it up there.
• "so your concerns will be considered by people" - I had and have serious doubts about that. I think it's more likely that if I didn't revert and report the "vandalism" nothing would have happened. And it's not like I wanted to revert and report the vandalism, which is also proved by my attempts to discuss the issue.
• "We have active admins who are native speakers, and at least one non-native who is a linguist that works with German at a professional level" - (a) It wouldn't be surprising if the non-native has less knowledge. (b) Some of these admins have a 1996-etc.-reform bias. For example see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/June#Deprecated_German_spellings. If Dan Polansky hadn't intervened (and e.g. by "As for the above claim that certains spellings are "vitually not used" proved a claim wrong), they would have spread their bias in that case again.

But I didn't want to discuss that old stuff, but ask this:

1. Why was no admin able or willing to hint me to a better place to discuss the issue? I mean, instead of reasonlessly reverting or using an ad-hominem argumentation they could have simply said: "Please discuss the issue at <right place to discuss it>". That would be easier and friendlier.
   • Are there too many discussion places and talk pages that even some admins don't know the correct place where to discuss an issue?
   • Aren't there any admin guidelines stating that admins should try to reconcile and help instead of reasonlessly revert (or even block)?
2. What can be done, if an biased admin pushes his POV? Neger for example (a controversial term indeed) was edited by an admin and blocked from editing. But:
   1. The block wasn't justifed. Yes, the "undiscussed drive-by changes" were undiscussed. But the changes were no vandalism (but rather having a different opinion), and same is true for the earlier and later changes, including the edits done by the blocking admin. So, it's like the admin applied double standards. The blocking admin, for example, could have reverted an older change and ask to discuss further changes, or before changing the entry in his way and blocking the entry he could have started a discussion.
   2. Recommendations for additions and changes were ignored (see the talk page).
3. Why does it take so long until an unblock request is reviewed? See: User talk:84.161.42.126. The edits by the user might be doubtful and I could even understand it if an admin incorrectly thinks that the edits were just vandalism. But that is no justification for not reviewing the block or not trying to discuss the issue.

-84.161.36.211 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi ,some sentences sound bitter , like " please don't send no more etymologies " , i can't believe it , it sounds dictatorship , ok i don't send no more , a lot of what i contributed already are on "etymology dictionary online" or pokorny or vasmer etymology...why should i send ?, nobody knows me anyway just by a username... ok i don't send no more Manooch (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Chuck Entz.
As for the chang at diff: nonstandard means "Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers." (Appendix:Glossary#S). While it's true that the majority of German book publishers and newspapers uses spellings with ss instead of ß and while spellings with ss are the only correct forms in schools, there was and is a majority against the reform as polls show (like this one from 2011), and many people (especially older ones who learned the unreformed spellings) still use the unreformed spellings. Do you have any source that shows that spellings with ß are nonstandard?
Also, please keep in mind that the entry includes {{U:de:deprecated spelling|1996}}, that is, the spelling is marked as unreformed. Whether or not it's standard could than be disussed elsewhere. (I wanted to post this ealier, but some error occured, sry.) -Nýr (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is the matter? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: There were a few categories with module errors when the parameters were removed, so I reverted the removal until it could be sorted out. In the case of Quechan, this category was overlooked when the language was renamed to Yuma. I have now deleted it. The other ones are due to the code failing to properly parse the name of the French Sign Languages family in the pagename. I'm guessing that's due to "Languages" being an integral part of the name rather than added, as it would be for, say, the Germanic languages (code "gem"). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind telling User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV that edits like this where he removes my comments and leaves everybody else are unacceptable and ABF-y? For the life of me, I don't understand why he thinks it's OK to say mean things in edit summaries of pages I've edited YET he REFUSES to allow me access to his page. Either he gets a full interaction ban with me (i.e. one where he is forbidden from changing or commenting on anything I do anywhere) or no interaction ban at all. Purplebackpack89 17:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’m not completely disallowing your access to my talk page. You are free to post comments that concern my acts as an editor and as an admin. Your latest was unrelated to me and didn’t contribute anything directly relevant to the discussion.

. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What does a personal attack by an IP from 2014 have to do with the price of eggs? Also, Ungoliant, there are plenty of similar edits to mine made by other editors that you haven't removed. You clearly treat me differently than other editors, Ungoliant, and it's clearly in a manner designed to tick me off. Purplebackpack89 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think you misunderstand his motivation: he's gotten to really dislike reading your comments, and would rather not see them on his talk page, if he has a choice- even innocuous ones such as the last one. It may be irrational, it may not be a valid reason to remove your comments, but it has nothing to do with assuming bad faith or with eliciting any sort of reaction from you. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

He reacting that way, to the point of deleting a comment and thinking nothing of it, is very immature. We trust this guy with a mop? Purplebackpack89 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Considering Ungoliant's good record on Portuguese contributions, I think we should trust him with his mop. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In German, the word "Schebe" means "debitage (waste material produced during the process of lithic reduction and the production of chipped stone tools, i.e., stone chippings)" and it is also related to the German word "Schä­be" meaning "wood shavings".

From Dudenː the woody particles of waste material resulting from flax and hemp production

Aus Dudenː bei der Flachs- und Hanfgewinnung entstehender Abfall aus holzigen Teilchen http://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/schebe Mountebank1 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That may be, but your edit made the link to Schebe read as debitage, which is wrong. You need to click "Preview" before you click "Save" so you can avoid making such errors. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will make sure to keep that mind in the future. However, the main point I was trying to make with that edit was that the English word "shive" and the German word "Schebe" mean roughly the same thing which isː "a particle of waste material". Also, I think thatː "it is, somehow, in some way, related to the beam sense above". I could expand on that if 't be your wish. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/shive#Etymology_2 Mountebank1 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please stop reverting edits as you have done here with a "generic/copy-paste" edit summary. Did you consider doing a little Google search before reverting the edit? --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Consider reverting your own edit. --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Read your talk page. It had nothing to do with the information, just how it was presented, and whether it was necessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for replying so fast. Much appreciated. It took me some time to find your earlier revert, I don't really visit Wiktionary every day.
  Anyway, following general courtesy I have not reverted your last revert. Now, the word "Bangalored" got a new meaning, see 'Bangalored' gets a new meaning, Bangalored - Recently Added In The Dictionary. The term is "Bangalored"
  PS. I did not add the {{T|Wikipedia}} template. --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

As soon as I hit revert (which doesn't allow for customized messages, by the way), I went to your talk page to explain, so I had a head start, but it took me a while to compose the message. As for the "new meaning": Bangalored didn't get a new meaning- it didn't exist. The use of Bangalore as a verb only arose to express the "outsourcing" meaning. The form Bangalored is nothing more than the past participle of the verb Bangalore. It's true that past participles can be used like adjectives, but the quotes at Bangalored show that this is a verb. As for the {{wikipedia}} template: you didn't add it, but you did move it to a "See also" section, where it looked really strange. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I disagree. That's a word. See Macmillan Dictionary, WorldWideWords, Reference.com.
  About Wikipedia template, I did not move anything manually, I reverted an edit.
  About edit summary "As soon as I hit revert (which doesn't allow for customized messages, by the way)" -- I don't know why you can't add customized edit summary. Are you using any tool? --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Tito Dutta, re: the edit summary, admins see an additional rollback link when viewing page histories or diffs. Clicking this immediately rolls back the last set of edits by the last editor (be it one edit or more), and it automatically inserts the edit message that you saw: “Reverted edits by . If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.” This message cannot be edited.

Re: the existence of Bangalored as a word, Chuck is not disputing the existence of this word. He is instead disputing the adjective-ness of this word, from the perspective that this word (which we all seem to agree exists) is a verb and not an adjective. If you are interested in discussing the part of speech for this word, please see the Tea Room discussion here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

* Thanks for your reply. I'll check when I'll get time. Regards. --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it was right to rollback wasn't, we only had one quote for the contraction so other ones were useful.

Alternatively if you are going to remove them from that page them please at least create an it wasn't me phrase page to locate them in to recognize the uniqueness of this phrase. 184.145.18.50 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a descriptive dictionary, not a repository of interesting quotes. There's a lot more to the usage for wasn't than a series of repetitions of basically the same thing. This pattern of allusions to previous famous usages may be interesting, but it's not dictionary material. If we had infinite space, we might include it along with all the other usage examples- but we don't. We need to show quotes representative of the whole range of senses (first priority), and representative of different regional and historic variation. Not all of that is going to fit in the main part of the entry as it is, so some of it will have to go in the citations tab. There's simply no room for your stuff. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

When is Wiktionary going to run out of room? What’s the limit? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not room in general, it's room in the small area where it's convenient for people to view quotes in the entry. You could have literally a thousand quotes in the Cites tab, but if you have more than 3 under a particular sense it starts to run off the page and people are less likely to bother with it. You may be able to fit a forest in there- but don't expect people to see the trees. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’m curious, do you think that there should be a limit on how many quotes the Citations sections can have? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not really. It's more important that they be well-organized and well-formatted so readers can easily navigate through them, see the patterns, and find what they're interested in without eye-strain. I just don't see anyone spending enough effort on a citations section to make it too big- citations are very time-consuming if done right. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well said, Chuck. The limits that seem to matter are:

1. what fits on a single screen
2. what fits in human working memory

Sometimes we have headers with so much content that it doesn't all fit on a typical screen. Usually such content is at least in alphabetical order or some other appropriate order. Ideally citations are in date order for each definition (or each grammatical point being made). But we still don't want to waste space on nearly duplicate material. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert this edit? The sense actually looks plausible to me, but the formatting was a bit amateurish. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me like it was a rather forced way to define the same meaning as the other sense, i.e., a person. I sincerely doubt there is a sense of this term that specifically applies to neanderthals, but not to australopithecines. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but I don’t see why it can’t be both substantive and pronominal. Old French had a similar case. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying there's no possibility of it being a noun- but it would need a completely different definition. Like I said, the delimitation of the genus is a technical matter of interest to anthropologists/paleontologists, not a determinant of colloquial Scots usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

He recently returned the taxonomic definition, but his user page says that he’s a native speaker of Scots, so he presumably knows what he’s doing. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 07:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

S’il te plaît, explique‐moi cette révision. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

A mistake due to thinking I knew the etymology of the word when I obviously didn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chuck, why are you deleting the old redirects when moving from the Appendix to Reconstruction? I am strongly opposed to this, as there is no potential conflict in doing so, and it ensures that links across the internet to such pages are not turned into deadlinks. I mentioned this before and nobody opposed leaving the redirects, as far as I remember. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, hadn't thought about it. I've actually been moving the redirects, not deleting them. I didn't think it was a good idea to have a double redirect, so I moved without leaving a redirect. I won't do anything more with redirects until this is sorted out. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't like leaving redirects everywhere, so I support deleting them. —CodeCat 02:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean the double redirects; those should indeed all point to content pages no matter what. But I mean having the old content pages redirect to the new ones. CodeCat seemingly opposes this on aesthetic grounds, which seems silly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That does put a bit of a wrench in things, because CodeCat's automated links leave the redirect box unchecked, and I don't want to be constantly reminding myself to check it. I'll find something else to do while this sorts itself out. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it's Burek U Svemiru (talk). Thanks for taking the time to introduce me to the site. I do apologize for the rookie mistake I make with the accolo page, but I’ve read through the guidelines and intend to edit things properly from now on.

Now that I’ve read up on all this however I still have a few questions. The Latin prerequisites on attestation confused me, to be honest. I’m not sure I understand what exactly it's looking for. As I understand it if I run across a word in Caesar or Livy (for example) that’s not on the Wiktionary, I have to cross-reference it first with one of these:

1. Paulus Diaconus’ epitome (AD 8th C.) of Sextus Pompeius Festus’ epitome (late AD 2nd C.) of Marcus Verrius Flaccus’ encyclopaedic dictionary, De verborum significatu (ante AD 20) — See {{RQ:Paul.Fest.}}.
2. Nonius Marcellus’ De compendiosa doctrina (early AD 4th C.)
3. Isidorus Hispalensis’ Etymologiae (circa AD 600–625)

Is this correct?

So if I were to take a simple, well-attested word like "Helvetius" from Caesar and make an entry for it, would this be violating the rules? Its use is probably very concentrated on a few sources (namely Caesar), but in those sources its use is widespread.

Also, just because I’m very new at this and still wrapping my head around the formatting, would you mind if I sent you a template of a hypothetical entry for Helvetius just to see if I’ve got it down? I’d like any further contributions I make to this website to be done correctly, but I don’t want to bother anyone either. Here’s my attempt:

---

See also Helvétius

From Gaulish -elu ("gain, prosperity") and etu- ("terrain, grassland").

Template:la-adj-1&2

1. of or pertaining to the Helvetii; Helvetian
2. (substantive) a member of the Helvetii

Template:la-decl-1&2

• Helvetius in Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879.
• Stifter, David (2008). Old Celtic Languages p. 14
• Xavier Delamarre (Éditions Errance, 2003). Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise , pp. 162 and 168.

---

Thanks again for your help. :) Burek U Svemiru (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, Latin only requires one example of usage or a mention in an agreed-upon source. Also, it's only actually required if someone challenges the existence of the word or sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, You removed my edit and I believe that is an error. The word "Jesus" is the anglicized word for the Greek, which comes from the Hebrew words meaning "God (Yahweh) is Salvation". I thought I had left a note on the Discussion page, but apparently I did not: "God saves" is the meaning of Yeshua/Jesus. Dictionaries usually include meanings so I added it. Why did you remove it? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=37439336&oldid=37437901 Galahad879 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Jesus" doesn't mean anything, it's the original Hebrew term that may have a meaning similar to what you said (similar in that the "Yah" part of the name is usually translated as "the Lord" in the Christian literature). It's a bit more complicated than that, since either Yeshua or Yehoshua could be transliterated as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), and, if I understand it correctly, the first is closer to savior in meaning and the second probably means "the Lord saves" (my Hebrew isn't good enough to sort through the particular grammatical forms that could be involved). The only thing that's beyond any doubt is that the Hebrew root for "save" is involved somehow. At any rate, your addition was a factually-untrue oversimplification and was tacked on at the end instead of being integrated into our normal etymology structure, so I reverted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

"God saves" is the original meaning of Yehoshua/Jesus, in the original Hebrew tongue. In English, it means nothing. Hope I answered your question. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually neither יֵשׁוּעַ (yēšū́aʿ), nor יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (yəhōšū́aʿ) really mean anything literally in Hebrew. The former is a contraction of the latter, and the latter is probably a modified form of the name הוֹשֵׁעַ (hōšḗaʿ), which is the m.sg. imperative of "save", with G-d's name artificially "injected" into it. I guess you can call it a blend. Alternatively, that could be a folk etymology and it could really be an older form of "he saved" or "he will save", with an inexplicable u-vowel, that just happens to start with the same letters as G-d's name. Additionally, Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs) is a translation of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (yəhōšū́aʿ), not a transliteration. As a translation, it is derived from a transliteration of יֵשׁוּעַ (yēšū́aʿ), with a nativized Greek suffix (which is unusual because most transliterated names are indeclinable). It was probably used as the Greek name of actual Jews named יֵשׁוּעַ (yēšū́aʿ) or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (yəhōšū́aʿ) at the time and not created just to translate the Bible. A direct transliteration of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (yəhōšū́aʿ), with the same nativized suffix, would have been something like **Ἰωσοῦς (**Iōsoûs). Feel free to use any of this to improve the etymology section. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

i think its corect ;)

Thank you for your responses. I see this article includes English, Afrikaans, Norwegian, German, Portuguese, Swedish and Faroese, and yet there is no section for Hebrew, or anyplace where a common understanding of the Hebrew word from which the anglicized word "Jesus" comes. Even a baby name dictionary will usually have word meanings. I am new here. If there is a link one of you would give me to clarify your protocol on how and where word meanings are used, I would appreciate it. Galahad879 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hebrew is written in the Hebrew script, so the relevant Hebrew entries are at יהושע and ישוע and ישו. --WikiTiki89 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Baby-name dictionaries (even when they aren't full of really bad amateur guesswork, like most that are available on the internet) are for explaining the origin of the names in the language they're written in. They don't have Hebrew entries to refer readers to, so they say: "this name means..." as a short-hand way of saying: "the original form of the name, which was in another language, meant...". As Wikitiki89 says, the Hebrew terms are in the Hebrew script. Those entries would benefit from something explaining that the names came from the verb (or at least from its root), but I'm not quite sure how to do it properly without making our knowledge of the details seem more certain than it is. I knew things were more complicated then my understanding of them, so I hedged a bit in my statements above- with good reason, as it turns out. The popular biblical references are full of glib oversimplifications, old theories refuted centuries ago, pious wishful thinking, and just plain bad information- you have to be really careful when you use them. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking time to respond. In Webster's and other dictionaries there is usually a brief derivation at the end to give an idea of how the word came on its journey and what its original meaning, simplified, is believed to be. It is usual in many dictionaries, and being new I clearly do not understand your etymology system. I agree the entries would benefit from something, but I don't know how to do it. Galahad879 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary says only:

Late Latin, from Greek Iēsous, from Hebrew Yēshūaʽ

Oxford Dictionaries says only:

From Christian Latin Iesus, from Greek Iēsous, from a late Hebrew or Aramaic analogous formation based on Yĕhōšûă‘ 'Joshua'.

We already give much more information than that. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No offence Chuck, but in your attempted simplification of the Scots definition of "bodie", you altered the meaning completely.

I don't know how anybody could misread "Genus Homo" as anything other than, well, the genus called "Homo". "Person", on the other hand, means "An individual with rights an responsibilities under the law", or (in fiction at least) "Any sentient or socially intelligent being".

Don't get me wrong, as an almost exceptionless rule, "bodies" are all people, (except maybe the Tasaday of Indonesia, no language or culture of any kind), but scientifically speaking, we can not make bodie or human a prerequisite for "person".

I hope that I've made my point in a way that comes over as, if not friendly, then at least "not like an arsehole".

John Gordon Reid (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, "Genus Homo" is a taxonomic term used by scientists, and is based on scientific criteria. In addition to modern humans, it applies to neanderthals, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, w:Homo habilis, and several other species. I know Scots are no more ignorant than the next European, but I'm skeptical that they would pay attention to the differences between hominins and australopithecines in deciding whether to use the term bodie. If you mean that bodie refers to human beings, just say that. Don't bring in scientific terminology that you don't understand.

By the way, the stories about the w:Tasaday people (who live in the Philippines, not Indonesia) being isolated relics from the stone age are wildly misleading- their language is quite typical of the other languages of the area, so they can't have been isolated for more than a few centuries. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think your deletion of the IBM-employee sense "IBM employee" is in error. I originally added it to "beamer" (lowercase), with the 3 required usage examples. Someone suggested it should be moved to 'Beamer" (initial cap) because all but one documented usage was for "Beamer". I agreed and moved it there. 207.47.24.11 06:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right. The quotes of the lower-case spelling don't belong in the entry, but that's not a reason to remove the whole thing. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Feel free to restore your edit, but please take out the quotes that don't match the entry's spelling. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you ever check your mail? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not nearly often enough. I checked just now, and only saw the usual notifications of talk-page postings. There are a couple of older emails from others where I wasn't sure how to respond since I didn't see them until a loong time after they were sent. Have you sent me anything lately? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes I did. I’ll just reproduce it here: please hide this. NOW. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Gone. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Hopefully he didn’t have enough time to show it off to his friends (assuming that he has any). --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’m seriously considering applying for adminship, if only so less of other people’s time is wasted cleaning up bullshit like this. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

(this one might be innocent, but it’s useless in any case). --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please explain. Though I can understand that perhaps a hyphenated word may not count as a single word for inclusion in this list, I was using what seemed to have been the accepted form on Wiktionary as opposed to the plural of kneehigh, which appears to be listed as a variant spelling. Would I mistaken in believing that if the use of the hyphenated form was inappropriate, then the correct response would have been to remove them and not to immediately revert—or is there a different reason for the revert entirely? 2602:30A:2C5E:7760:2490:B00C:7C9B:8D38 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rhymes:English/aɪz is only for terms that have the accent on that syllable. This term has the accent on the first syllable. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for informing me. That makes a great deal of sense. Do rhyme pages exist here for non-stressed syllables, where my addition would have been appropriate? 2602:30A:2C5E:7760:2490:B00C:7C9B:8D38 23:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, they're all based on the stressed syllable. There are multisyllable rhyme entries with the stressed syllable and all following syllables included, such as Rhymes:English/aɪənt. Now that I think about it, kneehigh is actually stressed on both syllables rather than on the first- it still doesn't belong at Rhymes:English/aɪz#Two_syllables, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much again. I'm curious if this page would be appropriate, perhaps? 2602:30A:2C5E:7760:2490:B00C:7C9B:8D38 07:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that's a no? 2602:30A:2C5E:7760:2490:B00C:7C9B:8D38 01:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

That looks very strange. I'm going to have to see what others think. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What's the point of it? What's wrong with Rhymes:English/aɪ-? --WikiTiki89 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems you have undid and deleted a revision of mine at the Template:R:tut-pro:SDM. A link, http://m.friendfeed-media.com/e279ca37a835dd7c0f7a711e0aaf3413ff22342a , has been added into the template in the revision. Although that link looks like a spam link, it's actually the link to the PDF version of the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages and has nothing to do with spammer, so there's definitely no point to make an edit history deletion. Please undelete the edit history and, unless you have a better link to the original dictionary, recover the link. Thank you! Happy editing and be more careful in your future anti-vandalism job :) --216.165.95.66 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• The link I added, was found in Google and contains no index section of the dictionary. So if you do have a more complete one please add the better one. --216.165.95.66 00:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I reverted and hid the edit because that looks like the kind of website where people upload files that they got from behind paywalls so that others can view them for free. Unless whoever uploaded it had the right to release it for free to the public, we can't post the link here for copyright reasons. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

    As a Wikimedia editor one is not supposed to guarantee the accuracy and genuinity of an external source, nor should one delete page history of all pages having link to external material which might be potentially inaccurate/infringement. If such thing should be done, the entire Wikipedia would be melted down and basically no page can survive from it. I am not familiar with Wiktionary policy but according to Wikipedia policy, only copyright infringement in an article (not articles containing external links) needs to be removed. --146.111.30.193 18:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck - I was wondering if pages are archived on the Wayback Machine - does this count as "durably archived"? Thanks - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, because they can be removed by request of the site owner. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I'm being a bit over the top, but here's what I don't like:

1. Equinox has assumed from the very beginning that this was SoP, even though it's not very clear to me he's really bothered to investigate the term
2. Had you created the exact same entry and not I, Equinox would not have RfVed it.
3. Having to pour over words that use allied arts once is fine, but twice seems to be asking too much, especially if asked by a person who's done it zero times
4. The whole mixing of RfD policy and RfV policy
5. The fact that nobody other than I seems to give a damn about fixing it or not, and seems to be perfectly fine with the entry dying, even if it's fixable. That smacks of NOTHERE.

Purplebackpack89 17:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

**pore over —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

1. Of course he assumed that. Otherwise he wouldn't have challenged it.
2. Perhaps. But you have to deal with the rfv on its own merit.
3. Not really. If your efforts didn't turn up enough adequate cites, that's not his fault. As for the other point: looking through Google Books isn't the same as selecting cites and presenting/entering them.
4. I can see his point: if the given meaning is just a coincidental artifact of the context, it's SOP. If, on the other hand, it's used in ways that show it has that meaning independent of context, it's not.
5. To start with, it's not their entry, and once this escalated into a confrontational big deal, it's understandable that they wouldn't feel like helping you out. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a rather old discussion, but in response to "having to pore over words asking too much, especially if asked by a person who's done it zero times", I just want to point out that PBP is equally free to challenge any entry that I create without citations. Since I create more entries than he does, he should have more chances to get me! Equinox ◑ 03:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your distinction between the Old English noun form and the verbal lexeme bǽdan (to defile) is important - I exposed my ignorance in my earlier response. In future I shall leave answers to questions to those more adept at PIE etymologies, such as Angr, Leasam, Ungoliant and yourself, to name but a few, since I specialize more in Celtic and pre-Celtic, the latter of which is not from PIE. My editing is now concluded after Blacksche's last question. Kind Regards, Andrew H. Gray 11:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Andrew

I feel that it's rude to not be able to change a picture in an article. I changed the picture, because I found that the new one was better. Chad Michael Murray is not just caucasian, He's of polish, German, Irish and Swiss-German descent, he's biracial, so I added a picture of an actual complete white man. And the gold point of the wiki is to be able to change things anyway. Zhyboo (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Polish, German, Irish and Swiss-German are all Caucasian, so he is still Caucasian. But, in my opinion we don't need to have nine images on one page, especially when some of them are illustrating the same sense. --WikiTiki89 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree we are going overboard with pictures in some places. Having a picture of a Bible at Bible makes sense, but not (IMO) at swear on a stack of Bibles. Equinox ◑ 17:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chuck you are really getting on my nerves. Who do you think you are! We are all editors of the wikis, so we shouldn't have to each other for anything, what's your problem?! I don't mean to be rude, but we're suppose to work together to edit things that need to be edited Zhyboo (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Quit trying to cause drama, leave the images as they are. - TheDaveRoss 21:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Zhyboo: repeating problematic edits is not a good idea for any editor. You are at serious risk for losing your editing privileges at this point. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

why do you keep ereasing the cognate i add to the entry in question? it's relevant as much as the other cognates stated there. it is correct, and i say that as a hebrew linguist. i do have a user, but prefer to edit anonymously.

and as a side note: even if you think it is wrong, i would expect someone who cares about wiktionary to write to the anonymous user that is clearly addind info and explain why his contribution was deleted. this kind of behavior is basically why i stopped editting with my user.

It's nowhere near as relevant as the others, because it's a borrowing. All the others on that list of cognates inherited the word from a common Germanic source.

We spend a lot of time undoing vandalistic and problematic contributions; we simply cannot leave a message for every well-intentioned contributor who makes an edit that we have to undo. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) It's not a cognate. Hebrew didn't inherit it from a common source as the English word. It borrowed a Yiddish term which is a cognate, but since the Yiddish term is already in the etymology, there's no reason to include the Hebrew term. Would you list English shalom in the cognates for Arabic سلام? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The close up shot of the fair-skinned person isn't good enough for the white person definition and I wanted to add something with the actual color, white, such as white milk, snow, etc. Just to show what the actual color white looks like, please add the pictures back just to make it better, that's all I want! This is very disappointing Zhyboo (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are too many pictures on that page, and you keep adding more. I don't agree 100% with everything -sche did, but we don't need clouds or snow to show what the color looks like, and I would rather have no picture at all than to have you changing things to match your own peculiar idea of what a white person is. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz, may I ask where I can find this "Citations tab"? By the name I'd expect it to be next to "Discussion" or "Read - Edit - History", but there is no "Citations". Greetings Boðberi (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Every entry has one, right next to "Entry" and "Discussion" on the left side of the top of the page. You're looking on the right side. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it, the Citations tab is one of the last things that's added as the page loads- you may not have waited until the page was fully loaded. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The page was fully loaded. Is it a javascript gadget? I know that wiki pages can behave differently if javascript is enabled, but I don't have it enabled. Boðberi (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

That explains it. Yes, it's added by javascript. You can access it directly by putting Citations: in front of the entry name, for example, Citations:hydrogen. You might want to enable javascript for the site, because our commons.js does quite a lot and you won't have a clear idea of the results of your edits without it. Chuck Entz (talk)

OK. Thank you very much. Boðberi (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Entz! He hold back in second grade, he definitely has repeated the first grade. À la 雞 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

"He hold back"? That doesn't make sense, and it's definitely not grammatical English. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

He definitely has repeated the first grade. À la 雞 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, the sense in question is transitive, with the object being the person who is caused to repeat the grade. you can't say "he held back", unless it's followed by something indicating who he held back. Secondly, you don't seem to understand how it works: a student repeats a grade after they have been held back- being held back prevents them from progressing to the next grade.

Oh, and as far as your edit to Arab: I have a hunch you're wrong in the PR and IPA parts, but I'm not well-versed enough in the finer points to be reverting people over such things. That said, you changed 'long "a" sound' to 'stressed "a" sound', which is incorrect: both pronunciations have the first syllable stressed. The difference is that the first vowel in the standard pronunciation is treated as being in the same syllable with the r, resulting in a different vowel quality (it sounds like "air"), while the second syllable is reduced because it isn't stressed (it sounds like the second syllables of words like "cherub" and "scarab", as opposed to the potentially-offensive pronunciation having the first syllable being an open syllable that rhymes with "day", and a second syllable that's equally stressed with the first one and rhymes with "cab". The current usage note isn't quite right, but your version is completely wrong.

If you don't want to get permanently blocked again, you need to stop editing things you know nothing about. Given your long history of bad edits under your other accounts, you need to be on your best behavior to keep from having your current ones meet the same fate. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’m surprised that you think that you more about Mr. Entz here. Native adults do make mistakes at times, but if they deny your corrections, chances are, you are in the wrong. Also, I’m not sure if you are conscious of this, Chuck, but ‘he hold’ might be acceptable in AAVE, since the 3rd person conjugations are optional there. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but I don't think a speaker of AAVE would use the term this way, and this is a Cantonese native speaker in Quebec, which isn't known for its AAVE-speaking population. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am assuming that by ‘this way’ you are referring to the awkward sentence that the OP gave, right? Or is it just a sense at hold back? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was referring to the awkward sentence, especially since it was using a transitive verb sense as intransitive. The fact that he got the meaning all wrong just made it worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why did you do this reversion? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=coat_check&oldid=prev&diff=37972193

The see also page has more and more accurate translations, and linking would prevent scattered data from getting out of sync. Perhaps even the entire page can be linked.

I have no problem with the {{trans-see}}, but {{see}} is designed to be put at the top of the page to show words that are spelled exactly the same except for capitalization, diacritics, and the like. It doesn't belong between the headword and the definition. We have a very specific format (see WT:EL) so entries are uniform and people can find things easily.

What I would suggest is a Synonyms section with cloakroom as one of the items, along with coatroom, and any others you or I may have missed.

It may not seem like it, but I do appreciate your efforts to improve the entry. I patrol a thousand or more edits every day, so I unfortunately usually don't have time to leave a note, and the rollback tool doesn't allow customizing of the edit comment. Sorry for the disruption. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ve_haf_vays_of_making_you_talk&oldid=37967389 I this rollback is in error ;) . I did give proper sources, though unfortunately I couldn't get the citation template to play game. Please clarify. Mikalra (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong on ""? Bartel1977 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Bartel1977 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

• http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wilson

Hello! I've heard /ˈwɪlsʌn/ at this dictionary, it's wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

/ˈwɪlsʌn/ is wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The schwa, "ə", is very close to "ʌ", so some dictionaries treat them as the same sound, but they're definitely distinct. The "ə" is what you hear in many syllables that are reduced due to losing the accent. For instance, the verb progress has /ˈprɑɡrɛs/ but the noun has /prəˈɡrɛs/. When "ə" is followed by a sonorant such as "l", "m", "n" or "r" in a closed syllable, this often is pronounced instead with the sonorant becoming syllabic and the vowel disappearing altogether, as wɪlsn̩ (that's the pronunciation in the entry's sound file). See w:Stress and vowel reduction in English. If Wilson were really pronounced as ˈwɪlsʌn, there would be no difference in vowel quality between will son and Wilson, which sounds rather stilted to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

In fact, some Americans pronounce it . Fête Phung (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Do you think that you could set up an adminship election for me? There’re already a lot of people who like the idea, but I forgot how to set one up. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I'm not any better than you are. I've never set one up. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that’s fine. Maybe @Daniel Carrero, -sche can help us? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Buried after a bunch of other text, in the third drop-down menu at WT:V ("Starting a new vote on this page"), is a set of buttons, including one that says "start a new administrator vote". It does most of the work for you, once you type the username of the person being given the mop into the box right above the button. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

All right, I made it. It may require some cleanup. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Entz! /ˈdʒævlɪn/ is also correct. Fête Phung (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck,

Your recent rollback of my edit was in error. Further, it was a misuse of rollback, in my understanding. I included an edit summary that explained the edit and the reason that the bad-iw tag was triggered. The interlanguage link from וכו׳ on en.wikt to וכו' on he.wikt is correct; the difference (and resultant bad-iw tag) is due to Hebrew Wiktionary's using a different-but-equivalent punctuation mark. For this reason I'm going to revert your rollback. If you have a substantive disagreement with my edit, please let me know so we can discuss it here or on the talk page. --Wrelwser43 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it wasn't. We're well aware of the differences between Hebrew Wiktionary's entry-name formats and ours, but the rules are the rules: it has to be character-for character identical. Feel free to create a redirect on Hebrew Wiktionary from our spelling to their spelling, but don't add interwikis to any spelling other than that of the entry itself. Besides, even if I left your interwiki in, it would be removed by the next run of the interwiki bot. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, you know, that didn't even occur to me. Thank you for letting me know about those rules. Cheers! Wrelwser43 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that when I add a word in a new language, they do not always add to a category. However just now, I added кижи of Altai and Tuvan and the categories became added automatically. I apologise for the inconvinence but was not able to figure from the help pages how the category can be added... Can you help? 天人了 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The categories are added by templates. When you include the {{head}} template, it uses the language code and the part of speech to add the language-specific lemma/non-lemma and part-of-speech categories. Language-specific headword-line templates (see Category:Headword-line templates by language) function like {{head}}, but fill in some of the parameters for you. In etymologies, the {{etyl}}, {{der}}, {{bor}}, and {{inh}} templates add derived-, borrowed- and inherited-term categories. Some, but far from all, of the other templates add categories. See the documentation for the various templates for details.

Also, don't forget to put a line consisting of 4 hyphens "----" between language sections when you add new ones (that was done for you at кижи). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! 天人了 (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

• http://forvo.com/word/sausage/#en

Hi Mr. Entz! Artypolarbear pronounce it , this pronunciation is correct or wrong? 162.247.127.42 14:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, your IPA is a bit too narrowly phonetic for an entry. As for the pronunciation: there are people in England who pronounce it that way, so it's certainly not wrong, but I'm not sure how we would deal with a regional pronunciation when we don't know any details as to its distribution. I'm sure someone from England would recognize it and have more to say, but I can't say more than that it's from somewhere in England. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the word basket, is correct or wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Where did you (either you or someone else on Wiktionary) find a source for demideity? Which website?

Jdogno2 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see our Criteria for inclusion. It's not a matter of authoritative references, it's a matter of verifiable usage- we're a descriptive dictionary, so if there's no usage to describe, we don't include the term. There are rules about how we determine something is in use, and what constitutes usage, but that's the basic principle. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

How did you verify that the term was in use?

Jdogno2 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) In practice, I check the two most comprehensive searchable collections of durably-archived works, Google Books and the Usenet part of Google Groups. Our CFI specify at least three independent durably-archived uses (not mentions) covering a span of at least a year. The last requirement can be temporarily suspended for terms that are too recent to span a year, but have sufficient usage to make it likely that the term will still be in use after a year. If you read the discussions at WT:RFV you'll be able to get a better feel for how the rules work in practice. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The reason I am asking for the sources is because another editor is not convinced the term is an already established word. Is it possible to have the sources if it is not too much trouble?

Jdogno2 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I check for usage before I decide whether to delete a new entry that seems like it might be a protologism, but I don't save the results. If I didn't delete or rfv the entry, that probably means I found at least a few examples of usage in Google Books or Usenet messages in Google Groups, so they probably exist. If you want to protect your entry from the possibility of deletion, you'll just have to look for them. I suppose you could rfv the entry, but if nobody takes the time to search for verification, that will guarantee that the entry is deleted- so I wouldn't recommend it. Besides, everyone around here is a volunteer and there's lots of verification work that needs to be done, so it's not a good idea to even give the appearance of wasting anyone else's time.

In general, it's always a good idea to check before you create the entry. Looking for the quotes isn't that hard, as long as you don't have a term that's similar to a common word or phrase, or is similar to one when you take into account OCR errors (we call them scannos). The most important thing is to enclose your expression in quotes, so you're searching only for your term and not for everything that Google decides is sort of similar. I'll give you a link to a search on "demideity" to start you off: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22demideity%22&num=100. If you want to do more sophisticated searches, you can go to https://books.google.com/advanced_book_search?hl=en. As for Google Groups, they discontinued their advanced search, so I can only suggest doing your search at https://groups.google.com (here's a link to get you started: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22demideity%22).

Once you find your quotes, you can add them to the citations page for your entry (you can even do this if the entry itself doesn't exist). I don't deal with quotes very much, so I can't really give you much advice on formatting. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is 7:00 PM diena or vakaras in Lithuanian language? What is the range of the time words "diena" and "vakaras"? 139.195.29.244 14:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't know that. In general, I think that giving specific times in most time-of-day entries is a very bad idea, because it implies a level of precision that isn't there. If two people are speaking Lithuanian somewhere that the sun sets at 7:30 PM their use of diena and vakaras is probably going to be different from the same people's somewhere that the sun sets at 5:30 PM.

In English, noon is the border between morning and afternoon, so 11:59 is morning and 12:01 is afternoon, but that's originally based on an observable change in the direction of the sun. Likewise, midnight was originally the midpoint between sunset of the previous day and sunrise of the next one, so 11:59 PM isn't morning, but 12:01 AM is. When you start to get into distinctions between afternoon and evening, and between day and night, it becomes much more subjective and variable.

I suppose Lithuanians could be unique in regimenting their use of every time expression to the minute, but I sincerely doubt it. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, given the sunset is after 8:00 PM (which is true in Vilnius, Lithuania from around 5 May to 10 August), is 7:30 PM still "diena"? I think diena will be from 10:00 AM to 7:59 PM, and by the way, is 10:00 PM vakaras or naktis? 139.195.29.244 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. You would have to talk to a bunch of Lithuania speakers, who would, I suspect, give you a variety of different answers, especially varying from one time of the year to another. Pretending that everyone who speaks Lithuanian pays attention to the exact time to the minute when deciding whether to use diena or vakaras is ridiculous. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is the syllabification of "Chaitra", using spaces as the syllable breaks? 139.195.29.213 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the best person to ask about that, since I took Sanskrit almost thirty years ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Syllabification of Indonesian word "Citra" (please use spaces (space bar) to divide the syllables). 139.195.29.213 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't speak Indonesian, but, given the location of your IP, I gather that was a rhetorical question. Why are you asking? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Which one is the correct syllabification of "Ciabatta" (using spaces)? "Cia bat ta" (dictionary.com) or "Ci a bat ta" (thefreedictionary.com)? 139.195.29.213 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The second one is obviously wrong for my pronunciation, at least, but I have to ask again: why the quiz? Are you editing any of those entries? Are you trying to make some kind of point? Or are you just trying to harass me? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the picture http://www.zarasu15.lt/files/pirmas_aukstas.jpg, the label is first floor but the room number is second floor (starts with 2). Why? So, the label is British floor numbering and the room number is American floor numbering? 139.195.29.64 01:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know nothing about Lithuanian floor numbering, but I would caution you against reading too much significance into the room numbers on a single floor plan. You do seem to have a tendency to jump to conclusions based on minimal data, which can get you in a lot of trouble, not just here, but in real life. Not every piece of raw data means anything by itself Chuck Entz (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The difference can be seen in all floor plans in http://www.zarasu15.lt. The label nth floor has n+1 as its floor number. 139.195.29.64 01:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

But that tells you very little about the general practices throughout Lithuania. Maybe this one company has its own eccentric numbering system. Maybe this is one of a number of numbering systems. Maybe there's some other factor that isn't obvious from reading floor plans on websites. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday, I was in an American residential building which spanned a city block where all the rooms had 4-number identification system:

• The first digit: The face of the building the room was one (1 = South, 2 = East, 3 = North, 4 = West)
• The second digit: The number of the living floor you were one. The ground floor of the whole building was entirely shops, and in some places the floor above that was occupied to. So, whichever floor above the ground floor contained the first level of apartments received the number 1, and then continued from there.
• The final two digits: Uniquely identified a room within a cardinal-direction-living-floor sector.

This mean that at one point I walked around a corner and went from 1156 to 4201. Some buildings have odd numbering. —JohnC5 05:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your rollback on wentelteefje was in error, and you would have known this if you had read the comment in the etymology section. If you still doubt this, all Dutch etymological dictionaries agree with me on this matter.

The problem I have with your edits is the verbose, un-dictionary-like style of the etymology. I've taken the matter to the Etymology scriptorium to see if we can come up with something that's correct, but doesn't ramble on for three paragraphs. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please don’t respond to him, just report him here. I oppose ableism as much as the next lefty, but his accusations are simply inappropriate here. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- special interest should not be deleted. I am familiar with your SOP policy, and special interest is not a sum-of-parts term. The "special" in "special interest" no more leads to a predictable meaning than the "special" in special education does.

"Special interest", is the accepted, established term for this Asperger's phenomenon, as you can find by googling it (I'm sure we could find ample citations for it), even though there's nothing intuitive about using the adjective "special" to describe this -- "obsessive interest" or "all-consuming interest" -- or even "Asperger's interest" -- would be more straightforward. If anything, it is less SOP than dirty cop, which nobody seems to be questioning.

It also has the even less intuitive synonyms, special interest area and SIA.

At the very least, this should have been taken to Entries for Deletion instead of being speedied. Xeroderma Pigmentosum (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this as a formally-used alternative, a direct descendant from French tachymètre. of course, it's more of an international (as opposed to U.S.) variant.

So since this is just anecdotal evidence, is there any difference between a variant and a misspelling (re: a napron becoming an apron)?

VocabHelper123

Ergo was edited to fix a false definition.

Hi, you have rollback my contribs in the article thymoma.

I have add some translations of "thymoma" : what kind of errors have had made ?

(Please : sorry for my english, I'm not native english speaker.)

--Newnewlaw (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You copied the whole thing from the entry at Wiktionnaire without attribution, which is a violation of the Creative Commons license for both sites, and in the process you made a mess of the Arabic. Please stick to languages you know or have good sources for (wikis aren't considered good sources for our purposes). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have noticed that you have marked my edits to dislike as Graffiti/Vandalism and went as far as changing their visibility levels. I know I have been disruptive before, but this time I meant well and I feel like my sample sentence fits the definition.

You're right. I see a lot of edits where someone inserts the name of someone they know in an example sentence in order to embarrass them, and, not making the connection, I assumed this was just one more. My apologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz, I think it would be proper in accordance with the Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition to make the amendment of the removal of "historical" of such term as a non-hitorical & thus not even a necessity to include such notation of the terms hisorical status. x8BC8x (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Chuck Entz.

• I guessed that that was the reason and first removed all quotes and added them later. Maybe the alert would be better when it had a note like "If you want to add many citations, please add them add Citations:entry."
• Well, there is need for much citations at etwer. Without citations there could be people who doubt the declension. So it would be good to have at least one cite for each form. As there are eight form, that would mean to have at least eight cites. Compare with beide: "beider Hand" (both hand) is nowdays uncommon and "beide Hände" (both hands) is nowadays used. Without cites even many natives should doubt the existence of "beider Hand".
• Seeing for example wer#Inflection and jemand#Declension, I doubt that there is a template.
• Wandelstern: When "Planet" and "Wandelstern" are synonymous, then they mean the same. So when there are eight "Planeten", then there are eight "Wandelsterne". A Google snippet from the 20th century even has "neun Wandelsterne (Planeten): Merkur, Venus, Erde, Mars; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptun und Pluto.", accourding to google. But the added cites should be good enough to remove the number "seven".
• faxed: What's the problem? What I added was part of the cite. Reasons for adding that part: (a) In the text "'faxed' star" rather is a mentioning than not a usage. (b) See the questioned etymology at fixed star. The cite supports what's written there even though the cite is older and information in the cite could be wrong.

84.161.61.22 03:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, You reverted my Spanish translations for "speak volumes", why? I know the English phrase well and the Spanish translations are quite accurate and often used

It wasn't the translations, it was what you did with them:

First of all, the {{t-needed}} template is only used to request a translation, not to add one. With the Chinese translations, you made it worse by using "/", which made the system think that your translation was part of the template name.

Second, the template you should use, {{t}} requires a language code- in this case "es". It would then look like {{t|es|su traducción aqui}}.

You can avoid having to know that by using the thing that says "Add translation" inside the translation box. You type "Spanish" in the first blank and your Spanish text in the second one. It comes up with the right template and puts it in the right place for you.

Third, you need to do a separate translation for each phrase: the idea is that you're creating a link to an entry for your translation, and putting them all in one translation separated by semicolons just creates a link to a nonexistent entry for all the phrases separated by semicolons habla por sí solo; no puede ser más elocuente; lo dice todo is better than habla por sí solo; no puede ser más elocuente; lo dice todo.

In this case, though, we wouldn't really want entries for all of those, because they're ordinary phrases and you would want people to go to the entries for the parts, rather than having an entry for the whole phrase. In that case you would put square brackets(]) around the parts you want to link to, for instance {{t|es|] ]}}

Fourth, you should have put your translation in with the other translations. Even if you wanted to have a separate translation box, a {{trans-bottom}} without a corresponding {{trans-top}} above it does nothing useful.

Finally, you really need to look at the entry after you click "Save page" (or better, click "Show preview" first so you can fix things before you click "Save page"). Your Japanese translation displayed as "Mandarin: Template:t-needed/很有意义，含义很深", and your Spanish translation displayed as "Spanish: please add this translation if you can]". It should have been obvious that something was seriously wrong.

All the templates and other bells and whistles we use really help to make very sophisticated and useful entries, but they're hard on new people. I'm glad you asked instead of going away mad (which would have been understandable), so I could explain things. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. Thanks for your message in my Talk age. I'm indeed not unfamiliar with editing Wiktionary and the Wikipedia, although I'm not a heavy editor and help is always welcome. Could you clarify why did you undo my update to the Spanish article rija, with informatio from the Academic dictionary? Thanks! SimonPerera (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It had nothing to do with the content, but everything to do with the formatting: under the Noun header in the Spanish section, you put {{head|pt|adjective form}}. Two serious errors: "pt" is the language code for Portuguese, and "adjective form" doesn't match the part of speech of the Noun header. With those parameters, the entry would be categorized in Category:Portuguese non-lemma forms and Category:Portuguese adjective forms (not a big deal, as it just duplicates the Portuguese section), but not in Category:Spanish lemmas or Category:Spanish nouns/Category:Spanish adjective forms (which would be a big deal). To correct this, you need to either change the header to Adjective, the template to {{head|es|adjective form}} and the definition to something to match the part of speech if you meant it to be an adjective form, or the template to {{head|es|noun}} if you meant it to be a noun. I should also mention that using {{lb|es|obsolete}} would have the same appearance on the definition line, but would also categorize the entry in Category:Spanish terms with obsolete senses, but it's up to you whether to do it that way. Feel free to re-add your content, but with the corrections I noted.

I reverted you because I wanted to make you aware there was something seriously wrong with your edit, but I had no time to explain the first time, and very little time to explain the second time. It would have taken more time than I had then to fix your edit, and there was a real possibility that you would have continued to make similar mistakes requiring similar amounts of time to clean up each time, so I took the best of the options I had at the moment and reverted you. Sorry for the confusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask why you changed the etymologies of these entries? DerekWinters (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Sorry that sounds rude in text but it was meant with a much more curious and benign tone. DerekWinters (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The reason that I changed them was that Category:Gujarati terms derived from Old Gujarati had a module error that seemed to indicate that our system treated Old Gujarati as a variety of Gujarati. Looking farther, it would seem that Old Gujarati isn't an etymology-only language, and {{derivcatboiler|gu|inc-ogu}} works fine. It would seem that I was fooled by a bug or quirk of {{auto cat}}. I've now reverted all of those edits, and I'll try to be more careful next time I run into such a problem. Sorry! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see. No problem. Thanks for going ahead and changing them all back! DerekWinters (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=thug&action=history --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 01:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with their interpretation: if someone is African American and someone calls them a thug, that doesn't mean they're using thug to mean African American. They may be falsely implying or even stating that all African Americans are thugs, and they may be flat-out racist, but they're using thug in its original meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Helle Mr. Entz! It's correct to write Yes, I am., is it necessary to say yes? Fête Phung (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

That was an example of a short sentence with the "yes" to be inferred from the context. Adding the "yes" defeats the purpose of the example. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

referring to this edit: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fuller&type=revision&diff=34496575&oldid=34495997

there is no source that identifies any sense of 'fuller' to rhyme with e.g. 'sculler'

the comparative adjective, tool, and occupation all rhyme with 'puller' as far as I am aware.

Thanks, Moogsi (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

For me, all of those words rhyme- and none of them has the sound you changed it to. More to the point, the audio doesn't match your IPA, either. There's nothing wrong with adding a different pronunciation, but removing a pronunciation is a different matter. At any rate, it's all moot since I reverted myself in the next edit so the IPA and the rhyme IPA would match. Though, if I have time, I may go back and split it properly into two pronunciations. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck, i was wondering if you have or still have yet to read my post on SemperBlotto's talk page in response to your comments? Also if you saw my 'In Detrimentum Animi' post on your talk page & how I think the term should not be labled as "historical" & if it's really necessary to include if it's specifically "applied to the breaking of a sworn oath" or any other situation of a legal violation, & your opinion//comment on such? = ) x8BC8x (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I corrected a misspelling ("origin"), and after consulting half a dozen dictionaries added a clarification. You reverted this simple edit, without any explanation, and even left the word misspelled, as so: "Originally thieves' slang, of uncertain orign." https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tip&oldid=prev&diff=34287704&markasread=3671211 My change said "1. Of uncertain origin. 2. Originally thieves' slang, of uncertain origin." My explanation of the change says "Corrected spelling error. Clarified different defs' origins. (I consulted 7 major dictionaries, none of which had a clear origin: AHD, MW, OD/OED, CD, CED, MD.)" It's been a while, but I think the abbreviations I used mean: AHD=American Heritage Dictionary, OD/OED=Oxford Dictionary/Oxford English Dictionary, CD=Collins?, CED=?, MD=Merriam-Webster? Misty MH (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I doubt any of those 7 major dictionaries would have inserted anything like that in their etymologies. As for our formatting: we don't have numbered lines in our etymologies, and your #1 was just a restating of what was already in the etymology, which would just make people wonder what the numbering and repetition were supposed to mean. Thank you for noticing the typo (which I fixed right after the revert, 9 months ago), but everything else was unnecessary and just made things worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck, Hello. I'd like to ask which source helped you decide to revert my change in this entry (I had removed the suffixed comparative/superlative forms and left a link to a google book that stated they do not exist in the English language). Your rejection of my edit made me quite curious, so I looked it up. No grammar book or big dictionary in my possession, or at the office, lists anything similar, therefore, it is implied that this adjective only has periphrastic forms. As I enjoy learning, I'd appreciate it if you shared the knowledge. Thank you. Ebonyeyed (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

We're a descriptive, not a prescriptive dictionary. That means we describe the language that people use, rather than the language that grammar books or other dictionaries say they're supposed to use. It's true that selfisher and selfishest are much rarer than the forms with more, but they do exist. If you search Google Books, there are more than enough examples of usage for both to pass our verification process.

That's not to say they're "good" or "proper" English: I think the label we would use is "proscribed". That means that authoritative sources say they shouldn't be used, though a lot of people wouldn't notice anything wrong if they heard them. See our Criteria for inclusion for more information. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why have you reverted my edit without any explanation? Belamp (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The rollback tool only has a generic message, which explains the "without any explanation" part. As for the revert: our entries are case sensitive- Borken is not the same as borken. If you want to make an English entry for "borken", that's fine, as long as it meets the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion. Be especially careful of the use-mention distinction: saying it occurs as a deliberate misspelling of "broken" isn't the same as using it as a deliberate misspelling of "broken". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not the English wiktionary's fault if the Hebrew wiktionary lacks the entry. — This unsigned comment was added by ElNuevoEinstein (talk • contribs) at 15:56, 15 June 2016.

{{t+}} is used when the corresponding language's Wiktionary has an entry for the word. {{t}} is used when it does not. It has nothing to do with whether it is a correct or incorrect translation. Also note that we give Hebrew verbs in the 3rd person masculine singular past tense, not in the infinitive (so it's נִכְשַׁל, not לְהִכָּשֵׁל). --WikiTiki89 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't edit much here, so I'm not sure if I did something wrong. What was the reason for reverting that addition to political correctness? The edit summary didn't mention. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I wasn't able to leave a comment. Basically, the problem was putting a Swedish word as a synonym in an English entry. Synonyms, derived terms, etc. have to all be the same language as the entry. We do have a translation section, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha, thanks. I'll redo it correctly. -- Beland (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi!
I saw your undone to my change to the page blow.
Well, my German monolingual dictionary "Duden" say that "blasen" is "to make somebody ejaculate thorough fellatio". The correct form for "to fellate" is "jmdm einen blasen" (not "jdm") (is was really hard to me to learn those german forms, I suppose that "einen" is a kind of polite prunom for the penis".
The Italian word "spompinare" is the carbon copy of the Finnish "ottaa suihin" because "spompinare" is a verb derived from "pompino" and "ottaa suihin" is derived from suihinotto (even if very many Finnish men do not know this thing.)
Thank you!
--Einreiher (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that {{t}}/{{t+}} link to entries, and we do not want entry names on English Wiktionary to include German abbreviations like jdm, jmd or jmdm (except the entries for the abbreviations, themselves, of course). You need to look through the German entries and talk to editors who work on them to learn how to formulate the translations so that clicking a redlink they generate won't create an invalid entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I understand, I see. So, "jmdm" is "jemandem"; there are already several entryes with this word as the first ones.
I have taked a look at the voice "blasen" in the German wikidictionary and, indeed is not specified the precise use of that verb for that acceptation.
I do not know enough German coulture to say if specify those forms coud hurt a German or not; also I think that "blasen" is enough, in fact there is not a lot of difference (i did not knew the acceptation who I wrote abowe, I was thinking that "blasen" meant only "to play a wind instrument"). People interested at to know deeper can search in the "Pons" dictionary.
Thank you.
--Einreiher (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

What source(s) of information do you use for type species of genera. I use Commons (or WP) because of its ease of access, Tropicos, AlgaeBase, MycoBank, WoRMS, and Mammals of the World for their areas of coverage. I'm not clued in to similar sources for non-marine arthropods, protists, etc. I'm willing to make rule-based guesses, but only if the guesses have a high yield (>98% ?) of correct selections.

Any thoughts, advice? DCDuring TALK 12:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

A few of the references I've used in the past for arthropods: Butterflies and Moths of the World, World Spider Catalog, and diptera.org, but it's hard to find anything comprehensive for a lot of the taxa. There's also this, from my old stomping grounds at BugGuide.

In a pinch, there's the brute force method of Googling the generic name with the author abbreviation and seeing what comes up. Either you find a reference, or you find a bibliographic reference to the original description and track down an online copy (though not all of the earlier original descriptions have type species- those are often assigned by later authors).

A lot of the time, though, Wikipedia lists type species. Have you looked through Wikispecies for that kind of information? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of course I use Wikispecies. I just forgot to mention it. I have actually found that Commons is often the best place for me to start because they often have type species and more often have NCBI link (which usually has a good list of links) and other useful links. I try to reduce the number of places I have to go to get the site-specific ids for the taxa I seek and for the other information I use in the entries.

Thanks for the arthropod links.

What did you do at Bugguide? I must admit that I have a hard time warming up to arthropods (and to viruses, bacteria, and protists). Give me algae and even liverworts any day. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was one of the editors, which is the equivalent of our admins. I started there because I wanted to know what species I had around my home My brother and I had planted a wide variety of native plants, and we never used pesticides, so there were an astonishing variety of arthropods there for a 50 x 100 suburban lot. I'm not an expert on arthropods by any means, so I did a lot to add such information as I could. Among the things I added were etymologies and publication information, though Unicode wasn't universal enough in those days for me to do the Ancient Greek properly (I used HTML entities, which are extremely primitive for polytonic Greek).

When my mom died, we had to sell the house and I moved into an apartment, so I pretty much dropped out. Then I got involved here, and I knew I wouldn't have time to be active both places, so I decided to make a clean break of it and I haven't gone back. It's a good site, though, and there were a lot of good people there (I'm sure there still are).

As for arthropods: they represent the greatest biodiversity of the non-microscopic flora and fauna just about everywhere you look, and a great deal of that biodiversity is poorly known or even unknown. I remember reading about an expert on (I think) phorid flies who discovered a species new to science around his home every time he moved to a new city. It's just about the only taxonomic group where you can be an explorer of uncharted territory without leaving home. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are a man of many parts.

We recently had a burst of activity from DTLHS adding material here, working from Bug Guide. We have a template, which could stand some improvement in terms of properly citing them, for referencing the site.

On the Fomes page they clearly point to the Portuguese fome fomes.Dbeathamwiki (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The {{also}} template at the top of the page is strictly for typographical variations in things such as capitalization, diacritics, and even sometimes a different script. Everything else is to be dealt with in the body of the entry.

I noticed that you referred to a bracket fungus in your edit comment. We don't have an entry (yet) for the genus of bracket fungi (it would be Translingual, not Portuguese, by the way), but that would be spelled Fomes, and the reference in the {{also}} template would be placed at the top of the fomes page, not the fome page. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Chuck, I was wondering why you reverted my adding. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The referenced meaning is just one of its contextual interpretation. The literal meaning must be stated. And a cross-cultural equivalent is beneficial to avoid a lack of depth. Nevertheless, do not remove everything. JaijetJasmin (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The referenced meaning is the kind of definition that dictionaries give. Literal meanings are nice, but usually misleading for anything that's idiomatic. As for removing things: you shouldn't be adding them back, especially the "cross-cultural equivalent". Whatever that is, it doesn't help anyone learn anything about what the Tagalog phrase means- it just superimposes some academic agenda on plain speech. If I were to choose a cross-cultural equivalent, honesty is the best policy seems like a much better fit. "All's well that ends well" has nothing to do with honesty, friendship/relationships, how long things last, or any other aspect of the Tagalog phrase that I can see. Instead, it basically means that no matter how things started out, no matter what was done wrong, no matter how bad things got, the only thing that matters is that everything came out right in the end. The two sayings basically have nothing in common, and all the references and footnotes you keep adding don't change that. Wiktionary is strictly about language as it is used, not about the significance any reference work, scholar or research paper attaches to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello? Do you blow me off? I replied to your message at my talk page.--Kyoww (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, you replied to Eirikr's message. Eirikr is usually very busy and doesn't always have time to reply right away. I'm sure he'll reply in the next few days. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well... I feel ashamed that I mistook reverse path. I'm so sorry...--Kyoww (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't think at all that you're in error, but I just don't know which rule one has to follow with the use of italics, and I am asking the favor to explain it to me. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It had nothing to do with rules. The whole point of the {{wikipedia}} template is to link to a Wikipedia article, and your edit made the template link incorrectly. To do it properly, you would need to do the italicized spelling as a third parameter. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

We have a fair number of taxon entries that have as vernacular names the followed by a name beginning with a possessive (Pallas's/Pallas' ). This seems unnatural to me and doesn't seem to correspond to the most common actual usage. Before I launch a search-and-edit mission against these, I'd welcome your opinion. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

As an entry name, that would be wrong, but simply referring to it in a definition as "the Pallas's sandgrouse" is quite normal in some contexts. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Should our standard style for such names have "the" or not? I personally don't like it and Google n-grams show the Pallas's sandgrouse to be less common than the bare name. But I haven't done extensive research on the question. The WP sandgrouse articles for w:Burchell's sandgrouse, w:Lichtenstein's sandgrouse, and w:Pallas's sandgrouse are slightly different, the Burchell's article omitting "the", the Pallas's article including it the first time, omitting it thereafter, the Lichtenstein's article using only once, with "the". The "the"-less form seems to be more common at Google Books, but there are many reprints of the same few Victorian magazine articles. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure we need a standard style for this. It's a very minor part of the format of the entry, and most people won't notice it either way. Do we really need to burden contributors with more fussiness about minor details? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would only be burdening myself. I'm not asking it of others. I'm happy if folks use {{taxon}}, {{taxlink}}, and {{taxoninfl}} at all and don't ask that they conform to any standard. This would be the same. I hope that others would notice, agree, and conform, but I don't expect a high degree of notice, agreement, or conformity. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Nice catch. I hadn't even seen the other etymology, apologies. Thanks! Somnacea (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. I am querying why stoga cigar was moved to stoga without any redirect - since now if someone wants to find "stoga cigar" they cannot. You are right to have put in stoga as an entry, but we still should have "stoga cigar" as that is a valid lexical item and meets cfi. (https://www.google.com.sg/#tbm=bks&q=%22stoga+cigars%22) Is there something I am missing? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Stoga cigar is attested, but SOP. As context, you may notice that we have an entry for panatela, but not panatela cigar. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

panatela notwithstanding, I don't agree stoga cigar is SOP. If so "stoga cigar" (as attested) would literally mean "stoga cigar cigar" which it does not. Instead "stoga" is just a shortening of "stoga cigar" - and the two terms are synonymous. The SOP of "stoga cigar" is "a cigar of (Cone)stoga". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

re: "if someone wants to find "stoga cigar" they cannot." This is false. The consequence of not having ] is that a user would be "confronted" with a "failed search" page that had only ] on it. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's right. But it is not very user-friendly. And when I do it on my computer I cannot see the ] part of the page without scrolling down, so that's even less user-friendly, and could lead to someone either deducing (incorrectly) that there is no information on the term, or that they should create the page, which is what is suggested they could do. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Entz! In fact, 終歸 means eventually. 206.180.250.57 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to add the translation back if you format it correctly. If you just restore the mangled version with the parameters jumbled together, I'll revert it again. You need to check your edits and fix them when there's anything wrong. By the way: the "sc=Hani" hasn't been necessary for that template for years, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, and it does no harm. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey. This guy isn't me. --Turnedlessef (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You never are, are you? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You added a really strange variant: diff. Are you sure that Kuseng exists and that it is proscribed? The Duden site (http://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Cousin) doesn't even know that variant (http://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Kuseng). Neither does DWDS (http://www.dwds.de/?qu=Kuseng) whereas Cousin is known (http://www.dwds.de/?qu=Cousin). --94.220.58.167 18:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

See here, here, and here. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tip article https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/tip

Why would you revert my changes when the word "origin" was misspelled. I corrected that, and clarified that both 1&2 were of uncertain origin. Certainly a worthy edit.

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tip&oldid=prev&diff=34287704&markasread=3671211

Misty MH (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

See the answer I gave above when you asked about this a couple of months ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it took me quite some time to add those translations so I wonder... why did you revert them?

My edit https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE&diff=prev&oldid=38950087 was reverted, but I had a source https://otvet.mail.ru/question/2365064 which I mentioned in the edit description.

There's also "Можно добавить, что со временем "девять-дО-ста" преобразилось в "девяносто" ("путем диссимиляции согласных; второе "д" было заменено на "н", могло повлиять и слово "девятнадцать" " - указывает Лев Успенский) см. ниже комментарий" (source: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/17679/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82-%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE) and also Othersoninion's opinion here (http://otvet.expert/pochemu-devyanosto-a-ne-devyatdesyat-484409): "Лингвисты до сих пор не знают точно, почему в русском языке за числом 90 закрепилось название девяносто, а не девятьдесят, ведь в праславянском языке было слово *devętь desętъ. И откуда вообще взялось это "девяносто". В старославянском языке было слово девѩтьдесѩтъ. В других славянских языках число 90 тоже называется словами, где есть "девять" и "десять": dziewięćdziesiąt в польском, деветдесет в болгарском, devadesát в чешском и так далее.

Слово "девяносто" впервые встречается в текстах в XIII веке. Но это не значит, что до того оно не употреблялось. Некоторые лингвисты предполагают, что "девяносто" изначально на Руси употреблялось в девятиричной системе счёта и означало число 81, а после заменило собой неудобное в произношении "девятьдесят"."

It seems that the word девяносто replaced the Protoslavic девѩтьдесѩтъ for sure, and the word was replaced with something like "10 from 100", which changed into the current form.

The origin of the word is slightly unclear, but not a total mystery. We have actual evidence of how the word came to be, so my edit should at least be undone, if not expanded upon. 8.40.151.110 19:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your addition didn't really make sense: why change the first part to something else, then change it back to almost the same thing through some kind of "mystery" process? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but your explanation didn't explain anything, and such an odd transformation would need a good explanation to be credible. If anything, a change to the second part of the compound would be more plausible, since a dissimilative change of "d" to "n" isn't unheard of (not that I think it's likely- just less unlikely).

I don't speak Russian, so I could certainly be missing something- feel free to ask for a second opinion at the Etymology Scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there was anything inherently wrong about that explanation. However, I did find a more convincing one given in Vasmer and have added it to the entry. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks. Maybe a brief explanation on why Russian uses девяносто and not *девятьдесят? That was the first thing I wanted to know. The current etymology doesn't really make this clear. It seems to describe the formation of *девятьдесят and not девяносто. 8.40.151.110 00:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it's clearer now. What I was trying to say is that the term is inherited from the PIE equivalent of "девять + десят", except that it went through some sound changes that made it look different from its individual components. In West and South Slavic, the compound was re-formed from the individual components, making the compound transparent again, but in East Slavic the old opaque compound was retained. --WikiTiki89 00:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is possible that the end of the word was altered under the influence of сто, but I don't have a source for that detail. --WikiTiki89 00:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That might have been the case. Perhaps maybe influenced (the Russian users that I stated above suggested *десять до сто (10 from 100) as a possible etymology, but maybe people over at the Etymology Scriptorium could find more detail regarding whether this is really the case for Russian specifically or if it is pure speculation. 8.40.151.110 03:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not an expert, but this seems to be a terminological confusion, so frequent in linguistics, when the same phenomenon gets diverse names. The passival reflexive form was used in the Shakespearian language and up to the 19th c., it is a salient property of English in historical perspective, and if it is not a terminological confusion, it belongs there. Regards, Barefact (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ignoring for the moment the stray "notable univocal feature that" fragment that found its way in there somehow, your added sentence/paragraph did nothing to help readers understand what the phrase "middle voice" means (for that matter, it didn't really help readers understood what the sentence itself meant), however relevant it might have been to the general subject of the middle voice. Encyclopedias are about subjects, dictionaries are about words and phrases. In case you haven't noticed, this is a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was a bit perturbed when my empty Latin section at the chalcis entry disappeared from under me while I was typing, but I fixed it. If you want to check it over, it is mostly done. I'm a bit uncertain about the choice of declension template .... Tibfulv (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I moved your comment to the proper place. For future reference, you should click "Show preview" so you can check your work until you're finished, at which time you can click "Save page". I've seen cases where people abandoned unfinished edits and they sat there for years, so I took care of it right away while I was thinking about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Æþelwulf ‎ (Chuck Entz moved page Aþelwulf to Æþelwulf: Misspelling)

That was not a mispelling, it's a different form of the name. UtherPendrogn (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could be. It's just that I wasn't able to find anything at the time other than references in English to people whose names were spelled with "Æ" elsewhere. Bosworth-Toller, for instance, has Æðelwulf but not Aþelwulf (I looked here, here and here. If you can find references, feel free to replace the redirect with an alternative form entry. Just don't move it back, because Æþelwulf is by far the most common form. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

https://simple.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Athelwulf_of_Wessex UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

We don't accept wikis as references. Even if we did, that would qualify as one of the "references in English to people whose names were spelled with "Æ" elsewhere" that I mentioned. This is an Old English entry, so it needs references that specify how it was spelled in Old English. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, it's not necessary to restore {{etyl}} for terms from language families. As you see here, {{der}} works just fine if you omit the |= when a language family rather than a specific language or proto-language is given as the source. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's good to know. I converted the template in the first place because it had a module error- but that was apparently caused by the hyphen. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why you removed the word "purgatory" form "Gehenna?" It happens to be the correct translation from Hebrew. Ineuw (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, "Hebrew word for purgatory" makes no sense as the definition for an English word. Secondly, all of the references I've checked refer to γέεννᾰ (géenna) as "hell", not "purgatory" (LSJ refers to it as "the place of future punishment"), and the Hebrew is really a phrase meaning "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom", which has a complex symbolism that's best not dealt with in a dictionary entry (the etymologies do a reasonably good job of it). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, dictionaries are not always the correct sources of (all) contextual meanings of translations. But the English translation of the Hebrew word is valid. While it is also true that in Jewish theology and eschatology, there is no such a thing as an eternal purgatory. The most one can hope for is twelve months of discomfort. So, you cannot apply Christian theology and translations. However, it is still a correct and proper meaning in the context of Gehenna, or Gehinnom. I well know what and where the Valley of Hinnom is since I visited there several times, to check on my status while still alive. However if you have any doubts then please post this conversation at the Hebrew Wikipedia, since there are a number of Biblical scholars who can verify such info.Ineuw (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You note: "dictionaries are not always the correct sources of (all) contextual meanings of translations".

Indeed. Nor can they be. A fuller treatment of all the connotations is what an encyclopedia entry would be for, as you tacitly imply with your suggestion that we post to the Hebrew Wikipedia.

That level of detail and commentary is simply not appropriate for a dictionary entry.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Sorry to bother you this fine evening (well, at least in Sweden anyway), but I'm a bit unsure if what I found is an act of vandalism. Doing my daily "new editors' contribs" check, the contributions of one user struck me as potentially problematic. This anon user has made quite a few changes to English terms, marking them as both countable and uncountable, for instance victory. Are these changes correct? Thank you in advance! --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not vandalism, since they're sincerely trying to improve things. I can see their point, too, since victory as an abstraction doesn't seem to be countable ("victory is ours"), but referring to specific events, it is countable ("the current team has a number of victories to their credit"). I wouldn't know if their method is the best way to represent this, but it doesn't look incorrect. Thanks for asking, though, and thanks especially for patrolling the new edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I haven't checked them all but in general the edits look good to me. An example where it makes a significant difference: "they achieved victory in the war" vs. "they achieved a victory in the war" (but perhaps only one). Equinox ◑ 17:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see what you and Equinox mean. However, shipment, robbery, miscarriage, simulation, territory, testimony, tissue, fantasy and countless other examples are surely not uncountable, are they? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think they are. "The forensic investigator found some human tissue"; "Will shipment of these items be expensive?"; "How often does robbery occur?" Equinox ◑ 18:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the issue here is with our "uncoutable/countable" policy – until now I presumed that having to point out if a noun is countable or uncountable had to do with additional usage notes. I understand the point you're making Equinox, but with that said, aren't most nouns – depending on context – more or less both countable and uncountable? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

No. Wikimedia is riddled with 'talkpageification' of contributions.

>make a valid, justified edit >reverted >make it again, spelling out the rationale even more clearly >lol reverted also talk page bye

Every time this happens, the 'discussion' at the talk page completely, perfectly useless. It only meant that for every good faith edit, there has to congregate a gaggle of editors before they approve of the oh-so-radical change, except after three days of respectable, venerable 'building of consensus'. Wikimedia has long stopped being about content; it's about self-importance of 'debating' edits. Last time, it took you people two days of 'debate' before you agreed that 'word etymology' is redundant. You're a joke. — This comment was unsigned.

You make it sound like simply stating your reasoning should require us to rubber-stamp your edit and to not object to it. Two experienced editors (so far) have read your explanation and rejected it. Not on grounds of self-importance, but as because we think the content of your version is wrong.

When you leave out explicit tense, you imply that the thing mentioned is a permanent characteristic that hasn't changed. Aside from ceremonial purposes, very few people in Africa use spears any more, and your wording makes it sound like they, as a group, still do. A stereotype doesn't have to be invariably-one-hundred-percent-always untrue- it just has to be unfair when applied to most members of the group stereotyped. Yes, Africans used to use spears- but so did Europeans (one theory is that German came from early Germanic equivalents to gar and men). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

'Waah waah don't generalize.' Good God. I fucking said in one of my edits you dismissed that even the developed culture of Ancient Egypt used spears. This whole issue literally only has one point of consideration: *do/did Africans use spears? y/n*. The answer is a resounding y, just as it would be with Germans, Danes, Japanese, or goddamned Jews. They all used spears. At no point would the mention of some sort of 'stereotype' be relevant. (Even if they *were* one of the last races to grow out of them.) A dictionary is no place to irrelevantly remind people that 'not all...'. You just grasp at any opportunity to discover an (irreal) 'oppression' and 'discrimination' which to speak against. Would you disclaim that the phrase 'town square' comes from the 'stereotype' that all squares are rectangular, too, just because they today aren't? Embarrassing. Now tell me I'm racist because I used Jews in an analogy.

(In fact, even your mention of 'ceremonial purposes' unintentionally indicated validity of the 'stereotype': why is it still so while both western and eastern societies have moved on to swords in their ceremonies? At least two African countries even have them in their flags.)

The point here should be that long after Europeans had abandoned spears in favor of firearms, the British colonists in Africa discovered that (at that time) the Africans they encountered were still using spears as their main weaponry, and this became a stereotype. It doesn't matter what cultures used spears in the past or that most Africans don't any longer, what matters is that the Africans were the only ones the British knew who still used spears at the particular time period of colonization. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

About the Nadia page. I was only doing my best to correct it so that it's a Russian, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Slovene, Croatian, and Serbian name. It is NOT a German or Danish name so may you please remove the German and Danish parts of it and replace it with what I said? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)Reply

How can we improve the page on this prefix? I added some, though the page is ostensibly robotic. Anjuna (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please use the {{IPA}} template for pronunciations. Thanks!

Thanks for reminding me. Wiktionary isn't very user friendly (and that's putting it mildly) so I often screw up, although I think something is still better than nothing.

Of course it's an "error." To call something "far-fetched" without so much as the flimsiest of attribution is not accuracy, it's hearsay. Remove the "far-fetched" comment.

That's not why I reverted you. You removed the offending phrase from a September 18, 2014 version of the entry and saved that, thus wiping out 2 years and 15 edits worth of work that happened in between. Please think things through and show a little more respect for the work of others when you edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since Wyang is in no hurry to resolve the issue (Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations has been postponed indefinitely, and discussion on its talk page stalled), may I please have my sysop rights back and can Module:links, Module:th and Module:th-translit please be restored? It has been rather inconvenient for me to not be able to edit protected pages or revert/block vandals. —CodeCat 20:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aquitanian is an attested language, see w:Aquitanian language. —CodeCat 16:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: Is the intent of this statement to say that it shouldn't be counted as reconstructed or that Chuck shouldn't have removed the duplicate code from mod:languages/datax? Also can we get someone to check all these? —JohnC5 16:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that it was a duplicate. But no, it should not be counted as reconstructed. —CodeCat 16:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The lemmas I have added are the only known words. I'm working on reconstructing it. They should probably be counted as a reconstruction. The words are attested, the meaning and etymology are entirely reconstructed. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The language as a whole should not be classified as reconstructed, which is what we're discussing here. Whether the entries should be in the Reconstruction namespace is another issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

In my mind, if the words are attested, they should be in the main namespace. If the definition is speculative or reconstructed, that should be indicated in the entry itself, but should not affect the choice of namespace. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, these are onomastic elements, rather than words attested as words. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, well in that case, I don't think we should call it an attested language. --WikiTiki89 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's borderline, but the names themselves are attested, albeit in short Latin texts. I believe there are also a few inscriptions of just names, with no Latin in them. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not that it really matters all that much, since this user would probably have just vandalized pages anyway... But I remember once posting a vulgar username on WT:VIP sometime back in 2014. And you told me that you don't see any problem with vulgar usernames as long as they aren't vandalizing the project (at least I'm pretty sure that was you). But now you have blocked a user solely based on username (or so I thought, not sure what pages they've created that you may have deleted). So have the rules changed about usernames, or...? Just out of curiosity. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any trace of such an exchange. At any rate, we do block blatantly offensive names, and this one was obviously created to annoy people. They did have edits, but I hid the user name (their goal seems to have been to vandalize the edit history as well as the entry) in addition to the text of the edits, so you might not be able to find them. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove my edit of Hand of Miriam where I copied text from Hand of Fatima ? I personally think articles should be able to stand alone, and if Hand of Miriam is an alternate name, it should have the same meaning. What is your opinion ? Bcent1234 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, copying text without attribution is a violation of our license. The main reason I reverted you, though, is that having the same information in two places is a bad idea for a wiki, since people will be editing both entries and there's no easy way to keep them in sync. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Both Special:Diff/40576133 and Special:Diff/40576140. On what basis you've done that? Your user page doesn't imply you are familiar with Czech language. I am native speaker as clearly seen on my user page. Please do not repeat such harmful reverts anymore. Ask first next time, please. I have reverted it back to correct statements, if you do not like the format of the entry, feel free to correct it, but leave the proper info there. Thank you.

— Danny B. 11:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Dan Polansky has previously reverted edits calling this a misspelling. Perhaps he can comment. --WikiTiki89 14:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

you removed mmy (source?) on bæddel without actually adding a source. real classy, especially considering your article is the farthest back I can trace this. it's even stated as fact by google, sourced to your work - which is sourced to nothing. I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but endless online research provided no legitimate evidence of your claim. just a lot of people sourcing back to you. Thecrepeofdeath (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary, not a message board: having an entry asking itself questions is just silly- more so because this is a Descendants section, and not an etymology. It's especially useless since this is just one of nearly 5 million pages at Wiktionary, and without a proper template, it could go unnoticed by editors for years. The etymology at bad actually explains the issue fairly well, and one could probably come up with a suitably-worded note in parentheses saying something like "(disputed- see the entry for details)" that would be okay. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Interwikis should never point to redirects, which is what you have done.

— Danny B. 18:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's not true. Interwikis on Wiktionary should point to redirects. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please point me to the language independent place where this was discussed then. Thank you.
— Danny B. 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, our policy (WT:EL#Interwiki links) says that interwiki links must point to the same exact page title, so a friend in need is a friend indeed cannot point to cs:A friend in need is a friend indeed.. To overcome some of the difficulties caused by this, we allow interwikis to point to redirects. That way, a friend in need is a friend indeed can still indirectly point to cs:A friend in need is a friend indeed. via the redirect at cs:a friend in need is a friend indeed. I don't know if we have any policy that specifically mentions interwiki links to redirects, but we have used such links for a very long time and have never prohibited them. --WikiTiki89 22:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

So basically you are enforcing other language versions to create redirects (to be able to connect language versions of given item between each other) even if they don't want them... Hence why I was asking for some language independent discussion about this topic. It is inacceptable for one language version to push other versions to do what they don't want to do. As well as it is user unfriendly to not have languages version interconnected simply because of insisting on the exactly same form of the title (which is nonsense when talking about phrases).
— Danny B. 23:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Every language's edition of Wiktionary is completely independent with regard to these kinds of policies, so you won't find any language-edition-independent policies on this. You don't have to create these redirects if you don't want to. All that means is we won't link to your article. Yes it's an inconvenience, but it is better than all the worse problems we would have if we allowed interwiki links to pages with different titles. You can do what you want on the Czech Wiktionary, but we will continue to do what we want here. --WikiTiki89 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was not happy with the definition previously in the entry, but I'm not sure about my replacement. In Books I found that the term is used in chemistry and medical research as well as in taxonomic contexts, principally entomology, botany, and ecology. Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not an experienced Wiktionary editor, so I may not have placed all the necessary material in the right place. Fream was used a lot in the 1950s and early 1960s to mean "totally out of it" and hence a loser, misfit, etc. See, e.g., here in Year by Year in the Rock Era. For usage there is an example on page 103 of Blake Bailey's The 60s "You couldn't get away from it — it dominated every aspect of civilization as you knew it: music, movies, cars, clothes, coiffures. And it didn't matter much whether or not you owned a surfboard (though you probably did); unless you were a total fream (misfit)." Do you need additional documentation, or can you verify it yourself? Also, there is the "freaming" of a wild boar, see, e.g., fream as a verb: https://books.google.com/books?id=a_tIAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP377 and https://books.google.com/books?id=5BdgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT359. --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Bejnar: I have restored your edit and formatted it properly. Please learn from my changes. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

So the problems were that I put it after Old English instead of before and that I specified the decade of usage and didn't provide quotations? Or was there another problem? --Bejnar (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

More important than before or after are the headings themselves. A good guideline is to try to look at other entries and copy their format. --WikiTiki89 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Eleos, Soteria, Clementia; Not Made-up.

2A02:C7D:BC3C:4C00:B40E:1322:EE35:B966 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The terms aren't made up, but your content has enough problems that sorting through it is as much work as creating the whole entries from scratch. Rather than wasting my time fixing it, it's better to delete it so that someone with a better understanding of the subject can start with a clean slate.

The problem is that your edits still have the same problems after more than five years of explanations, pleading, threats, blocks, deletions and every other method we could think of. You've improved your formatting some, but you still seem to have trouble understanding the requirements of editing a dictionary. This is a reference work, so it has to be based on actual usage as verified in durably-archived sources- not Bing Translate, not other websites, not what you think sounds right. Please read our Criteria for inclusion if you doubt me. It's one thing to wonder if there's a Japanese term for some obscure concept in Greek mythology, it's another entirely to try to come up with one when there's no direct evidence of it. The same goes for terms that do exist but don't mean what you think they should.

More to the point here, a dictionary is about what terms mean to the people who use or have used them, not about whatever trivia you find interesting. Which deity is related to which other deity is, with some exceptions, not dictionary material. You also try to make things too systematic. Greek and Roman mythology is a varied assortment of local beliefs that authors have occasionally tried over the centuries to reconcile into a single narrative, without much success. There are some beliefs that are widespread and well known, but most of the minor details are just mentioned in passing here and there, and conflict between versions happens all the time. Including such details in dictionary definitions gives the false impression that these are an important part of the meaning known to everyone who has used the terms.

Besides, we're talking about English here, not Latin or Greek. Very few people use most of these terms in English, and I'm not so sure they have such details in mind when they do.

At any rate, as long as you keep making the same mistakes and show no evidence of understanding- let alone responding to- the attempts to get you to do things right, we will continue to do everything we can to discourage or stop you from editing here. You've wasted far too much of other editors' time by forcing us to clean up after you. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

An RFM discussion from a month or two ago showed a consensus for this move. But without sysop powers I'm unable to perform it. Can you do it please? —CodeCat 19:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I log my objection. I submit that the RFM was ambiguous. Furthermore, no benefit of performing the move was provided by CodeCat upon a recent request. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's ok, the people supporting it knew what it meant. The benefit of performing the move is that consensus calls for it. —CodeCat 19:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's not a benefit but rather an evasive refusal to state the benefit. Why would we rename ux to usex and not to usage-example now that ux is to remain the main name in the main namespace? I still don't get it. The main thing, nonetheless, is that the RFM was ambiguous, despite the repeated claims to the contrary. More discussion is on my talk page, at Template:usex section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The benefit is irrelevant, since this isn't a vote or policy debate. The vote only addressed markup, not what the markup referred to, so the rfm doesn't conflict with the vote. The rfm expressed a consensus for the move- in spite of your detailed explanation of your objections- so there's no point in beginning the rfm discussion all over again here. You disagree with the rfm, which is your right, but that doesn't give you the authority to singlehandedly block it. I suggested a way of mitigating the impact on edit histories, but even without that, I see no reason not to perform the move. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I submit that the WT:RFM was ambiguous, and that its rationale actually makes that even clearer. You seem to think the RFM good and actionable. I cannot help it, but find the whole affair ironic.

But if you actually want to execute the RFM, you have to redirect ux to usex, not the other way around. Since, the RFM was "Template:ux to Template:usex" and it said "{{ux}} would remain as a redirect of course". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

ta+u=v.fast!(manyORTODOXJEW.PPLinANTWERP,wondrifvisiblfestivitiztherbtw62.235.179.230 10:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was reading https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2016/October and was going to make a note on the test/temptation similarity, and you already had answered it well and effectively. Thanks ! Bcent1234 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz,

Some time ago, in the grease pit, you mentioned that sort keys could be added to module:languages/data2. Would you do that, I myself being unable? I am personally interested in Danish alphabetization as seen here, although I notice other languages have similar problems.__Gamren (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Chuck Entz, I'm wondering about your reversion of my edits on Reconstruction:Latin/essere. There you could read "Needs Conjugation Template(s)", so I have added a conjugation table. I also have substituted "sō" with "so" because the vowel lengh was lost in the 2nd century. Could you justify these reversion? First of all I have reverted your reversion because of your missing justification. Thank you for an answer! --Frīheidasliova (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Vowel length was lost, but not without a trace. Short and long vowels have different outcomes, and the loss of length also phonemicised stress. —CodeCat 14:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Adding a conjugation table is fine, but leaving a huge block of template code in the entry isn't. Did you substitute the template? The whole point of using a template is to simplify the wikitext in the entry and to allow future changes in the template to be reflected in all the entries that use it. Including the entire code of the template rather than the usual reference to the template defeats that. It also makes the entry uneditable for anyone who doesn't know template code. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, but how can I create a template for Vulgar Latin "essere"? I've never made this before. --Frīheidasliova (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if we even need one. I question the merit of many of these Vulgar Latin entries, actually. —CodeCat 16:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Macan is a vocabulary in Javanese. The only official word for tiger in Bahasa Indonesia is harimau. That's the reason of my edit on tiger.

I also add the definition of tiger to improve the meaning for a person whose personality as well as tiger in the jungle of life. Relly Komaruzaman (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Relly Komaruzaman I wouldn't presume to tell you which word belongs to which language, since I only know a few words of the Indonesian and no Javanese at all. The main problem I had was with moving Javanese under Indonesian, since it's not that closely related to Indonesian. Really, only dialects of Indonesian should be grouped under it. If we were going to group anything, we would be putting Indonesian under Malay, not putting Malay's sister languages (actually more like cousin than sister) under Indonesian. I've moved the Acehnese and Sundanese translations where I think they should be, and, based on what you said, I've removed macan from Indonesian.

You also have to realize that temerarious is pretty rare in modern usage, so that most people have no idea what it means (if you don't know the word, it looks it should be a variant of timid, which is the exact opposite of what it actually means). Definitions should be self-explanatory if at all possible and not require people to look up more words just to understand them. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

If temerarious is pretty rare, audacious will be pretty well to create prettier definition on it. Relly Komaruzaman (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The D of BD means Dörner. And as far as I know, this is a historical family name. That's why I added this version of the Dörner-article. And furthermore, I'm very sure, that my name is not related to thorn or to spike. Sorry. Please re-activate my entry. Tkx!  :-)

Please read or Entry layout page. There was nothing wrong with the entry before you edited it, since Dörner really is, as far as I know, an archaic plural of Dorn. You took a dictionary entry about an actual word and transformed it into a badly-formatted article about your surname. It may very well a surname with the origin you gave, but that would have to go in a separate etymology section with a proper noun section in it and the information about its origins in the etymology. The definition itself would be something like # {{surname|lang=de}}. The existing content would be put in a another etymology section. You're free to do that, but the version I reverted was completely unacceptable and won't be restored. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

last) 17:35:31 Robbie SWE you can't have an Ancient Greek etymology using a Latin script81.11.206.159 13:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but even after looking at Robbie SWE's and your edit histories I still can't figure out what you're referring to. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just saw my name being mentioned — I think this anon is referring to this revert. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unrelated, but what the anon says is true. I think it's ridiculous how other dictionaries use words from languages in other scripts in the etymology and only include the transcribed form. Den Danske Ordbog is an example of a dictionary that does this. They should use the damned Ancient Greek/Russian/Chinese/whatever else script. We should too. It's just the right thing to do. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the IP was quoting Robbie SWE's edit comment in the edit that removed the words "Ancient Greek" from the etymology and changed{{compound}} back to {{prefix}}. This whole etymology is rather hard to sort out, because it's scientific Latin coined from Latinized Ancient Greek using Ancient Greek morphological rules, and it's not certain which language this was done in.

One thing is certain, though: there is no free-standing word "karyo" involved, since the Ancient Greek word was κάρυον (káruon), which meant nut, but which is used (in Latinized form) in scientific Latin as the term for nucleus. The double r is derived from the assimilation of ν (n) to following ρ (r) in Ancient Greek phonology as applied to Latinized Greek, so there's a consonant at the end of the morpheme- however you interpret it. Whether the status quo was right or wrong, the reverted edit was wrong in its own way, so it should stay reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@PseudoSkull: Older dictionaries used to do that, even to the point of giving German words in Fraktur. It went out of style when knowing more than one language went out of style, because no one could read all of Latin, Greek, Fraktur, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. I think the best solution is to use both, which is what we do. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

taevry1!:)(imentRANSLITERATN,likeABC-CHINESdunchangeLECToriginbtw81.11.206.29 11:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

21:04, 17 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+71)‎ . . myelogram ‎ iprovidedsours:( https://www.google.be/search?q=myelogram+bone+marrow&client=firefox-b-ab&biw=960&bih=533&tbm=isch&imgil=DgZSYksisgqkTM%253A%253BS61-1qDs77t7LM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.alamy.com%25252Fstock-photo-observation-of-a-bone-marrow-smears-myelogram-for-the-diagnosis-of-83055850.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=DgZSYksisgqkTM%253A%252CS61-1qDs77t7LM%252C_&usg=__VrZW9mexchhxmBkkOkNhjG9y0Ho%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiRhtPo2-XPAhXGuhQKHZ9-BfMQyjcIUA&ei=ccwGWNGJNsb1Up_9lZgP#imgrc=DgZSYksisgqkTM%3A +comntles:((81.11.206.29 01:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

it=CLEARLYUSEDsoyKEPITOUT(costhis=SHITDICrunbyINCOMPETNTDICTATRSthatduncare??81.11.206.32 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

scalloped ⋅ actions ⋅ popups New revision 2016-10-17 07:01:57 Old revision 2016-10-17 07:01:38 eograph.org.uk_-_285320.jpg|right|thumb|about 1,000 years old Norman scalloped capital]] ===] marked with semicircles

1. decorated with scallop-figures <c.capital81.11.206.29 01:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz (talk) Many thanks. Although my experience is normally water-tight it was way out here; hence too other administrators' impress as to the need to fully understand a language before proposing fresh theories! --Andrew (talk)

Sorry; I should have added that I was not in any way connecting yermo with York, but just as a dubious example of Spanish etymology. Many years ago I was looking in Spanish for a remote connection with Old English wōr (moor), such as urce, but now regard that as too dubious to consider! It is vital to pay close attention to the semantic details as you clearly state. Andrew H. Gray 11:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Andrew (talk)

You reverted my edits. Why? You leave this with no definition, where I tried to complete that missing element, while also adding a more slang definition. Was my entry out of format? Or was this just a reflex again a "new" user to this wiki? Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The definition is at flat tyre. Having definitions in two places leads to entries for basically the same term becoming more and more out of synch, so we arbitrarily choose one to have the content and the other to be a sort of half-entry pointing to the other one. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

And you neglected to transfer my other definition. Trackinfo (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chuck, see the discussion at Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Brythonic#Artognou. Thanks.

aceptedasENTRYZ?(vETY,PRON,MEANIN(fe.containinGENERICMEDECINESetc

Endoxan ⋅ actions ⋅ popups 2016-10-23 (last) 18:37:17 Robbie SWE m Reverted edits by 81.11.206.17. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.ALcontainCYCLOFOSFAMID<norelated??(niASKD~tradmarksignaswelasINCL.CRIT81.11.206.17 21:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Those 3000+ errors are mine; they will clear shortly. Benwing2 (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't looked at the module errors cat for a few hours, so it might have escaped my attention altogether. I don't usually bug people unless it looks like the problem is being ignored or no one is aware of it, so I'll leave this one alone. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck, I prefer substantive discussions on the pages where the topics are presented. Moreover, I am not amused when someone deletes contested passages without any notice or discussion. It disqualifies the writer, as if he is an amateur, an outsider or a fanatic whose contributions are not to be taken seriously. Anyhow, I have sharpened my thoughts and substantiated the argument.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

tingible ⋅ actions ⋅ popups 2016-10-24 (last) 13:59:54 SemperBlotto m Reverted edits by 81.11.206.17. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.<NOreactn-=dadguyTHINKIN??noSOPs(dafoibl'ere)butbio-entitys(itsayso@editsumary+easyenuf2chek!),aUSRFRENDLYDIC=prob4m???????

ow-hereplyd:"? Any chance of an English-language sentence? "comonoledgivRSI,ilstoop:=dadguygoin2usehisbrain+comnsens?(or=dadASKIN2MUCHofanenginer(w/objectionablnik ontopofdad-1decade'ncountinthisnuisans!!:(((

nRVinNEDZ2goalongw/PROVIDINARATIONALE,dad=jusIMPLBASIXnRESPECT(ofwhichdisabldrDEVOID'ere,niceBADG2wear!81.11.206.17 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi - you may know about such things! {{ux}} and {{l}} (due to some module?) seem to be using the "grc" equivalences where "el" should be used - giving sṓos instead of sóos for σώος. — Saltmarsh^{συζήτηση-talk} 19:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saltmarsh: That's because I changed the module an hour ago. --Fsojic (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @Fsojic: What you did was unacceptable. Do not change things on your whim without clear consensus from Greek editors. Not a single one agreed to this, our most active one is clearly not happy with it, and you are not even a Greek editor yourself. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: fair enough; however, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm not a Greek editor. --Fsojic (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You must create entries infrequently enough that I could make that mistake. I have struck it out above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks all. — Saltmarsh^{συζήτηση-talk} 04:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems that automotion is not used as a word, but there are several automotive companies called "Automotion". By the way, you really should learn when to use capital letters (and when not to). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)81.11.206.17 21:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean this RSI? --WikiTiki89 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz alfet does not come from Latin - there is no such Latin word - it is Low Latin as used in Britain; because you know as well as I that Latin words are not derived from Anglo-Saxon! Regards. Andrew H. Gray 15:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Andrew

@Werdna Yrneh Yarg: right. --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're making the mistake of assuming that Post-Classical Latin isn't Latin. We treat Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin and New Latin as part of Latin. Also, "Low Latin" is a term that hasn't been used much by serious linguists in half a century, at least. Aside from the moral judgment implied by the term, it's been used for so many combinations of different varieties of Latin that it doesn't mean anything without explaining which Low Latin you're talking about. Is it the Latin spoken by the common people even during the days of the Roman Empire (Vulgar Latin), Latin spoken toward the end of the Empire when even the elite no longer spoke good Classical Latin (Late Latin), Latin of the Middle Ages (Medieval Latin), all of the above, or one of the above combined with one or more other of the above? This is the 21st century- let's not write etymologies that sound like they were written in the 19th century. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz (UTC) Thank you for your helpful paragraph - I was certainly previously ignorant about the extent of stages of Low Latin. The one I was referring to was of course that spoken in limited forms in mediæval times, as formed from the composure of two early English lexemes. So, my due apologies for the confusion caused. My main concern was that lay people could look up that 'pseudo-Latin' word in a Latin dictionary and find that it is not there! You also might be intrigued that just after I typed your previous message I began my first myocardial infarction, after which was rushed into hospital for a PC1. So, more about ǣlan in December. Kind regards.Andrew H. Gray 08:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Andrew (talk).

Hi Chuck, I don't see why you rolled my changes back. Both the etymology and the second sense of the word was disputed before and I added sources. If you think there's something wrong in the code I use for referencing maybe you can fix that? The reference just makes a search for "ryss" at saob.se, which lands you in a list of four links. It's "sbst. 3" (meaning "noun 3") that supports the etymology and the second definition so it might be good to be more specific about that.--31.208.42.251 00:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. It's usually a very bad idea to remove a tag like {{rfv-etymology}}, because that usually means that it's been challenged and is being formally discussed (in this case at the Etymology scriptorium), in which case that would be an attempt to hide the fact that it was under discussion. It turns out, though, that this was just tagged without anyone starting a discussion.

Further complicating things: there's also an {{rfv-sense}} tag on that page, which I placed there myself. Someone tried to remove the second sense because they felt it was a thinly-disguised attack on Russians. I restored the sense, but took it to Requests for verification to see if the word has actually been in use with that meaning (since we're an uncensored, descriptive dictionary, we cover even offensive racial slurs, if they're genuine). I remembered that this entry was under discussion regarding a highly-emotional issue, so your removing the {{rfv-etymology}} tag raised all kinds of red flags in my mind. I was going to ask you to go through the correct process, instead, but I could see that the etymology wasn't being discussed and that the saob etymology agreed with the tagged one, so I just reverted my revert and let your edit stand. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess I would make things a lot clearer by registering a user name. I was the one who challenged the etymology and the second definition before and there was some discussion on my talk page. Later, I came across the entry in SAOB so I felt I had to withdraw my challenge and add sources instead.--31.208.42.251 15:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say *bʰerH- "pierce" is the same as *bʰer-. The second is linked to words none of which are of the purported languages (but Armenian, which points to the bʰerH-), and its meaning is "to bear, carry", not "to scrape, cut". Should we delete it? There is also a mess with cognates of old Armenian: LA fruor "larynx" < LA frumen "larynx" < *bʰruHg- "enjoy"LA frumen "larynx" < LA fruor "enjoy" < *bʰruHg- "enjoy" (maybe OK because LA frumentum "corn" & LA frumen "porridge" makes more sense, but then there are two different origins); Old Norse points *bʰerH- with meaning "pierce".... Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oops! If I had looked a little closer I would have seen what you're referring to. This contributor was only active for a few months, and their talk page has several messages pointing out serious errors. It's possible that there's some useful content in the second etymology that could be merged into the first, but I don't have the time (nor probably the resources) to sift through everything. If no one else does, either, it should be removed as unreliable, coming as it did from someone who didn't really understand what they were working with. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Even when we have three different *bʰer- in Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots/bʰ.... Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response.

You are absolutely right. I was in complete ignorance of the Wiktionary philosophy. Worse still, I showed no respect for others. Now I am ashamed of my edit. Sorry about that. 85.193.217.247 12:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Entz! The word "learn" means "to gain a habit" too? 206.180.244.235 13:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

May we reïnstate them? They are both integral to this project, and great efficiency is lost due to their desysopment. Of this I know you are aware, but I would further like to espouse the proposal to split transcription adn transliteration where necessary (as this change is required outside of their dispute). The limbo in which they currently exist reminds me of the sad plight of Merrick Garland—neither accepted nor rejected. I know this entreaty may change little, but I would further ask whether there remains any procedure I may take to restore their positions. —JohnC5 02:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Very simply, the only purpose of the de-sysoping is keep them from edit-warring or otherwise misusing their sysop tools against each other. If they will agree on the same terms to not do the above , I will gladly reinstate both of them. The "on the same terms" part is to rule out "I'll agree provided that X" by one and "I'll agree provided that not X" by the other, which has been a problem in the past. Also, it has to be both or neither: it's bad enough that we couldn't leave Module:links in a neutral state, like w:Schrödinger's cat- I'm not going to pick sides on resysopping. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

lenalidomide ⋅ actions ⋅ popups New revision 2016-11-21 18:28:48 Old revision 2016-11-20 23:11:50

2016 (uncountable)

1. (medicine) A derivative of thalidomide used to treat at 150,000 USD/year some tumors and other conditionsmyelomas

PS.MYELOMASwasredundant

@suzukaze-c, 81.11.207.19181.11.207.191 14:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why was my edit to born in a barn reverted? Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of catch phrases actually gives leaving the door open as a sole usage for this phrase. So far as I can recall, in my entire lifetime I have only encountered this usage in response for my failure to close a previously closed door that I entered through. Further, when someone once said to me "Close the door!" my jocular response of "Sorry, I was born in a barn." was accepted as appropriate English. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Still, the usage note highlights a problem with the entry as a whole: the wording of the definitions is all wrong. When you ask "were you born in a barn?", you're not asking whether the other person is rude or leaving something open, you're using the rhetorical question to criticize the other person in an indirect way for that behavior. I'll have to bring this up at the Requests for move, mergers and splits. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chuck wrote:

If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page

Well, Chuck, actually I do not think that your rolling back my efforts on etymology for davit was an ‘error’ in the sense of ‘errare humanum est‘, but nevertheless I leave a message on your talk page, for I think that rollback was a mistake, an offension, an unappropriate undertaking.
These are some reasons why I think so:

• You did not tell reasons why you did not like my writing.
  
• You did not try an etymology yourself.
• You did not criticize the source of my source.

It seems to me that you could not withstand the sweet temptations of power abuse. Maybe meanwhile you have had time to reconsider that erasing of my work, and therefore I ask you to consider to rollback your rollback. Or maybe you can tell me your inevitable wherefores and you can convince me, so that I never again try to find out an English word’s origin.
Yes, I am curious to learn what your aims in working are. I’m looking forward to hear from you. Yours, Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC), detlef(ät)lindenthal.comReply

First of all, I'm sorry I didn't have time to leave a proper note, since the rollback tool gives the impression that you've done something wrong- you haven't. Your addition was a nice little essay on the origins of the word, and would be quite welcome in an encyclopedia article, especially since you cited your source. Unfortunately, Wiktionary is a dictionary, and we have different requirements. Have a look at some of the other entries for an idea of how we format our etymologies. I've left our standard welcome template on your talk page, which has links to more comprehensive information. Aside from the complete lack of formatting, the only halfway serious problem was using "{references}" which just looks kind of odd and doesn't do anything, instead of "<references/>".

There are only a few of us patrolling new edits, and there's always the possibility that leaving an entry with problems will mean that no one will get to it to fix it for a very long time. Reworking your etymology would have taken as much time as coming up with a new one from scratch, and I didn't have time to do either- so I reverted it. It was a bit of a borderline judgment call, so I might not have done the same if I had run into it on a different day. It's certainly not as bad as most of the edits I end up reverting. Feel free to add it back with the proper templates and formatting. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then it is very badly worded. If what it want to convey is that "there is a mistaken belief that it is the feminine form of Oliver". Though similar to folk etymology, this is a case of back-formation, just like believing that the plural of mongoose is mongeese. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Neither the use of Olivia for the feminine of Oliver nor the use of the plural mongeese represent back-formation but instead reanalysis (which is itself a synonym for the term "folk etymology"). Regardless of the mechanism however, if a word is used in a certain way, even due to reanalysis, we should make a notation of that usage. Also, it is common practice on Wiktionary to reply to a discussion on the page where it was originally posted. —JohnC5 21:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain your rollbacks on ‘азъ’ and ‘ⰰⰸⱏ’ page, please? Γρηγόριος (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Γρηγόριος: ꙁ is just a graphical variant of з, they are the same letter and we use з for the main entries. --WikiTiki89 16:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

But ꙁ is recommended for Old Church Slavonic by Unicode Consortium. Why may we not use з for Church Slavonic and ꙁ for Old Church Slavonic? Γρηγόριος (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, we treat Church Slavonic and Old Church Slavonic as the same language. Second of all, we don't have to listen to the Unicode Consortium; there are many things we do that deviate from their decisions. In either case, if you think we should use ꙁ, you should start a discussion about it and gain a consensus before you start actually changing things. --WikiTiki89 16:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fine, just for the note between Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic is difference in ten centuries, so there are not the same paradigms, even not the same letters; exempli gratiā, the letter ѫ is not used in Church Slavonic, except calendar. Γρηγόριος (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

We accommodate for many languages that span over a thousand years (Latin, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, just to name a few), so all these problems can be dealt with. --WikiTiki89 16:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

1. You are currently matching "\{\{\{" instead of "{{{". Is this intended?
2. So I cannot nest templates now? For example, {{head|en|verb|gerund|{{l|en|] ]}}}}

--kc_kennylau (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's a bad example, since in that case you would use {{head|en|verb|gerund|] ]}}. But I agree that this filter might have the unintended consequence of catching legitimate nested templates, such as {{ux|en|He met {{w|Martin Luther King, Jr.}}}}. --WikiTiki89 16:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not my filter- it was created by @Daniel Carrero. I just edited it the best I could to adjust for a couple of false positives I saw (it seems to be all false positives so far). You need to discuss with him how to fix the regex so it does whatever he wants it to do without keeping veteran admins from doing innocuous and unrelated edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the filter caused any problems, I apologize. I'll check now if everything's OK with the filter. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

In case it's not as obvious to everyone else, the purpose of this filter is to prevent template parameters (i.e. {{{1|}}}, etc.) from being used in the main namespace. Unfortunately, the only "correct" way to do this would involve using a wikitext parser and parse the whole page, which cannot be done in a filter. The best thing we can do is only check for the opening triple braces, because those almost never occur for legitimate reasons except in complicated template logic (such as {{{{foo}}|bar}}, which shouldn't appear in the main namespace anyway). --WikiTiki89 03:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I guess this is  done. I edited the filter, so now it checks for triple opening braces. I also did this test: if an entry is created with {{head|en|verb|gerund|] ]}}, it can be created normally, but if it's created with {{{a}}}, the error message appears. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess I edited it at the same time as you. You can change the note to give yourself credit if you want. --WikiTiki89 03:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, that's fine, keep the credit. Checking for just the opening braces was your idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

16:00, 9 December 2016 TheDaveRoss (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:anamnesis (No usable content given (please see WT:CFI, WT:EL): --explanation of deletion--)he'dnobetr:((81.11.218.243 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most people when they see your posts assume they are vandalism. I've tried to improve the etymology a little bit, if that helps, but someone more knowledgeable about Greek would be of more help here. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

1.theynoWAYBETR(butjuslike2bulyDISABLD 2.ANA(asaid+del!)MANYmeaninz,sowich1here?(prapsCHUKnoz,ta!:)81.11.218.243 17:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I really don't think they are doing it to bully you. Most people just don't know about you. But even still, it's not very useful for you to post on article talk pages because no one would be able to understand it. If you have a question, you have to ask someone who can understand what you say. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

17:10, 9 December 2016 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:decitabine (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)BLATANTLYCLEARWOMEANINGWAS(butadinPRON,n,improvinthisDIC=NOPRIORITY:((((((((81.11.218.243 17:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you continue abbreviating every word, using no space, and form grammatically inaccurate sentences, then do not complain when your comment is deleted as "incomprehensible". For example, the following is what was originally on the deleted page:

 ==pron==
 de SYE ta been

Please understand that we have no responsibility to decipher what you wrote. In any case, the above isn't "blatantly clear". I would have written something like this:

== Regarding pronunciation ==
I think that the pronunciation should be "de SYE ta been", with "SYE" being the stressed syllable. --~~~~

--kc_kennylau (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: Please understand that this anon is physically impaired in some way that limits his/her ability to type. He/she is trying to contribute as best as he/she can. --WikiTiki89 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: How do you know s/he is physically impaired? --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau User talk:史凡 —suzukaze (t・c) 01:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• vitamin J (no longer considered a vitamin)
• (historic name) ], vitamin J213.49.104.55 22:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

lakofIPA=disgrace4dic,frankly,btw It's not very helpful to add RFE/RFP indiscriminately to every entry you come across. For one thing, it's more annoying for users/readers to see a big template before the definitions. Equinox ◑ 11:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

   1.iLUKDMUPnDIDNOFINDinfothatoughtb.ther

2.wel,that=FUNCTNofthoztemplates,uh(theycanbREMOVDbyfilin'm;) 3.visibilityofdefs=isue,sure,generalyso213.49.104.55 12:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Sorry if the last edit, that I had not satisfactorily completed, caused confusion. Certainly the following forms are not cognates, but akin; whereas the earlier examples are cognates. I don't understand why editors are still confusing these terms. What I know to be true is on its discussion page! Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 09:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)AndrewReply

First of all, there's no such word as βλαστος (blastos)- it's Ancient Greek βλαστός (blastós) (note the acute accent on the omicron). More to the point, Ancient Greek βλαστός (blastós) has the wrong initial consonant- based on the other languages, one would expect *φλαστός (phlastós). There may be an explanation, but you would need a reference. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Many thanks. Everything you just stated is important. If every etymologist followed what you put about accuracy and the truth on the Blaschke's talk paragraph on York, there would be no more need to re-edit any etymology! There are indeed around 183 Greek words beginning with 'φλ', and what you state conforms to Grimm's Law, and also there are many more lexemes beginning with 'φ'. However, to take your statement to its logical conclusion, most of the lexemes beginning with 'β' cannot come from P.I.E. 'bh'? Andrew H. Gray 10:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)AndrewReply

One of the oddities of Proto-Indo-European is an almost complete lack of *b's- the best guess is that they mostly merged with the *w's . As far as I know, almost all of the Ancient Greek β's of PIE origin are from the labiovelar *gʷ.Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Yes, thank you: σβέννυμι (to quench) and βαίνω are examples of that. Kind Regards.Andrew H. Gray 17:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)AndrewReply

Would it now be okay to edit blood is thicker than water to add a note about an etymological factoid, as there were no responses in the section?

Also, I've added a few links at the RFV about phalaena. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

aDICcan('d!)bINFORMATIVuno..(n4mor>wp213.49.94.60 16:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I assume you're talking about Brunei. Population figures are useless in a dictionary, and quickly become out of date. In the definition, you should be answering the question "what does 'Brunei' mean?". If the population changes to 450,000, has the meaning changed? Chuck Entz (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

ys(i4got2paste,sory)-iwas~2makeitABOUT4X10^5 4dadreasn aoth<itsaSMALcuntry213.49.94.60 17:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Negara Brunei Darussalam ⋅ actions ⋅ popups New revision 2016-12-18 17:32:48 Old revision 2016-12-18 16:36:50

English

Alternate forms

• (Jawi) نڬارا بروني دارالسلام

Etymology

From Malay negara (“country”) + Brunei + Arabic دَار اَلسَّلَام (dār as-salām, “house of peace”).

Pronunciation

{{rfp|en}}

Proper noun

Negara Brunei Darussalam

1. full name of the nation of Brunei, officially translated as Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace‎.

You used a bad header "Alternate forms", I would have wikilinked that form (assuming it's correct), there's no point saying "in English" since the sentence is obviously English, and I can't speak for @Metaknowledge, but including the official translation seems borderline to me. Any one of those might not be worthy of reversion, but all together might have made it not worth the extra work of fixing rather than reverting.

You used a bad header "Alternate forms"SYNiTHOUT.., I would have wikilinked that formWICH? (assuming it's correct), there's no point saying "in English" since the sentence is obviously English, and I can't speak for @Metaknowledge, but including the official translation seems borderline to me.PRAPSbetr@ETY,YS(I'DLIKE2NOTHO AS,WEL-IT=OFICIAL(TRANSLATN NSUCH Any one of those might not be worthy of reversion, but all together might have made it not worth the extra work of fixing rather than reverting.

ta+sory4xtrawork(i'lchangQUOTway(thinkinohow62.235.180.5 22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

smh You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Ajraddatz (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Long-term abuse.

   Start of block: 22:02, 18 December 2016
   Expiry of block: 22:02, 25 December 2016

Your current IP address is 213.49.94.60. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki.

@wikitiki89, Robbie SWE

62.235.180.5 22:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) +ithinkuned2ROLBAKdadAJRADetc.persn,he tukoutWHOLOTOFipa(wotduz1SLAV4here?sai(nPRONsctnsesp.sensitiv(asINadequatalredy:(https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Contributions/213.49.94.6062.235.180.5 07:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

k-dadIDJETduzdad1MORtimenIGONASTARTREACTINGENSTHAT,unblivbl!! You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Ajraddatz (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Long-term abuse.

   Start of block: 17:52, 24 December 2016
   Expiry of block: 17:52, 31 December 2016

Your current IP address is 62.235.177.130. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. nUPPL(swe rob,wiktikVPUTHISmoronINACTN,thence=UPPLZRESPONSIBILITY2dealw/suchmoronz!213.49.133.183 20:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The definition is correct

The term is a generic insult that can be applied humorously to anyone. There may be some good content in your edits, but when you add an entry for an unattested language without citing references, especially with content copied verbatim from other entries- incorrect language codes and all- that means I can't trust you to be editing in good faith. The joke edits, which were completely inappropriate for a dictionary, just confirmed that judgment. If you do any more edits like that when your block expires, you'll be blocked again. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Feliz Navidad y feliz Año Nuevo á usted también. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

ynomakeSENTENSofit?213.49.62.10 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Michigan

   A state of the United States of America with as capital Lansing and largest city Detroit.(nomyedit!(or@leastNOresently)>??213.49.62.10 20:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

indaendmichiganEDITwasold+mine,butiduncRATIONALEofuredit,pl.xplain!213.49.62.10 16:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of who did which edit, "with as capital" is seriously ungrammatical- a native speaker would never put two prepositions in the same prepositional phrase like that. You would have to either use commas to set "as capital" off as parenthetical (perhaps grammatical, but awkward), or move "as capital" to a position after the prepositional phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

flemish=WAYIZIERonWORDORDR(nunfortunatelyi=genIMERSDinit,sai),an"UNNgram.editnote'dv'elpdtho,buta!(nofkorsmyOWNeditsrweakrprecedentinsuchmatrz83.134.147.65 08:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply