User talk:Chuck Entz/2018

Can you formally check if this is Uther? (Or another known account, since that was probably too long ago?) See my email for further information. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do remember seeing one of Uther's IP edits on WP before they hid them all, so I can confirm that TheSilverWolf98's IP information is all wrong for Uther- not even the same continent. Beyond that, no one that I have even a glimmer of suspicion of being Uther has been active on Wiktionary in the last 90 days (August- which is close, but not close enough), so I have nothing to compare with. Unless @TheDaveRoss kept notes from when he checkusered ÞunoresWrǣþþe, there's no technical evidence whatsoever to tie TheSilverWolf98 to any of Uther's socks. It's true that people move, use proxies and other technical means to hide their IP address, etc, so I can't rule out that they're the same person, but I have nothing technological to suggest that. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what to do now, so I'll wait to see if Dave has anything to add. @JohnC5 (and probably others) can attest to the similarity of the descendentless Proto-Brythonic entries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unnecessary Proto-Brythonic entries and Old English is quite a strange combo that immediately piqued my interest. My diagnosis could be wrong, but it is still very odd. —*i̯óh₁nC 04:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge I can confirm that SilverWolf is very likely ÞunoresWrǣþþe. - TheDaveRoss 13:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, I agree with Chuck's statement that there is not a definitive connection between them, I misinterpreted. - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• So... now what? Unblock and admit that we're really easily fooled, and that Uther can get away with most anything? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Or admit that we went off half-cocked, and learn from our mistake. For what it's worth, the deleted edits look amateurish, which they have in common with Uther's MO, but it's possible to be amateurish without being Uther. Just remember who we're talking about here: Uther simply doesn't have the self-awareness and self-restraint to play the kind of game you're suggesting at that level. No matter how well he covers his tracks technically, he's going to end up acting like a jerk and outing himself eventually. If we explain to this person what they did wrong and they clean up their act, it doesn't matter if they're Uther or not, they're not doing the kinds of things we blocked Uther for in the first place. If, on the other hand, they start displaying typical Uther attitude, we won't need any technical information- it'll be obvious who they are. I think we should assume good faith and see what happens. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An IP user has been editing WT:ACEL-BRY, another Uther favourite. Is it worth checking out? —Rua (mew) 20:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing about the IP to suggest Uther- I can tell that without using any special tools. If it is Uther, they'll probably get into a disagreement with someone, nuke themselves in the foot, and leave us a nice neat pile of ashes to sweep out. They're obnoxious and abusive, but reliably self-destructive and self-identifying. As for this IP, they seem to be the same person who's been poking around Proto-Celtic/Brythonic entries since April. I'm not qualified to say whether they really know their stuff or just act like it, but their first edit looks promising... (that translation had been there since April of 2013, with a lot of very solid contributors making edits to the entry and even the translations, but apparently not noticing it). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the green light everyone - much appreciated. Hopefully, this Uther, whoever he is doesn't come back. Happy new year to you all. :)TheSilverWolf98 (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

LILIANA 60

I disagree. I think you are right and you will bask in eternal glory! --Gente como tú (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I may indeed end up regretting it, but I don't see how I'm in error. I really hope you aren't Liliana 60, because the Liliana 60 I remember was too smart to waste her time edit-warring and posting vague, self-incriminating threats over something this lame and pointless. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm wondering why you reverted my edit on motherfucker. Could you please explain why?

Cheers

HeyAlreadyDonated (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought at the time it was a one-off mistake based on a misunderstanding of how categories are used here. Then I realized you had put a lot more time and effort into it, so I stopped and let others deal with it.

The main problem is that it we have a very elaborate system of categories and built-in infrastructure to deal with them, and your category is a rather different approach. You really need to make a case for that approach at the Beer parlor before adding such categories, and you need to make a case at Requests for deletion/Others if you don't want this one deleted.

I also don't think the category really fits well for the entry in question- the word has certainly been used that way, but I don't think it's inherently part of its meaning. In fact, that's a problem with the whole category: given the right context, just about any negative interjection could be used that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you deleting a reference to website that helps to translate idioms. I think it's useful resource to mention. Just I want to know your toughts! Thanks

Our translation tables are very streamlined: their purpose is to direct the reader to the entries, where the real content is. We never put references in the translation tables. We're also wary of links to external websites- putting links to commercial websites in inappropriate places is a good way to get permanently blocked as a spammer. In real life I wouldn't hurt a fly, but here, spammers get no mercy! Chuck Entz (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I appreciate the IP Block Excemption. I am wondering who is the banned user on the range? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think this rollback is an error https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nickname&oldid=prev&diff=48418825. There is no section "Middle English" in page eke, however, section "English" does mention Middle English in the "Etymology" sub-sections. —Andrybak (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Someday, someone will add a Middle English section to eke (see b. here for the sense mentioned in the etymology), and the problem will fix itself. In the meanwhile, saying by way of the link text that a Middle English word is derived from a modern English word is just wrong. I would rather have people slightly confused than deliberately misinformed. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I missed that the order of the languages was wrong, my bad. Cheers —andrybak (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that my addition to the page on the word "Kern" was deleted almost immediately after it was added. No reason was given. Why was this done? I spoke to the common practice of manually kerning text which I have observed on a constant basis in the TV industry where text is electronically generated and kerned on a constant basis. The professional software that is used for this does automatically kern it, but often it is necessary to do it manually both for better appearance/readability and in order to get more characters in a single line. These professional editors are often keenly interested in the readability of the text as it is often on the screen for the purpose of selling a product so they want the maximum amount of comprehension in the minimum amount of time on the part of the reader. And the results of manually kerning are often much better than the automatic job that is done by the software.

You should consider putting that addition back in. It adds a lot to the understanding of how kerning is used in the real world.

EPA3 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary, and we're interested in the word "kern" is used, not about how the thing it refers to is used- that's the job of an encyclopedia or a technical publication. For a dictionary, what you added was just clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The section i added in the article güero is true. I'm Venezuelan, Güero is a Mexican word for encomprize all White people.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It may be true, but it messes up the format of the entry to insert bare sentences in random places. Please see our Entry layout page. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’m thinking about why you might remove ‘before’ on ‘this way’ or why did you remove it. Osbri 04:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't imagine any connection between "this way" and "before"- if there is, it's certainly too obscure to use it in the definition. Definitions should be written as clearly and with as normal a vocabulary as possible- the whole purpose is for everyone to understand them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you might see or understand when you see it. Why would you think “before” wouldn’t do or have the same meaning of what “this way” has? Osbri 06:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

We don't have anything at the entry for before that remotely matches it. Maybe if you use it in a sentence, I might have a better idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you might see it has same thoughts or meaning when I put or show this showing, example or sentence.

    “I went in a cabinet this way he wouldn’t see me when he comes.”
     “I went in a cabinet before he wouldn’t see me when he comes.”

Or maybe putting “after thinking”.

      “I went in a cabinet after thinking he wouldn’t see me when he comes.”

What would you think? Osbri 03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You have reverted my addition of "symmetry" to the list of Rhymes:English/iː. As stated in "symmetry", in poetic usage the word is sometimes pronounced to end with iː. Or do I miss something? Powermelon (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Our rhyme entries always start with the stressed syllable and go to the end, and symmetry is accented on the first, so any rhyme would have to match all three syllables. I'd have to see evidence that it's ever accented on the last syllable, except in an artificial, forced way to rhyme with a final-stressed word in a previous line- and that can be done with any word, regardless of its real pronunciation (in the same way, panther and answer don't rhyme, unless you're reading Ogden Nash). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does not exist as a word in Canada or anywhere else other than as a misspelling. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you look for the spelling in Google Books, you can find lots of usage, including in older encyclopedias and even an older dictionary or two. That's not to say that it's the correct spelling anywhere currently- but that's not what our entry says. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I definitely disagree with your rollback of my edit. "Stereotypical Southerner" makes no sense to describe someone who would say "'Murica". There are many stereotypes of Southerners, but "'Murica" specifically conjures up the stereotype of a gun-toting redneck rather than, say, an apple-pie cooking granny or a cowboy. I think "jingoistic Southerner" would be a good compromise.--Zxcvbnm (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. Not to mention I live in upstate New York and there are plenty of people in my neighborhood who would easily be parodied as saying "'Murica." It has more to do with socioeconomic conditions than with North or South. Finsternish (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, sorry to bother you but could you possibly delete this edit of mine https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English&diff=prev&oldid=48965095, and the following ones that show the same text? I would really appreciate it. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, just ignore this. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this is the same user as the Thai editor you've tried to detect using the "-th" filter? They geolocate to a different part of Thailand, but the quality of their edits really makes me wonder. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, there's no match. Both have been editing today, and the technical details show they're using different devices. Thailand's a big enough country to have more than one lousy editor. Of course, the -th editor is a special kind of stupid- they can find more ways to screw up entries by adding unnecessary or wrong templates and in more languages than your average incompetent editor could even dream of. That takes a certain kind of talent, one that we may never see the likes of again in our lifetimes- if we're lucky... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

What about User:110.169.68.156? —suzukaze (t・c) 01:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've reinstated my edit of the pronunciation of Welsh dad. Please see and as to why my edit is correct. Diolch/Thanks Llusiduonbach (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look again. I accidentally reverted your edit, then immediately reverted my revert. Whatever you did doesn't even show in the revision history- I'm assuming because it was identical to what was already there. My actual target was some vandalism in the edit before yours, which I had to remove by hand. Sorry for the confusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why you reverted my edits on that page? I was cleaning up the quotes and attributing credit to a sister wiki. If there is a problem, I did the exact same thing to tens of other pages, so you might want to know. ZootVine1337 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wondering if 211.1.70.190 (talk) is our JA-obsessed anon from the UK? I've just blocked them for a month and am now going through their contribs -- mostly bad. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

They geolocate to Japan and in my opinion this user's mannerisms are completely different and distinctive. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cheers @suzukaze, thanks for the double-check. Things like this listing 墓場 (hakaba, “graveyard”, literally “grave + place”) as a synonym for "execution ground" make me worry. That sounds like a manga-influenced misunderstanding by someone who's not a native speaker, and not able to differentiate slang or metaphor from core lexical values. Other edits like this with indiscriminate synonym lumping, and horribly unnatural usexes, are also unacceptable.

We have had an anon who loves to add synonyms and antonyms, picking words that are kinda-sorta in the right general area of meaning, but that aren't really acceptable as syns or ants. I wonder if this anon is that same one? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

110.3.37.126 (talk)? --Anus Dei (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Anus Dei: Possibly; thanks for the reminder.  :) I'll know more as time goes, I suppose. (Nice nick!) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This anon is pretty annoying: 110.77.226.117 (talk), 52.138.203.110 (talk), 185.119.56.8 (talk) and 2001:15E8:110:5F43:0:0:0:1 (talk)... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep. They're working real hard at it, but they'll get tired of it eventually. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

My take on it is that this is someone whose ego depends on being smarter than everyone else- that's why he's compelled to edit in a variety of languages, all different from his own. The problem is that no one is smarter than everyone at everything- especially around here (I'm not talking about myself, by the way). If he just concentrated on one thing and took the time to make sure he knew what he was doing, he might actually have something to contribute. Instead he ends up being humiliated by having his efforts reverted or deleted.

So now he's trying to play the supervillain who's going to outsmart us all- but his ego requires him to be dramatic, which defeats the purpose. If he has to show he can defeat us with one hand tied behind his back, all we have to do is look for someone going around with one hand tied behind his back. Being ostentatiously "brillant" is a lot of work, but spotting and undoing it is much easier- we don't have to be all that smart, but he does. Plus, he's the lone wolf type and we're not, so he's outnumbered, too. There's no doubt in my mind how this is going to turn out. The only question is how much of our time he's going to waste before it dawns on him that there are better things to do ... somewhere else. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Chuck Entz, It is relevant to have what I had on there regarding Late West Saxon. It gives people especially those who are learning Old English some context of which period dialect they wish to dive into. Old English is a very hard language for many people and removing what I had on there won't make it any easier. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

First of all, Wikimedia categories are navigational tools for finding entries that have something in common. They're not for educating people on whatever it is the name of the category refers to. Secondly, picking just one piece of information to showcase there is rather misleading. You make it sound like one solitary monk was the only person writing Late West Saxon, instead of it being the standard form in a leading city of the Old English-speaking area. Abbot Aelfric was an important and influential writer of that dialect, but he didn't make it all up himself. This is the type of thing that Encyclopedia articles are best suited for, not dictionary entries or the text on category pages. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite understand, shouldn't you give reasons for your reversion in the first place? And for sure, many entries of the table (including such ones as "{{{mint green}}}" and the aimles commas) were not up to date. --Malcolm77 (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This sockpuppeteer has a tendency to flaunt his vandalism, so I think it's a good idea to hide his edits so that he can't show them off to his friends or look at them as trophies. Usernames might also be hidden, especially for the first one.

Thanks for all the effort in hiding edits that you do! PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Who? ;)

Unless I missed a detail, there should be no way for a non-admin to even find out what their user names are. One of the accounts threatened litigation, which resulted in their edits being disappeared from all of Wikimedia so completely even admins can't see them. They may have thought it was funny, but such things are taken very seriously around here. Actually, for all their effort, their shtick was too lame to be even mildly funny. I hope their parents find out and they get grounded for life... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit on Ἄδωνις? --205.172.21.143 16:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because you didn't cite any sources nor do the etymologies of the Hebrew word ever mention the Semitic root. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually, my main problem was with calling the Hebrew term a cognate: that implies common inheritance, and it was obviously borrowed into Greek at some point. Also, since Hebrew is only related to the Phoenician, it doesn't really tell you anything about where the term came from, which is what etymologies are for- though some may be interested in the biblical angle. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you know how this is pronounced? It seems like it wouldn't be a homophone of cows (plural of cow). DTLHS (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard it pronounced, but the Century Dictionary gives the pronunciation as "kous", so you're probably right. I ran into that spelling first as a gloss in a Northern Paiute dictionary (the Northern Paiute name is tsugá), so I had my doubts, but it's apparently one of the more common ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Regarding this edit: The edit summary said "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page." Yup, it's indisputably an error, for three reasons: (1) The real sense's etymology is a separate etymology from the typo sense's etymology. So, because Wiktionary does not conflate senses but rather uses separate "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2" headings, the first repair to be made at the page, at the least, will be to separate them thus, even if the mistaken second sense (the typo sense) is kept for now instead of deleted like it clearly needs to be. (2) The typo/misapprehension sense doesn't belong in Wiktionary at all, for the same reason that thousands of other typos don't belong: we don't create dictionary entries for typos or clear/indisputable misapprehensions, even for ones with hundreds of instances scattered across the web. For example, we are not going to create an entry for English *bicicle , English *tommorrow , English *acommodate , or any of various ESL conflations (such as English site reminding ESL Germans of Seite which mistakenly leads to English side) just because corpus attestation shows that dozens or even hundreds of people have used those misspellings. (3) The current tag talks about deleting the whole entry, but it is only the typo sense that is valid for deletion, so the tag needs to be about deletion of one of the etymologies, not both. I did get a little testy on my previous edit—that was because whoever entered the typo sense overwrote a correct sense when they did it, instead of adding their misapprehension as a second etymology, which it indisputably is (and—what was more irritating—obviously is, for the same reason that *bicicle , *tommorrow , or ESL errors are). It was an insult to not only add bad content but delete valid content, instead of leaving the valid alone while adding something else, dubious or not. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your sense failed a request for verification, which means you can't put it back without providing 3 quotes that meet our Criteria for inclusion Note that they need to be in a phrase other than webside manner, since that seems to be a single set phrase. Also, you may not like the new sense, but removing huge chunks of text from an entry accompanied by an angry, ranting edit comment is a good way to guarantee a revert. As far as I can tell, you're a good editor- but you have to have respect for the other editors and for our procedures. Feel free to discuss this at the Beer parlour, or request an undeletion at Requests for verification/English. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Sorry I got too impatient. Seems to me that the adjective is also a lemma in its own right, but I'm not concerned enough about that by itself to build a case about it. Guess "see also" to webside manner is enough. I'll go slower next time and suppress the huff. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Happy Easter.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I was nagging new admin PseudoSkull about not hiding vandal edits unless necessary (for example, "BOB IS A JERK" does not need to be hidden, but "BOB SMITH, 10 HIGH STREET, TOWNINGTON, COUNTYSHIRE, IS A JERK, AND HE LOVES ALICE QUIRKAFLEEG" should be hidden due to personal data). My feeling is that since we are an "open" shareable project etc. we should try to keep everything open unless there is a deeply compelling reason not to do so (like those personal details I made up). PS correctly reminded me that you regularly hide vandalism even when it isn't particularly invasive. I gather this is because you feel that leaving it there (even only in the history) somehow lets the vandals score points. But I am not so sure. The only page that 99.999...% of people will see is the current page (not the history) and it's important that we don't create an artificial divide between the elite "admins" who can see the history and the lowly IPs who can barely do anything (we already try to punish them for various types of edit, and I wonder how many speakers of minority languages may have shrugged and given up). What are your thoughts? Equinox ◑ 03:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Remember, old vandalistic diffs still show up in Google searches... (whence much of our traffic comes) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought they didn't (of course, I mean stuff that is in the wiki history, and not older cached versions of main pages grabbed by search engines). I might be wrong but it's not my experience; can we confirm it one way or the other? Equinox ◑ 08:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Find a diff with distinctive verbiage that's not reflected in the current version, and do a Google search for it. If you find it, you'll know. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I first started hiding edits after a retired principal I used to know told about keeping a can of paint in his office so he could paint over graffiti before students showed up in the morning. That way the taggers would have nothing to show for their efforts.

My concern isn't with the effect of the edits on site visitors, but on the motivation they give to the vandals. Most vandals are looking for either the feeling of power or the notoriety they get from being able to make their mark on highly-visible public spaces. Viewing their edits or showing them to others reinforces the psychological rewards. In a way, vandalism is like spam that's advertising the vandals themselves.

The idea is for the edits to quietly disappear with a bland edit summary that gives very little information about what the vandal did. I try to do it consistently and often so that it becomes routine and boring. My goal is to drain as much of the fun and excitement out of vandalism as possible.

There are caveats: if there's content that ends up in the entry, we have to leave the edits visible for attribution per the Creative Commons license. We also should never hide good-faith edits unless there are other compelling reasons. I would especially never hide things when there's a content dispute, for transparency reasons. In short, actual content shouldn't be hidden. We should only hide edits devoid of usable content that are intended to damage the dictionary or that show reckless disregard for the damage they do. Of those, we should only hide ones where there's the potential for encouraging future vandalism.

I realize this is a different approach, and I wouldn't want to push it on anyone else, but I've given it plenty of thought and I think it helps if done right. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Removing the motivation for vandalism is important in my neighborhood park, where a regular user paints over any graffiti found on a once-a-week walk-through. It seems to work. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok pardon, can you tell me if Aramaic Hebrew is spoken today? Thanks Gioielli (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are various Aramaic languages (including one spoken in Jesus' day in Palestine and one spoken by Samaritans in modern Israel) and there are different stages and dialects of Hebrew, but there isn't and there never has been "Aramaic Hebrew". You can see the list of languages recognized by Wiktionary here. You'll also notice that we recognize several Neo-Aramaic languages (and Neo-Assyrian, which is also Neo-Aramaic). Chuck Entz (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You blocked my IP today. I challenge you to show me what abuse I did and I will show you are wrong. --188.238.128.170 15:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

And if there is a governing body, after you have presented your evidence, please advice how to bring your judgement under a common vote. This kind of administrative terror over voluntary effort is not to be tolerated. --188.238.128.170 16:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now that I have left a message on your talk page as you suggested, and you have remained silent without giving guidance on how to proceed, I will revert your seemingly unreasonable reverts. This shall not be seen as an offence. I am all willing to discuss. --188.238.155.106 16:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your edits aren't abuse, per se- just prolific, unnecessary, and often wrong. You've been asked not to do this, and you've persisted. This is because you insist on constantly adding things to etymologies without knowing what you're doing.

For instance, you keep saying that Finnish words are cognates to other Finnish words. Cognates are words in separate languages that are inherited from a common ancestor. One can arguably say that a loanword from another, related language is a cognate, because it was a cognate in the other language before it was borrowed. That's not what you've been saying.

Also, saying that a Latin term is a false cognate of a Finnish term is completely pointless. There are thousands of languages in the world, and a great many of them have at least one or two terms that could be mistaken for a cognate of some Finnish term, just by random chance. That kind of comparison could be done with any language. Should I start adding "false cognates" to Finnish entries from some of the Uto-Aztecan American Indian languages Polynesian languages that I've worked with? Someone else might be able to add some from African languages or Vietnamese. Pretty soon all of the entries in the dictionary would be %90 false cognates and %10 definitions and other things one would expect to find in a dictionary.

You're wasting a huge amount of people's time with your nonsense. People have seriously proposed blocking IPs from editing reconstruction entries solely because of your edits- see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/April#Should anons' editing rights be restricted?. This has to stop. Now. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

In order to avoid an edit war, I was going to request admin moderation. As Wiktionary works a little differently from Wikipedia, I had difficulty in figuring out how to request assistance until I saw your name on the Wiktionary:Administrators page. Your user page doesn't make special note that you are an admin; it only notes your basic language levels.

But, that's off-topic; just making note that it wasn't easy verifying your admin status.
So, the subject at hand, the entry for "ooh la la".

Having studied française myself, I know for a fact that "oh là là" is commonly mispronounced and misused by English speakers. This is substantiated by the citable reference I added. The ooh la la entry does not mention that it is an erroneous translation of oh là là. I would like to suggest 1 of 3 changes to be agreed upon:

• The ooh la la entry strongly emphasize it is an erroneous translation of oh là là,
  and makes note of the difference in usage;
• Make ooh la la an empty Redirect entry to send people to the correct usage, oh là là;
• Delete ooh la la entirely since oh là là (the correct entry) already exists.

I will wait for a consensus to be reached before proceeding with further changes.
DeNoel (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

We are descriptive, not prescriptive. What's wrong in French might not be wrong in borrowings; compare nom de plume. Equinox ◑ 04:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Chuck. Why was my edit reverted? Scientific racism is the exact same thing as racialism. AltHypeFan (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not really. Racialism doesn't have to be scientific. Also, you messed up the formatting, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK then. I got confused, since Wikipedia has the two words as synonyms. And it doesn’t have to be scientific, yes. But racialism originates from science, it’s an anthropological stance. Lastly, I corrected the formatting just when I found out the edit was reversed, haha. It’s all fine. I’m really foreign when it comes to these topics. AltHypeFan (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think it was necessary to revert this one. Coloquially, it IS used to denote irrational and insane behavior. Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. AltHypeFan (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

As with your other definitions, you're leaving out important qualifiers. I don't think someone who's hearing voices or is homicidal would be described as autistic in this sense, though I'm not familiar enough with this usage to say how to fix the definition. Maybe you should ask at the Tea room about this and about your definition for cancerous, which has similar problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Irrational and insane as in stupid. Like how we use the words moron and idiot. But alright, I will check it out. AltHypeFan (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck, my edits on the page 'yogourt' have been reverted. To me there were necessary; yogourt and yaourt are words with different spellings, because they don't represent the same form. They don't have the same prononciation at all and the use of one or the other is a matter of regional preference. It is different from the case of English 'grey' and 'gray' for example. I will let you and other English-wiktionarists decide what to do.

Regards, Joutsen Ranskasta (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Joutsen Ranskasta (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you had used {{alternative form of}} I might not have reverted it, though I have my doubts as to whether it's really that closely linked to yaourt. I figured that a partial fix that got rid of all the formatting and the Category:Canadian French was worse than no fix at all. Maybe you should just put "{{lb|fr|Canada}} ]" in the definition line, and rewrite the usage note to say that yogourt is used instead of yaourt- without calling either an alternative anything. After all, it looks to me like yogourt is a borrowing from English that displaced the normal French word rather than a form or spelling of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I will do as you suggest for further edits. Regarding the origin of 'yogourt', I would like to partially disagree with you. The form yogourt is also used in Swiss French and is an alternative form in French of France (not widely used anymore). Yogourt and yaourt actually come from the same Turkish word yoğurt. The thing is that the Turkish letter 'ğ' isn't pronounced as 'g', but shows a lengthening of the previous sound. Basically, yaourt comes from the pronunciation of the word, wihlst yogourt from the spelling of it. I wouldn't say that yogourt is simply an English borrowing, even though the English language might have favoured the choice for yogourt over yaourt in Canadian French. Joutsen Ranskasta (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure whether you meant to do this. I'm assuming it was accidental, but if you meant to, could you explain why? --WikiTiki89 14:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it wasn't, but I tend to support Chuck Entz in this. Even if Rhymeinreason sometimes writes things that could be relevant, I find it very difficult to take him seriously, and I'm tempted to revert him every damn time; I never know if I'm going to waste my time reading useless mumbo-jumbo or not, which is frankly irritating. Yes, it's pure ad personam at this point. --Per utramque cavernam 14:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've warned him previously on his talk page to stop diluting our fora with nonsense, so this rollback is justified. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I didn't read it too carefully. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was not accidental. He coughed up a huge etymological hairball with no rhyme or reason that threatened to make the whole thread unreadable. There may have been a useful idea in there somewhere, but it was all just one big, snarled tangle of tangents and non-sequiturs that would have taken hours to pick apart. How can you respond to something that has no point? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

109.41.1.155 (talk) is churning out barely readable prattle too. I'd say it's him. --Per utramque cavernam 18:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Probably. He forgets to log in sometimes, and the IPs geolocate to Berlin, the same as this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

A while back, I made the page Category:zh:Communities for the village-level division of Chinese minor geography called 社區. I made an edit here: with the intent of making this new category work like the Category:zh:Villages page: right now, when I use a certain template like I used at 西屋臺, the village gets put into the Category:zh:Villages automatically. I want to make it work so that 躍進橋 will automatically get put into Category:zh:Communities automatically. How can I do this? Do you know? Do you know who knows? Thanks!!

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I ended up creating a category called "Category:zh:Residential communities". Let me know what you think of it! Thanks --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm so sorry about this but could you undo all my edits to this word after the first one (11:14) and hide the edit summaries please? I wrote something I shouldn't have, and also I really don't want to inflame the situation again. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey ... I noticed you twice reverted an addition of etymology to брызгать by an IP. The etymology is correct; Vasmer confirms that the verb is onomatopoeic in origin and the cognates all look correct. Just wondering your reason ... are you reverting everything from particular IP addresses, since some of it is bad? Benwing2 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The edits in question are by permanently-banned editor Gfarnab, who has persisted in making lots of bad-to mediocre and often plagiarized edits in languages he/she doesn't speak. I left a message about that on your talk page, but you apparently didn't see the connection to this. Even if this specific edit is good, reverting it and his other contributions has dramatically reduced the amount of new bad edits that people who know the languages in question have to check, so I make no apologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks. I did see your message about Gfarnab but I don't know how to geolocate IP's (and I'm not sure what to look for in any case). Benwing2 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

When you look at the contributions for an IP, it should have a link at the bottom of the page. The main link goes to a web site that has a field for "Anonymous proxy", which is either "yes" or "no". I can confirm that every single IP with "yes" in that field that's edited Wiktionary in the past few months really has been Gfarnab, at least of those I've checked. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please check Mañcaka and Kurangitrna? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You reverted an edit for "on fleek" today, and I was actually wondering about suggesting going further than mere editing. For one, the sentence in question is not even proper English:

• The term was created by Chicago-area teen Kayla Newman posted on Vine in June 2014 under her username "Peaches Monroee.", in which Newman, who had just had her eyebrows done for the first time, proudly declares "eyebrows on fleek."

And aside from the grammatical errors (at the very least, there is an "and" missing after "Newman", and "in which" incorrectly uses "Peaches Monroee" as its referent, because the video per se is not even mentioned), the sentence is factually wrong, too. It is self-evident that a term that was provably in existence in 2003 cannot have been invented in 2014.

If I knew how, I would suggest merging the entire article into the one for "fleek"; in contrast to, say, "on fire"/"fire", the preposition adds no meaning or nuance to the base word "fleek".

What do you think, especially about removing the article and, at best, adding a usage note to "fleek"?

Thanks, Felix.

Felixkasza (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I reverted it because the entry is on fleek, not fleek, and the phrase "on fleek" doesn't seem to go back that far. By all means fix the grammar- I definitely have no objection to fixing any grammatical errors that aren't in a direct quote and aren't part of the entry name. As for whether this is a sum of its parts (SOP in Wiktionary jargon), the fact that the first part doesn't add to the meaning is actually evidence that it isn't- I can't think of another phrase where on functions like that. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo my work on "reform"? Wizymon (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your correction left the usage example a mangled wreck. It's okay to replace a bad usage example with another one- don't try a halfway fix. A bird isn't a dog with a beak and wings grafted on. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is there a particular reason that you reverted my edit? --Zephalis (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was just a mess- misspelled and awkwardly formatted ("Ensligh"? "Scotts"?). I'm also skeptical that an American term would come specifically from Ulster English rather than from Scottish English- if it's Scottish at all. Etymonline traces it to a variant of cracker. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Besides, the etymology of crack is better handled at crack. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The probable etymology was taken from https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/34678 ("The generic name apparently derives from the Latin mordeo (to bite)". Not sure why it was reverted.

Also, is there a way by which your Talk page can be paginated or at least converted to last entry first? It's a pain scrolling all the way down to make an entry.— This comment was unsigned.

@Sahana: Sorry to take so long replying. The Latin looked wrong (your reference says mordeo- "mormodit" seems to be a rare error for momordit), and the wording was odd. There's no need for "The etymology is" in a labeled etymology section- it's like writing "this sentence is about...", and "apparently" looks out of place in a reference work. I'm not sure myself how best to deal with the Latin (we usually link to the lemma, mordeo, but that doesn't show the reduplication...) or I would have fixed the wording myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the misspelling was in the heading on this page, which I corrected and linked to the entry under discussion. “Momordica”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. supports the etymology, referencing momordi/momordit. DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In this case, I'd suggest either something like "from momordi, inflected form of mordeo" or "from mordeo (momordi, momordit)", or piping the link, like "from momordi", since it's otherwise confusing where the reduplicated syllable came from. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm away on holiday until Thursday - could you patrol recent changes in my absence please (if you don't already). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll do my best. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This word is clearly a cognate of kamień, *kamy, *h₂éḱmō, Old High German kemîn etc. Did the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Proto-Slavs not have chimneys according to you? Skrzymir (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Hello. Could you block this guy? I don't foresee anything good coming from him. --Per utramque cavernam 18:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, that would be too harsh. I don't think he's a vandal; looks more like he doesn't have a clue. --Per utramque cavernam 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did not. :-P

—Ruakh_TALK
17:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz,

In good faith you reverted my edit to the Wiktionary entry “Firstly”, and you added that if I think it’s in error, I should leave a message on your talk page. ]

The problem with the “Firstly” entry is that it suggests that de Quincey “erroneously believed” that the word “firstly” was a neologism. The fact is that de Quincey put that idea into the mouth of a fictional persona, and not only that, but it occurs in a fiction that de Quincey translated and adapted from another writer and another language. Therefore de Quincey is not claiming it as his opinion. This is similar to when it is sometimes mistakenly says that George Bernard Shaw hated the game of chess — the fact is Shaw liked to play chess — but he caused one of his fictional characters to hate chess.

A second, but related problem with the entry is that the content regarding de Quincey is completely unsourced. If it were sourced it would source to the fictional short story, and it would need to correct the false implication that the de Quincy quote is non-fiction. It isn’t.

My edit made more than one correction: It contributed the missing sourcing, and it corrected the false implication that it was a non-fiction comment, and corrected the idea that it can be claimed to be de Quincey’s own belief. My edit killed three birds with one stone.

There is another problem with the entry: it suggests that de Quincy was the first to argue against the use of the word “firstly” — this is also untrue and also unsourced.

It might be useful to do some research and find out who was the earliest person to argue that. It wasn’t de Quincy. I suspect that it may not be known who actually was first, that we only have the earliest argument that has been discovered. Which seems to leave a void in our knowledge, but we shouldn’t be lured into filling in a void with false unsourced info.

I see another problem: the “some have argued” comment. It’s also unsourced and it’s the kind of vague statement that editors can’t seem to resist, because it makes an entry sound more solid. But can’t a single source be found among those “some”?

The reference that I dug up required a bit of research, and if you remove the source of the de Quincey material, then it may be lost to Wikipedia for years, and the incorrect information will be perpetuated, partly because it’s so obscure — it’s not a “hot topic” — and we can’t count on another person coming along troubling to make the correction. Thanks.Cottonwalyer (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, and everything has to be concise. There's no reason to even mention de Quincy in a usage note like this, let alone to discuss the intricacies of proper attribution at length and with references. If it were an etymology, references would be helpful, but usage notes are about usage, not the history of the debate about usage. It should suffice to mention that some people consider it non-standard, and that they may be mistaken, with a very brief explanation as to why. Wiktionary does not require references for every detail like Wikipedia does, and our highest authority is usage, not reliable sources. See WT:WFW and WT:NOT. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You and I seem to be mostly in agreement. I will remove the erroneous info regarding de Quincy. What's left seems to satisfy what Wiktionary requires for this entry. Thanks. Cottonwalyer (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am curious to know your opinion on the proper definition of "falsifiable" in epistemology. Encyclopedia Britannica clearly distinguishes between falsifiability, which existed way before Popper, and Popper's falsifiability. Similarly, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that Popper introduced falsifiability and it also associates falsifiability to Popper. These articles explain the distinction between Popper's falsifiability, i.e., logical falsifiability, and ordinary falsifiability.

It is also part of the common usage among scholars, for example:
http://science.martinsewell.com/falsification.html
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24523/evolution-and-popperian-falsifiability
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Popperian_falsifiability_be_applied_to_cosmology_science

I am asking your opinion, because you made me think about the fact that, nevertheless, some documents will not associate falsifiability to Popper. For example, in https://rationalwiki.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Falsifiability, they wrote that "It has been argued, most notably by Karl Popper, that the scientific method demands that a theory must at least in principle be falsifiable in order for it to be valid as science." They do not say that it was a new concept introduced by Popper. Therefore, they refer to the usual definition of falsifiability. The least that we can say is that it becomes unclear. This is not an isolated case. Therefore, it raises the question, if we decide that we follow the common usage, as you say, if we go along with how the term is actually used, should Wiktionary also be unclear about this issue by not providing the Popperian definition of falsifiability, which is called "logical falsifiability" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain your revert of my edit to acrophile? That does not seem to be a French word. I would at least like the definition kept.--Auric (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• <butting in> It is most certainly a French adjective and also an English noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove my Old Frisian addition? Wēda is the Old Frisian name of the god Wōden. It's in the entry of Proto-Germanic Wodanaz. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because of the declension table. As I said on your talk page, template syntax has no place in mainspace. Can you tell me what the following does?

<noinclude><!--

--><!--

--></noinclude>

Answer: absolutely nothing. <noinclude> and </noinclude> are meaningless when the content isn't transcluded, while <!-- and --> cause everything between them to be ignored. Putting "<!--" at the end of one line and "-->" at the beginning of the next one is just a way to have separate lines in the template wikitext for readability without having multiple lines output by the template.

The fact that you added that in a separate edit shows me that you have no clue what your code does. If even you don't understand it, how is the next person editing the entry supposed to figure it out?

Templates are meant to be used as templates, and if you don't know how to use the templates, ask somebody. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you made at least three reverse:

• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=stint&diff=prev&oldid=49792620
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nightmarish&diff=prev&oldid=49792623
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=location&diff=prev&oldid=49792638

The good versions lost the following examples with your change:

• A good, and perfectly understandable, nightmarish example:

  A 19-year-old woman visiting her mom in a Vancouver suburb had a nightmarish two-week stint in immigration detention added to her trip after she mistakenly crossed the Canada-US border while jogging

• A good location example where there were no example at all:

  "It is the responsibility of an individual traveling in the vicinity of an international border to maintain awareness of their surroundings and their location at all times to ensure they do not illegally cross the border."

• A good, and perfectly understandable, stint example:

  A 19-year-old woman visiting her mom in a Vancouver suburb had a nightmarish two-week stint in immigration detention added to her trip after she mistakenly crossed the Canada-US border while jogging.

Note that while an article might be better with no example or with helpless abstruse ones, an example which is perfectly and easily understandable should help to understand the definition.

So far we do not know why you rolled back. Let us know, or roll back to the good version! If you think the good version is wrong please use the discussion page to expose your personal view on what's wrong.

Could you please roll back to the good version?— This comment was unsigned.

While the quotes do indeed show usage for the terms in question, they also tell a story about a very strongly polarized political issue in such a way that including them would imply that Wiktionary is taking a position on that issue. Wiktionary has no political opinion, and a neutral point of view is one of our fundamental principles. I can see why you want to spread the word about this incident, but a neutral dictionary site isn't the place to do it. I've reverted conservatives several times who were doing exactly what you're doing, so it's not a matter of bias on my part. Sorry to disappoint you. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've just dealt with it for this account, but because he likes to cause havoc at both here and 'pedia, I've made it a habit to give them a heads-up whenever we catch him and I see that he's been editing there too. The bureaucracy is annoying (to nobody's surprise), but it's not too difficult. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

O great- one more thing to keep track of...

I wasn't aware of that SPI. It's good to know that Bedrock Person and יבריב are the same person- I had a hunch, but Bedrock Person was blocked too long ago for me to checkuser (the WMF has to delete all of that data after 90 days, but individual checkusers can save it for their own use for a good reason and as long as they follow the usual non-disclosure rules). That reminds me: I need to make some sense out of my יבריב stash at the checkuser wiki and post it for the other checkusers. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It may not be worth the bother. I felt like nobody on other wikis really cared all that much, and I think we get the brunt of it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

So until now all my edits were not autopatrolled? Thank you for adding me to the list, but I find it kind of funny that I became an administrator before I even made the autopatroller list. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE: See WT:Grease pit#Rollbacks are not autopatrolled. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. So it's a technical issue. Thanks Metaknowledge! --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't know whether your rollback is in error or not because you gave no explanation. What didn't you like? (And why didn't you say what it was in the edit summary?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

We already have the entry ʻulu. The word you edited, ulu, is very different. If you don't know enough Hawaiʻian to know the difference, you shouldn't be editing those entries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Metaknowledge, I'm not sure how to take that third sentence. Are you naturally abrasive or did something I did hit a sore spot for you? If the latter, I apologize for whatever it was. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

My edit added a link to ʻulu. It also contained a quote from an article in a newspaper published in Hawaii that spelled it "ulu." (Granted, the newspaper is not written in Hawaiian.) Perhaps my error was adding the entry under Hawaiian rather than English. If so then it seems to me the proper response would have been to move it rather than roll it back. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is already a link to ʻulu at the top of the page (See also). Your quote claimed the word was Hawaiʻian, which does not serve to support putting it in an English entry (if that is even attestable). As a result, Chuck's rollback was indeed proper. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding attestable: , , and . Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2018‎ (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Right, 'ulu is at the top of the page. But what if I read "ulu" in a newspaper article and come to Wikitionary for the definition of that word? Would it have been appropriate to put my entry in the English section of this page and said "English spelling of the Hawaiian word ʻulu, meaning breadfruit"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2018‎ (UTC)Reply

Viewing the linked texts, there may be enough to support creation of English ulu, with appropriate labeling / usage notes, even though many of these texts say "the Hawaiian word for breadfruit is ulu" -- English authors historically have rarely accounted for the ʻ, the ʻokina or glottal stop, and long vowels are also often ignored. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr, thank you for this constructive response. My fear is that I have no idea what the community would consider to be "appropriate labeling / usage notes" and the vibe I get from @Chuck Entz (who still hasn't provided his reason for the rollback) and @Metaknowledge (who began our conversation by telling me to get lost) suggests any initial effort I make will be discarded rather than improved upon. 11:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Butwhatdoiknow -- I don't have any immediate thoughts on creating an appropriate English ulu entry. I did want to note that Μετάknowledge's comment wasn't so much "get lost", as it was "please don't try editing entries in languages you don't know." We get a lot of that -- editors, both anon and logged in, and both newbies and folks who've been around a while, who embark on efforts in unfamiliar languages and make a royal mess of things. The Wiktionary editor community is much, much smaller than the Wikipedia editor community, and as such, 1) there are fewer people with expertise in each given language, and 2) erroneous content might wind up hanging around a lot longer before anyone (who knows better) might notice. This both generates a lot of cleanup work for the subject-matter experts, and exposes our readers to lower quality content. Neither is a good thing.

That said, we (Wiktionary editors) could do more to be welcoming. However, it is difficult to discern the well-meaning-but-not-yet-competent editor from the incompetent-and-casual user who wants to give this whole "Wiktionary" thing a poke, and indeed from the malicious-and-gleeful vandal, and sometimes the welcome gets lost in the sense of urgency to clean up others' messes. I mean no offense-- I'm simply attempting to describe where many of us editors are coming from, in terms of the response you might receive.

If your skin is thick enough and your lexicographical curiosity deep enough to get over the initial hump, I suspect you may find your time on Wiktionary rewarding. Striking up dialogues such as this one is a great way to suss out the ins and outs of this place. Good luck!  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please stop hiding edits. It is unhelpful to Wiktionary. Many people want to know what those edits are and you are preventing them from knowing those edits. Please unhide all the edits you hid. Thank you. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:7D08:C046:F35:F78F 01:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is absurd. I have frequently viewed edits that Chuck has hidden, and every time, he has not only made a good choice in hiding them, but additionally, he has given his reason for hiding them, which can be viewed in the public deletion logs. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are legal reasons for hiding edits that say damaging things about private individuals (by name) or edits that violate the intellectual property rights of others, and there are practical reasons for hiding spam that links to commercial or malware sites, so I'm not going to unhide those.

As for vandalism: you may want to see those edits, but the vandals also want you to see those edits, to show off what great vandals they are, or to use our website to propagate their opinions. I prefer to remove that incentive for them to vandalize our site. I know that other admins disagree or may not want to spend their time doing it, so I don't insist that anyone else follow my practice- but I make no apologies for doing it myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mind explaining your rationale here? 65.51.188.59

Block-evading banned users don't get explanations. Please find something better to do with your time. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see that you're one of the admins who dealt with the problematic user IvanScrooge98 and blocked him in en.wiktionary. Lately he's been creating troubles in en.wikipedia too, always about phonetic transcriptions and especially by adding non-consensual and useless text inside "<!-- -->"... May you do anything to stop him there too? Even just reporting him to Wikipedian sysops and reverting his edits would be useful! Thank you in advance :-) — This unsigned comment was added by 37.140.192.50 (talk).

IvanScrooge98 has merited a block here, at the English Wiktionary but we don't know who YOU are, since you are posting anonymously without even properly signing your posts. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

They have exactly 4 visible edits: 1 unrelated one on English Wikipedia, 1 cleaning up an IvanScrooge98 edit on English Wikipedia, and 2 on the talk pages of English Wiktionary admins complaining about it. None of those is on IvanScrooge98's talk page or on any WP admin's talk page- smells like forum shopping to me...

Yes, I saw those edits and I thought so too (also, maybe just an observer/reader, not an active editor) but we don't know if there were other edits under a different IP. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck EntzI see that you are about the process of deleting the bagua from Wiktionary, even as I am about the effort of augmenting the information on Wiktionary so they are more than just unicode symbols. Are you acting on a vote to delete them or just pruning pages that are useless? Perhaps we should talk and not work at cross-purposes Jawitkien (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not deleting them because they're bagua. I don't remember at the moment the exact reasons, but I believe it was something about the entries themselves as created. I certainly would have no objection to your creating replacement entries, since you seem to know what you're doing. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Then could you undelete the entries for ☷, ☳, ☴, ☵, ☲, and ☶ ? The entries for ☱ and ☰ are still there. I'm not a sysop, so I'd have to recreate them and I'm not confident I would do a good job Jawitkien (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing to undelete. The only one of those that was an entry was ☲, and it consisted of nothing but a single sentence with no formatting. When I delete an entry as "no usable content given", that means it's better to start from scratch. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll try to create the needed six. Appreciate your efforts. Jawitkien (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did so since the output of the code sequence results in "German Low German" which makes no sense; what should be displayed is "Low German"; that was what I was trying to achieve. Have you any ideas on how to fix this?

Wizymon (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whether it makes sense or not, that's the name we use. See WT:ANDS-DE. The problem with improvising methods to "fix" one entry is that there are over a thousand entries with the German Low German header, and a great more with etymologies using the name- all you're doing is making things inconsistent. What we have now is far from perfect, but it's been discussed at length and this was chosen as the best compromise that could be made to work with the way our treatment of languages is structured. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ping @Wizymon, which is important since I had to move this from my user page, where it didn't belong. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

"all you're doing is making things inconsistent". So, by using that logic, if I were to change every page with "German Low German" to "Low German", then there should be no problem, correct?

Wizymon (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, no. The headers are just part of a much larger picture. Our templates automatically fill in the language name where appropriate, and there are categories and other things based on the name we have in the data modules. For instance {{cog|nds-de|god}}, which is used in etymologies, displays as: German Low German god. There's also {{m|nds-de|god}} / god for linking without the language name. If you click on the term, it will take you to the German Low German language header, but if there's only a Low German language header, it will take you to the top of the page. Then there's the matter of categorization: every category in Category:German Low German language has a template involved, and those get the language name from our data module. You can change the header, but there's still a massive amount of infrastructure pointing to the other name. I'm not trying to sell you on the German Low German name (no one is all that enthusiastic about it), but changing a language name on Wiktionary requires more than just your individual decision- it involves a lot of work, including things a non-admin can't do. Because of all the things I just mentioned, unilaterally making changes like you're suggesting would just mean someone- not necessarily me- would revert all your edits, and you would probably end up being blocked.

You need to make your case at the Beer parlour or at Requests for moves, mergers and splits, and get a consensus to make the change. If the community agrees, we'll see that it happens. Without that, I can guarantee you that it won't. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm wondering why my edit was reverted. My addition was based on this, where the etymology of coucher is explained in detail. Tlatolli (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do belive this rollback was in error. The etymology is quite clear from the Wikipedia article on the plants. I added the etymology, because the original ancient greek "ophrus" is difficult to search form its medical usage "ophryo-"

The etymology you gave would be fine at an entry for the taxonomic name, but the French word is simply borrowed from the taxonomic name. You'd have to fix the language codes, anyway, since {{etyl|grc|en}} is for English words derived from Ancient Greek, and we're trying to phase out {{etyl}}, so it would be {{der|fr|grc|ὀφρύς|t=eyebrow}} in the French entry. In addition, you put it in the wrong place in the entry- please see our Entry layout page. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. The language codes was an oversight on my behalf - too rushed cut and paste job, sorry. I will leave the French entry alone, since my main interest was to make the ὀφρύς entry more searcheable for us Asclepians with increasingly limited skills in the Ancient Greek department. Not sure how to do that then. I couldn't add a Descendants entry to the AncGreek entry, since Medical Terminology hardly counts as a language of its own. I might put the link in the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Keratosis_pilaris_atrophicans_faciei, instead, but I find the terminology references should be kept within the Wiktionary. I would be grateful for any advice, you may have to offer.

Would you please explain to me why you reverted my edit of "באַקומען"?

Wizymon (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Certainly- I was hoping you would ask. We're trying to phase out the {{etyl}} template, using {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{der}}, etc. as appropriate. The main problem, though, was that you used the language code for German, de, instead of the code for Yiddish, yi. That meant that the entry was in the categories for German terms derived from Middle High German, Old High German, and Proto-Germanic. In other words, you had the right idea, but most of the details were wrong. I apologize for the manner I dealt with this, but it was all I had time for last night. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

So instead of undoing my work, would it not have been wiser and more efficient for to make corrections to my work instead reverting it all?

Wizymon (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re-read Chuck's comment -- "it was all I had time for last night". Generally speaking, the editors here are happier to have an entry be incomplete than to have it be wrong. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

So Chuck, how do you suggest that I fix this then?

Wizymon (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think that the Japanese translation should be ニヴフ語 because this is the name of the language spoken by the Nivkh.--YukaSylvie (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have no clue about the Japanese, but you trashed the formatting by putting things where they didn't belong. If you had looked, you might have noticed that the result was:

• Japanese: Lua error in Module:gender_and_number at line 106: The gender specification "ニヴフご, Nibufu-go" is not valid.

You should never leave a page you've just edited without checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please STOP undoing the edits going on there! Thanks. 121.74.231.172 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hello anonymous editor --

Quotes in entries are intended to clearly illustrate the meaning of the term defined in that entry. I'm afraid that the quote about alphabet soup is not a clear illustration of the meaning, and as such, it is an inappropriate quote for the entry. That is why editors continue to remove it. Please see WT:QUOTE for some guidelines on how to choose effective quotes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Interested in dealing with CrayonS (talk • contribs)? I'm already losing patience. Per utramque cavernam 20:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, you asked me to come here if I disagreed with . The previous (now current again) version is incorrect. I posted a very high quality source (Strong’s Condordance) together with my correction. What are you uncertain about? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You say that what was there was incorrect- how do you know that? Strong's concordance only deals with Biblical Hebrew, so it won't mention anything but usage in the Bible. That leaves out two or three millennia of usage that Wiktionary treats as all the same language. Not only that, you changed the Aramaic section, even though there's very little Aramaic in the Bible, and Strong's doesn't say that the root in question is Aramaic.

If you just added a sense, that would be one thing- but you removed everything else from the entry in order to replace it with your word-for-word copy from Strong's.

Worse, the definition was poorly worded: what does "to roll self, wallow self" mean? It's certainly not grammatical English. Wallow is an intransitive verb, so it doesn't take an object. You can't say "I wallowed him", so you shouldn't be able to say "I wallowed (my)self". I realize that it's Strong's wording (or an editor's- Strong died in 1894), not yours, but if you're going to be adding a definition, you have to take responsibility for it.

To sum it all up: you removed other people's work in order to replace it with a poorly-worded definition that you obviously don't understand, on the mistaken assumption that anything not mentioned in Strong's couldn't be right, and did the same to the Aramaic section without the slightest indication in your source or anywhere else that it applied to Aramaic.

I don't know for certain whether the material you removed is incorrect, but it was added by an Israeli native speaker. You, on the other hand, don't seem to know anything about what you regurgitated unchanged from your source beyond the exact wording of the source. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I came to your page to have a discussion, as you requested. Your aggressive tone is inconsistent with that.

The Aramaic is misleading. Firstly modern Aramaic does not use the square script, nor did middle Aramaic. So when User:334a (an expert in the field) added this a decade ago (with only the break through usage), the user should have been clear whether they were referring to the F-L-Sh triliteral root, or Biblical Aramaic, or a transliterated version of ܦܠܫ in any modern Aramaic / Syriac / Assyrian language (e.g. ).

Secondly, the primary usage of the term in modern Hebrew is flash (cognate from English).

Thirdly, my editing experience is primarily in Wikipedia, where if we don't have sources for something, they can be removed at will. Is that not the case here at Wiktionary?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Onceinawhile: First of all, you're right: although I stand by the substance of much of what I said on topic, that was no reason to bite your head off over a good-faith request for information. I've been really busy at work, and I wasn't getting enough sleep in spite of a long weekend, so I was grumpy and a bit defensive.

The edit summary was a canned text built into the rollback tool, and it can't be changed without changing it for all rollbacks (the wording was added so people wouldn't be intimidated out of questioning legitimately mistaken rollbacks). I and maybe a dozen other people patrol pretty much all of the new edits by people who aren't whitelisted- a thousand or more a day- so I often don't have time for decent edit summaries or discussions on talk pages, especially since I also read every word in every discussion forum and do various other cleanup tasks, as well as my responsibilities as a bureaucrat and a checkuser.

As for the practice here: Wiktionary is quite different when it come to sourcing. Outside of the etymologies, we go by usage rather than authoritative references: something that appears in all the dictionaries but isn't or hasn't been used doesn't meet our Criteria for inclusion, while there's a vast amount of usage that authoritative references haven't gotten around to addressing (I should mention that we have different standards for languages with little documentation of usage- in those a mention in an authoritative source is enough). A dictionary entry is by necessity a very dense, streamlined format, so a great deal of synthesis and re-wording is necessary. If we required the kind of sourcing that Wikipedia does, we would have to delete most of the dictionary.

There are times when you can remove information that doesn't make sense or seems to be written by someone who has no clue, as long as you know the language- and reworking is generally encouraged. Otherwise, it's best to tag with a request template and post a request on the appropriate forum: {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} if you think the term or sense doesn't exist as defined, {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} if there's something inherent that makes it wrong to have in a dictionary whether it's in use or not, such as not being a lexical unit, which we refer to as sum of parts or SOP. And you can always discuss aspects of a specific entry in the Tea room or post a Request for cleanup. I'll post our welcome template on your talk page with more information. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck,

Thank you for such a thoughtful and informative post.

It is clear that I have a lot to learn. I got myself into a similar situation at Wikisource some time ago, bumbling in mistakenly thinking that what works on Wikipedia would work there (and now here).

I'd also like to thank you for your service to this project. It amazes me how such a small group of core admins can keep this gargantuan dictionary in such good shape. It's clearly a lot of work. The entire internet community, and generations to come, benefit from that work a great deal.

As for the page in question, it is clear to me that I need to spend some time understanding this project in more detail before taking any more of your time in debating the right outcome.

Best regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

IIRC, wasn't there someone who was banned ages ago for recklessly and persistently making entries for days of the week? Could this be the same person? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep. That was Willy2000. Aside from creating entries for days of the week in obscure languages based on entries in those languages' Wikipedias, they used to specify that a term like evening referred to a time starting at a specific hour like 5:00 PM and ending at an hour like 8:00 PM, and I caught them once lecturing a native speaker about naming of building floors based on a single apartment floor plan on a website somewhere. The behavior matches, and information visible to checkusers (I'm being deliberately vague for privacy-policy reasons) matches closely enough to make it unlikely this is someone else. I've blocked them and mass-deleted their entries. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you reverted this edit. The original edit was incorrect since I spelled the comedian's name incorrectly and didn't provide any supporting sources. But the more recent edit provided links to sources indicating the usage definitely predates 2004. I only put the first two sources I found but am happy to provide more. How many do you need?

Is this Nemzag? (wtf?) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 22:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems as though you are averse to any general information. I do not know why you did revert mine edits in blood (noun), wherein I but eked a phrase: Australoid blood( or, heritage) in South Asian population . Australoid heritage is still common in the Subcontinent in many ethnicities with varying percentages and distribution. Given that it is well wonted for a good wordbook to mention anthropological, genetic, linguistic or historical tidings, it is most unwonted of you to unwork mine edits. Only personal or biased opinions, or some irksome tales are unacceptable in Wiktionary, but what be amiss with a brief genetic truth? If mine edit indeed be unfair I beseech you delete any such kind of historical tidings wheresoever in this wiki. ---(user:2405:205:6491:486:64EB:825A:46FE:8F11), 10:16 A.M., 28 September (U.T.C.).

Your addition to the English blood entry here 1) was not dictionary material (see WT:WWIN), 2) did not add anything to the entry that clearly illustrated the meaning of the term (see WT:QUOTE and WT:ELE#Example_sentences), and 3) could be construed as biased and pushing a particular point of view (see WT:NPOV). Given the potential risk of bias, and the apparent irrelevance, I agree with Chuck's reversion of that addition. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yea and verily, as long as you keep writing Anglish gibberish like the above, thou wilt be blocked and reverted by mine mine self on sight. Equinox ◑ 17:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's Anglish- averse is hardly Germanic. I think they're a second-language archaizer in the same vein as Bogorm, but not nearly as good at it. I'm no expert at Early Modern English, but I suspect that even someone from that era would have trouble reading oddities like the above with a straight face. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What’s wrong? Is it the modernisms like genetic? Is it saying ‘do not know’ instead of ‘know not’? What’s going on here?

How exactly does one learn Early Modern English in this day and age, anyway? Just college courses? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. We describe how words, phrases, etc. are or have been used, and what they mean or have meant when used. It's not a place where you can introduce opinions or even facts about things you happen to be interested in. It doesn't help that you seem to be preoccupied with odd matters of race and recreation of obsolete speech.

The sentence in question isn't really an example of usage- it's an excuse to introduce a link to Wikipedia about something that doesn't help to understand the word itself. Not only that, but it's a purely local matter that might set the precedent for people from all over the world to add similar local things and potentially swamp the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear worthy,

Soothly, your reversions were unfair, forasmuch as not a wight of the Wiktionarian laws have I flouted. In fast, you cut the Shakespearean quotation as well as another example phrase, both clearly bearing the meaning of the senses they were written under. As an evidence to soothe my case, hereunder are my edits (only the citations):

1. (dated) Firmly or securely fixed in place; stable.
   • 1596-99, Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act II, scene v:

     Do as I bid you; shut the doors after you:

     Fast bind, fast find;

     A proverb never stale in thrifty mind.

2. Firm against attack; fortified by nature or art; impregnable; strong.

   a fast bottle that never leaks

No vandalism it was, and hence let my fair edits be brought again. Also, kindly do keep from hindering knowledge. Yours earnestly, 2409:4061:605:16D0:15F1:1414:4E8C:5DBD 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It may not have been vandalism. That said, the quotes provided are not appropriate.

• In "Fast bind, fast find", Shakespeare is playing off the double-meaning of the term fast, and only the former use of fast in the quote is germane to the sense of "firmly or securely fixed in place; stable". Deliberate wordplay like this increases the likelihood of confusing the reader. While desirable in Shakespeare, this is undesirable in a dictionary entry.
• The second quote you provided, "a fast bottle that never leaks", is wholly irrelevant to the sense of "firm against attack".

Quotes should be clear illustrations of the term and sense indicated. Both of these are problematic on that point, and thus it is correct that they be removed.

You may find WT:QUOTE to be a useful reference.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ Chuck Entz I have to agree with all that you state - I wish other etymologists did so with lexemes like adze and others that have no known origin - some of the dictionaries are wildly inaccurate in their earlier origins! While originally, I was tempted to add Cornish "sconya" (to avoid), I came to the conclusion that it may be borrowed from the English. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 13:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition, I need to state that I was very irresponsible to have left my edit like I had: I actually thought that there may have been another Middle English lexeme, from whence shun was derived that had "u" as first vowel instead of "o", but cognate with the form which we presented.  Anyway, the etymology now is more accurate than it has been for a long time!  You are welcome to feed back any comments about the stringent etymology guidelines on (my) user page; like: acceptable, or where it is wrong, on my talkpage, but not on the user page, please.   Andrew H. Gray 17:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Andrew

In the article for roy, it is listed as having been borrowed from the now modern french word roi.

The Norman-Language or Old French used roy, not roi as denoting a king and roi would come to be the replacement of the word.

Sources for this that confirm that roy pre-dates roi are...

1. Ancestry (Dictionary of American Family Names ©2013, Oxford University Press)

- Roy -

" English (of Norman origin): variant of Ray 1, cognate of 3. French: from Old French rey, roy ‘king’ (from Latin rex, genitive regis)"

2. Anglo-Norman usage in Royal Assent for a public bill in the UK

- La Reyne (Le Roy) le veult. (The Queen/King wills it) Article : https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/La_Reyne_le_veult "The phrase Le Roy le veult was also used in the Parliament of Ireland (13th century–1800)."

3 Anglo-Norman language article also further points to the usage of roy as predating not having been borrowed. Hence, it is now considered obsolete, but not "borrowed" or taken from roi. : https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Anglo-Norman_language

4. L'Académie française a adopté l'orthographe « roi » en 1740

The French Academy adopted roi as the official word replacing roy in 1740.— This unsigned comment was added by 184.147.187.221 (talk) at 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC).Reply

I reverted it because you said that Anglo-Norman, which we treat as a dialect of Old French, borrowed it from French, which we treat as modern French- a bit of a grandfather paradox. I'm sure there was some other sloppiness in there, but that was the main reason. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm the user who made the edits. Curious why you rolled them back? I'm a native English speaker (American, but I do speak 6 other languages), and the examples I provided are valid uses which I've "heard in the wild" to use your phrase. :-) I know it's my first edit on a Wiktionary page, but was there anything inaccurate or did I fail to follow a procedure? I read the ToU before editing, and think I followed procedures but I missed something maybe?

Especially curious because you did not add valid examples of your own to the article.

Thanks! 63.72.211.242 14:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC) 63.72.211.245Reply

@63.72.211.242 Sorry not to reply immediately. I reverted because your examples were rather stilted and formal for a very informal, almost slangy term- they just didn't ring true. That said, this is more of a content dispute than a rule violation, so I'm not going to insist on anything- I'd just ask you to give more thought to tone and style when writing example sentences, since they're supposed to be typical of usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The use of ligatures in words is understood to be archaïc, not obsolete. Wiktionary's policy on obsolete and archaïc terms states that obsolete terms are no longer used or won't be understood as having a particular meaning; the page explaining this actually uses œconomy (note its ligature) as an example of what an archaïc word looks like. -Aæ is a widely accepted plural form for words of a certain etymology, and tracheæ is a perfectly valid (if not the most correct, for evil præscriptivists like me) plural of tracheä - it is in no way obsolete. Also note how wiki/-æ#English states that -aæ is archaïc, not obsolete. As part of ensuring consistency amongst the classification of words containing ligatures, I am reverting the page on trachaæ back to my version. --BenYaMan (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reason why I think filthy language should not be deleted is because if you look up this Filthy language it will redirect to Profanity — This unsigned comment was added by Brandon5015 (talk • contribs) at 21:44, 01 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

That just means that it's something someone might type if they were looking for the article. Wikipedia is about subjects, so any combination of words that might describe a subject could be the name of an article (there are 53 redirects to w:Profanity, including w:List of swears). Wiktionary is about specific words and phrases that are parts of the language.

You could make a case for "the kind of really awful stuff you wouldn't dare say in front of your grandmother at Thanksgiving dinner" being equivalent to profanity, but it's not really something that goes together in any regular way as a unit of the language- it's just a combination of words and phrases that happens to mean pretty much the same thing. There are thousands of different ways to say it, there are books on the subject, and there are people who spend their entire careers studying it. You can't cover that in a dictionary, and it's a waste of time to try.

You created the entry, and I deleted it as not being dictionary material. You re-created it, then tried to protect it by playing some really lame and dishonest games, for which I blocked you. It was discussed by a number of others, and they agreed that it wasn't worth having a dictionary entry for it. Now you've come back from your block and started harassing people, so you've been blocked permanently. You're wasting everybody's time, not just your own, and it's not going to get you anywhere. Please find something better to do- somewhere else. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing that. I must have gotten carried away for a second. :) --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why was this edit reverted? It says on yeet that "yote" is a humerous past participle but doesn't have that information on yote. – Nixinova (talk • edits) 05:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't have reverted "{{lb|en|humorous}}", but your edit had "(humerous)". Not a big deal in the real world, but this is a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then you could have just fixed my typo. – Nixinova (talk • edits) 02:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

BITE – Nixinova (talk • edits) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In modern italian "Menare" has only the meaning of "Hit, beat (someone). This word has completely lost the meaning it has at the times of Dante.— This unsigned comment was added by Mimiddu (talk • contribs).

I wouldn't presume to say anything about the Italian- it's not one of my better languages. I was mostly concerned about the misuse of the {{lb}} template({{lb|it|obsolete|literary}}, not {{lb|it|Obsolete, literary}}), but after a night's sleep it seems a bit silly to revert over that. Sorry for the disruption. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. This is an revert of an edit of mine, that you did a long time ago but I've only just noticed.

You requested I consult you, if I considered your revert a mistake.

I don't - but anyway, I don't think you gave a reason for reverting it.

Did you, or should you have? Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Romanization entries are solely for referring readers to the regular entry, which is where the actual content should be. Content at the romanization entry is generally out of sync with the main entry because people who edit one don't think to check the other. For instance, there are two other definitions with the same romanization that your addition didn't address, so someone looking at your content would think that those other definitions didn't exist.

As for the message: the rollback tool has a generic edit summary that displays for every revert and that can't be customized for individual reverts. I couldn't have given a reason for the edit if I wanted to. The request for leaving a message on the reverter's talk page was added to the standard message years ago as a safeguard so any errors would be reported and explanations could be given, if necessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining, Chuck. Nice to see how things work. Have a good'n. Trafford09 (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck

I'm pretty new at Wiktionary, although I've been involved in building free bilingual dictionaries for more than 20 years, starting as a contributor to EDICT (predecessor of JMdict ). I asked a question a few months ago, which you answered. My question was along the lines of "When I change a Wiktionary entry, does someone check what I've done?" And, if I recall, you replied that people like Wyang who check the changes are a precious resource.

Well, I agree with you about that, but Wyang has deleted his talk page and apparently ceased working on Wiktionary, leaving the comment "not enjoying this site". 13:20, 28 November 2018 Wyang (talk | contribs) deleted page User talk:Wyang (not enjoying this site....

It appears his abrupt withdrawal may have been prompted by a dispute over the entry for "APP".

Somebody added a Chinese section for APP, Wyang removed it, somebody else added it back, Wyang removed it again, and ... (you get the idea). Finally, it was added back in with a comment directed at Wyang: "Please stop removing this out of process". Soon after, Wyang pulled the plug.

Wyang's view was that APP is not a Chinese word, and when it's used in a Chinese context, it's a case of code mixing, while Mx. Granger argued along the lines that it's a loanword, although some of his comments seem to miss the Wyang's point. (For example, he mentions 卡拉OK, which is a different case; and claims that Chinese "APP" is written "completely differently" from English "app"!)

I don't care too much about this particular issue, but I am dismayed at the loss to the online community resulting from Wyang's withdrawal. In Wiktionary, is there any way a person of great talent can have their opinions carry greater weight than those of others?

I know a physicist who heads a research group. Some years ago he dabbled in Wikipedia but stopped. He told me, "In fact it's a basic credo of Wikipedia that the editors are not experts; that the expert has no place in discussions; that the expert word carries no weight. That's the reason I never engage in discussions on Wikipedia (though sometimes sorely tempted); too often I know that I would end like 'go and study physics for ten years, and then you'll understand; at the moment there is no way I can convince somebody who doesn't have the necessary background'."

Another contact of mine who has a MA in Chinese linguistics, specializing in lexicography, recently wrote to me in regard to crowdsourced dictionaries, "If you take the time to produce and polish quality work, it is highly frustrating when an impatient/shortsighted/poorly-informed person decides to “edit” your work or completely delete it."

Is there anything that can be done to retain the best people, such as Wyang, who made an invaluable contribution to Wiktionary?

Richwarm88 (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fork the project. Equinox ◑ 08:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi - why did you revert my edit to banketspijs? As you'll see in my edit comment, banket does not mean almond. The etymology you have kept in place is mistaken. --83.104.179.207 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Banket doesn't, but spijs does, and the gloss is attached to spijs. The etymology is correct, and you've misinterpreted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. What's the SLO abuse filter? --Mustliza (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It has to do with very new accounts doing too many edits in too short of a time. Vandals try to get as many edits in as possible before they're discovered and blocked, and this reduces the damage. If you have more time-consuming things you can work on, it would be a good idea to do those first while the filter still sees you as a new account. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand. Sometimes when I make a new account, I let it sleep for a while, thereby avoiding the SLO filter - but I don't think I have any sleeper accounts :( Anyway, what does SLO stand for? --Mustliza (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, I lie. I have a handful of sleeper accounts, but I'm not revealing them, naturally. --Mustliza (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not chronological, it's number of edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh right, thanks for the info. I think SLO stands for "this guy should SLOw down already". --Mustliza (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck, we might have that same UK anon editing Japanese again. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the histories of 仙術 and 籠目, for starters -- does your toolbox help clarify if these various IPv6 anons are the same user? If so, I'm finding that IPv6 is much harder to block... any hints?

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

仙術 is probably User:Shāntián Tàiláng before they created their account- see the IPs listed on their user page. 籠目 is BT instead of Sky, but they could have changed their ISP. As for my toolbox: yes, I can see quite a bit more about the computer used for the edits, but I can only use the tool to prevent vandalism or other damaging edits- I have to have what might be called "probable cause". I'm also limited to the last 90 days unless there was some reason to have saved data from an earlier check (WMF is required to discard the data, but we can make a copy as long as we have a good reason and we keep it safe).

When it comes to IPv6, it depends on the ISP. ISPs are supposed to allocate the bottom 64 bits to the same person, but a couple of US mobile providers just randomly assign individual IP addresses- I've seen the same AT&T Mobile 128-bit address used by both a vandal and one of our trusted regular users at different times. Aside from those ISPs, I add /64 to just about every IPv6 block, which blocks every IP that shares the top 64 bits with the IP I'm blocking. If you're not sure it's a good idea, add the /64 to the IP you enter in the search form at at Special:Contributions- i.e. like this. As you can see from that search, that 65-bit range is pretty homogenous- I don't need to do a checkuser check to tell it's probably the same person. Just remember that you won't see edits by logged-in accounts using that range. For blocks of more than a few days I generally leave "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" unchecked, unless I'm positive there's not going to be any collateral damage. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr, did you mean to link to 聖術? I believe 聖術 is much more characteristic of the fellow. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck, @Suzukaze-c, ya, that's another one. There appeared to be a whole swath of vaguely-related magicky entries that showed up on my watchlist, and I picked one from that (trying to keep the number of "please look here" entries to a reasonably short list). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why do you keep reverting my example for hit twice? --Wishfart (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The sentence is ok, but it's not clear why you formatted it the way you did. Is it a quote? Who is it quoting? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck. Thanks again for your constructive message on my talk page. I'll bear it in mind. Do you have any idea how to fix the NICHED page? I feel the Template:initialism of template should allow for external links. --Pious Eterino (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Pious Eterino I know of no way to fix it, and I don't think that inline external links are a good idea. Links to other Wikimedia sites are often okay, but unlabeled links to totally unrelated sites put us in the position of appearing to endorse those sites. At the very least it's confusing, because people aren't expecting to suddenly find themselves at another website. What we usually do is put the link in a "Further reading" section after the main part of the entry (see WT:EL for details). The fact that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this organization also gives me pause, though their standards for inclusion are different from ours. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you rolled my edit back? Kind regards. Trade (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The quote you added was about the topic of "Christian Sharia Law"- that might be okay for an encyclopedia, but this is a dictionary. If you can find a quote that uses the phrase "Christian sharia", that would be better. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply