User talk:Chuck Entz/2019

Hi can you please clarify why you rolled my edit on unproven back? I think "not proved" is logically precise but not sufficient. It does not provide enough for a general reader seeking a definition of "unproven". I'd like to understand if I am missing something here to ensure I don't waste my time or yours with any future edits. Thank you.

I think you're reading something into the meaning that isn't really there. The original meaning of "prove" was "to test", and this form seems to have retained more of that meaning than the positive form has. For much of its usage you could substitute "untested" without changing the meaning. For instance, an unproven treatment is simply one that hasn't been shown to be effective. It may, in fact, be very effective, but no one has taken the steps necessary to prove it.

To put it another way: you're saying that something is unproven because there's no reason to believe it. I'm saying that there might be reasons, but as long as those reasons haven't been put to the test and passed, then it's unproven. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind my interjecting, Chuck - are you of the opinion that unproven and untested are NOT two distinct terms? Something may be unproven and untested, OR unproven and tested; for instance, if a pharmaceutical company tests a drug meant to cure cancer, yet it fails to be effective in said tests, it is unproven but it IS tested... Walterblue222 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The distinction isn't really relevant to this discussion. My point was that unproven isn't the same as dubious (though there's certainly some overlap). You're also missing some of the qualifiers I used. For instance I said "For much of its usage you could substitute" and "haven't been put to the test and passed". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chuck, can you hook me up with some interface editing rights? Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is א. א. אינסטלציה (talk • contribs) one of our old friends? Per utramque cavernam 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Not even the same continent, and nothing else matches, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. I don't like much what I'm seeing, in any case; @Vahagn Petrosyan, what do you think of this and this? Per utramque cavernam 22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam, I can't evaluate. I can't read these scripts. --Vahag (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Every time I open the 'recent edits' page, I see you doing battle with the forces of gibberish, vandalism and chaos generally. Thank you so much for your work! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosurewikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergencywikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at [email protected] before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address ([email protected]).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at [email protected] before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address ([email protected]).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)'

I appreciate your concern, but there are other aspects you need to think through. E.g. there is never a guarantee that an image in an archive wouldn't be changed – it could be changed in place (i.e. a different version re-uploaded), replaced with a redirect to another image, etc. There are basically many possibilities like this. So since there is no guarantee of permanence assigned to any included elements (images is only one of these types – other common type is templates), there is no reason to not actively substitute another suitable (and essentially identical for its purposes) image, esp. when there's a housekeeping being done on the images in the Commons. Cherkash (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you're trying to orphan an image so it can be deleted or something like that, say so. Improving the quality of an image that was part of a discussion a decade ago isn't a valid reason to change an archive- and that was the most obvious interpretation of your edit summary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to deal with these-- --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's okay. We deal with that all the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: What is the point of having German Low German Lane (“lane”), when just "Low German" is the norm, please? Kind Regards. Andrew (talk Andrew H. Gray 19:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Low German isn't the norm at Wiktionary. We have German Low German and Dutch Low Saxon as the default with plain Low German reserved for some odd cases where it isn't possible to pigeonhole usage into one or the other. Yes, there are a few editors who are vehemently opposed to this, but that's the decision that was reached, and that's how most of our "Low German" entries are organized. You can't just unilaterally change that by editing a single entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; I understand that now and am very sorry for wasting your time; the rules are the rules! Kind Regards. Shall copy your message on my talkpage as a warning. (talk Andrew H. Gray 08:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You rolled back a change to a link to go to Etymology 3 of the word "bee" which is the one relevant to bagel's etymology, in which usage it means ring. I'm not sure why. Darthkenobi0 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darthkenobi0 Because it's never a good idea to link to such things. This is a wiki- you have no control over what other editors will do with the other page. They could rearrange the etymologies, or add or remove one, after which Etymology 3 will no longer be the one relevant to your etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding, I'm new on Wiktionary. Would something like an anchor tag perhaps be appropriate then? Darthkenobi0 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Off the top of my head, {{senseid}} seems like it should work. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe I did it correctly but if anyone would like to double check it would be appreciated. {{SUBST:User:Darthkenobi0/Signature}} (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are 874 of them. They will go away. There was a longstanding bug in Module:parameters that I fixed. Some Lua rules we need to propagate:

1. NEVER DIRECTLY SIDE-EFFECT A TABLE PASSED INTO A FUNCTION. INSTEAD, CLONE IT FIRST.
2. NEVER MODIFY A TABLE WHILE ITERATING OVER IT.

Benwing2 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the etymology is incorrect or do you see formal(ist) obstacles to adding it?— This unsigned comment was added by 95.115.1.78 (talk) at 08:40, 2 March 2019‎ (UTC).Reply

You left all the parameters set for an Italian entry (language code "it") so that the templates added the entry to categories starting with "Italian terms derived from...".

When you do anything with templates, you should click "Show preview" and go to the bottom of the preview where it lists the templates and modules used. Open the ones you're working with in separate tabs and read their documentation to make sure you're putting the right values in the right parameters. Also check the categories at the bottom of the page. If you have something wrong, fix it and click "Show preview" again, then when it's right, you can click "Publish changes". That should help you catch embarrassing mistakes like that, and, as a side benefit, it reduces clutter in the revision history.

I always preview before saving, because I know from experience that there's a good chance that I'll overlook some detail and have to fix it anyway. Previewing makes me look like I know what I'm doing, even when I don't remember how to use a specific template- I put it in there, preview it, and then tinker around with it until I get it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

So you chose to vandalize valid information because you were too lazy to fix some formal mistakes that should be easy to fix? If you want this to be a wiki with participation of as much informed people as possible you should rethink your policy. 77.2.117.151 12:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's easier to revert clearly mistaken content than it is to go through and vet that content and make sure it's valid. The only vandalism, if that, was the original mistaken edit -- ripping out mistakes is not vandalism. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

There was no mistaken content. The etymology was correct. By reverting the edit, User:Chuck Entz eradicated all the etymological information on that word. That looks like vandalism to me. You may think that the correct use of templates and categories is more important than the actual information on a word, and therfore prioritise it over a whole etymological section. I consider templates and the like helpful tools for obtaining some of that information and therefore merely ancillary. By the way, your colleague MGlovesfun called the same mistake made by Leasnam a minor thing: . So it seems to me I´m not alone with that opinion. Have a nice day --95.118.6.90 09:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Indonesian" (Bahasa Indonesia) is really a standardized variant of the Malay language as much as "Malaysian" (Bahasa Malaysia) is, thus putting the Indonesian entry as a "offshoot" under the Malay one is correct. Why was my edit reverted back?

Sincerely,

a native Malay speaker from Malaysia.

Anumengelamun (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because that's not how Indonesian is handled here. In spite of its history and the similarity of the two languages, we treat them as separate. You certainly have good reasons to disagree, but it has been discussed more than once (the Beer parlour is the correct forum to discuss the matter) and it's been left the way it is- it isn't because no one was aware of what you're saying. Changing things unilaterally here and there just makes them inconsistent. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate the comprehensive response (that, plus telling about the "Beer Parlour" thing - sounds like a pretty neat discussion spot), thank you!

Anumengelamun (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because Special:WantedPages is crammed with unwanted and neglected pages it is no longer useful to me as a supplemental way of finding wanted taxonomic names. (There are more than 5,000 pages that are "wanted" 16 or more times, so a redlink with only 15 "wants" won't be displayed.) Over the last year or two(?) I had discovered that your welcome creation of wanted categories had led to redlinked taxonomic names on the category pages. Please let me know about any redlinked taxonomic names that you use on category pages, at least if there is a convenient way to do so. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

"이" solely by itself has no specific meaning unless specified by its underlying hanja or derived from context. I deleted the words that are left blank. In the past, there were many words that start with ㄹ(L(or R)) and ㄴ(N). However, now, if you look it up in the Korean dictionary, there are very few words that start with L(or R) or N because it has all changed to ㅇ(ieung). This was done in the period of Japanese colonization of Korea in 1933. Bonus: Note that 李(Lee or Li) is pronounced differently in the world, especially in South Korea. 李 is Pronounced Li in China and Ri in North Korea, but in South Korea, it is pronounced Ee(or I). However, South Korean 李 use "Lee" as their officail English name. Why is this? This was done in order to match the sound with letters. Think of famous celebrity name, such as Saorise Ronan, which is pronounced Seer-Sha, but they did not changed the spelling of surname, because it's historical. Their ancestors have used it for hundres of years, so although their name is pronounced differently to how it's written, they preserved it. There are many other examples, like Amanda Seyfried, Carlie Hunnam, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Charlize Theron, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Chloë Sevigny, Ralph Fiennes, Martin Scorsese, Demi Moore, Famke Janssen, Gotye, Ioan Gruffudd, Joaquin Phoenix, Julianne Hough, Matthew McConaughey, Mia Wasikowska, Milla Jovovich, Phil Keoghan, Rachel Weisz, Sade, Shia Labeouf, Zach Galifianakis, Jung, Descartes, Nguyen and so on.. However, South Korean 李 decided not to preserve the original spelling of surname, which should have been "리(Li)", but decided to changed to Ee(이). This can be proved by the fact that 李 in China is spelled 'Li' and in North Korea it is 'Ri' and even South Korean 이(Ee or I) use 리(Lee) as their official English surname. The change of spelling was done in 1933, which was Japanese colonization period, and it not only affected the surnames, but the language system as whole. 李 pronunciation in South has started to change from Ni(니) to Ee(이) from early 19th century, so they changed the spelling of surname in 1933. Was this the right thing do? Probably not. This is was done in the Japanese colonization era, and Japanse tried to abolish the Korean surname system(창씨개명) and try to implement Japanese surname system instead. So although 李 can be pronounced as Ee(이), surname spelling of 李 should not have been changed Ee(이), as you can see from Saorise Ronan and Nguyen examples. It is not clear why orthography of 李 turned into "이" instead of "리". Sincerely, Park. — This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary- "should" is irrelevant. If a particular spelling has ever been used, we have to have coverage for it. You can label it as obsolete, proscribed, or whatever, but it's not enough to say "it was a mistake- we don't do that any more". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

South Korean orthorgraphy of "이" is a mixture of 리(L/R), 니(N) and 이(Ee or I) sounds. That is why there are many '이' sound words. Only applicable in South Korea. In North Korea and China, they are all separated into each sound. Also, I filled in the blanks. Sincerely, Park. — This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

@211.198.112.251: There is no need to overwhelm editors with long discussions. You have removed multiple hanja readings from 이 (i), which are also synonymic/alternative forms to 리 (ri) or 니 (ni). You can't remove the readings from the South Korean form if they exist, are valid and are attestable. You can enhance by providing proper labels or use redirect to a more standard form. E.g. we have entries for both South Korean 용 (龍, yong, “dragon”) and North Korean 룡 (龍, ryong, “dragon”).

Etymologically, the North Korean form is apparently closer to the original Middle Chinese 龍 (MC ljowng) and it appears in both South and North when it's in the middle of a word (as a compound), e.g. 공룡 (恐龍, gongnyong, “dinosaur”) (even if "룡" is now pronounced "뇽" in this position. However, we have to provide the real usage, regardless of our political views or history. Please see how our Korean entries are made. Korean has an entry for 李, which is linked to both 리 (ri) and 이 (i). @TAKASUGI Shinji. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Takasugi, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? Some of the parts of hanja(이) were intentionally left blank, so I just deleted them. However, I recovered it and filled in all the information. You can check the history. Sincerely, Park.— This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

@211.198.112.251: The last comment was not made by User:TAKASUGI Shinji but by me, I called him to get his attention, since he is also involved. You can't delete "blank" hanja (definitionless), if they are valid. You have mass-deleted them in this edit. I have signed my post and you can see who says what, if you pay attention. You have to sign yours too with ~~~~.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of fact, I recovered the deleted parts and filled out all the blanks.This part was intentionally left blank. Hopefully, it helps. Sincerely, Park.— This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

OK, thanks. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@211.198.112.251: I have corrected your edit to use the proper transliteration and capitalisation in diff. We are using the Revised Romanization, so it's "ri", not "Li" at the beginning of the word. The transliteration is automated in 95% of cases. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation of initial rieul had been already lost when the romanization was changed to reflect the real sound. As Chuck said above, it is not a focus of Wiktionary whether they should be 리, 니 or 이. You can only say that they were written 리 and pronounced 니 but are now written and pronounced 이. (By the way, if South Koreans want to restore the old orthography, they can just do it.) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why would you delete or revert my entry in if not? Osbri (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because you were simply wrong: if not doesn't mean or. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking if not might mean "or maybe" or it might be a conjunction. What would you think if not is? Osbri (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

How was iskąą ánaagodzįįhł not usable? It's great for translations. I'm Chriicahua myself and thought it would be nice to include more Apache on wiktionary. see you tomorrow exists in English, why not in Apache? — This unsigned comment was added by 2600:1700:94A0:2720:C4D9:9941:8981:CB60 (talk).

See the Entry layout page. Your language header isn't the name of the language (see the list of languages). There's no headword template, and thus no categories. Everything's misspelled. I wouldn't know about the entry name or the definition, since I don't speak any of the languages in question. All of that is fixable, but I had to get your attention before you cranked too many more of these. If you make entries that don't take twice as long to fix as it takes to create them in the first place, I won't delete them. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm back from my hiatus, albeit in a limited fashion. I'm picking up loose threads, and noticing a lot of page histories like for ペルー or 月読 where an anon that geolocates to Vietnam is engaging in similar editing patterns to Fumiko. I feel (perhaps unjustifiably?) that she might be not logging in as a way to obfuscate her edits.

Do you have any thoughts or advice on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

See also ハンバーグ, where we also get an IPv4 address. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I can't use the checkuser tool except to prevent/stop vandalism, violation of rules, and other things that harm the site. Simply not wanting to be recognized isn't, by itself, anything wrong. If it were being used in bad faith to get away with something that wouldn't be allowed, that would be different. As for my thoughts about whether it's the same person- I don't know enough about Fumiko's edits (aside from the temper tantrums, of course) to have the slightest clue. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's quite clearly the same person. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it wrong that I added the Spanish part? We use that phrase in Spanish too. — This unsigned comment was added by Rolando 1208 (talk • contribs).

Adding a Spanish section is fine, but not removing a significant chunk of content from the English section without explanation. Feel free to add back your Spanish content (assuming there's nothing wrong with it- I haven't checked). If you disagree with part of the English entry, there are ways to challenge it- don't just delete it. Chuck Entz (talk)

I apologize for not being aware of the verification process, and ignorantly took the template at the beginning of the definition as a suggestion like Wikipedia's CN tags. I have added some citations to the RFV and moved the three quotations to the Citations:yeet page, as they appear to be "mentions" and not uses. 93 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I apologize for being a bit way too forceful in making my point, especially in the first half of my message. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Get over it. 112.201.3.230 06:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that wild onion deserves mention as a hypernym of twincrest onion? Or am I misunderstanding what a hypernym is? —Rua (mew) 23:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's probably more of a synonym, though I don't really care much, either way. I just didn't want twincrest onion listed as a synonym at wild onion, because there are just too many things called wild onion- even within this species' relatively limited range. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The source used the other fancy apostrophe. Wanna see?Ndołkah (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure they did. The question is whether the difference means anything. Word processing software tends to automatically replace apostrophes with left and right quotes, but web browsers don't. That means typing the same thing in Word gives a different result from typing it in a Wiktionary search box or edit window. PDFs are usually either scans with the text added using optical character recognition, or word-processing-software documents converted directly. Web pages can also be converted from word-processing-software documents. There are a number of ways that that "smart quotes" can end up online without any human being being aware of the difference.

Also, you may not have noticed it, but the headword template displayed ‘uuner instead of 'uuner- it decided that the ‘ wasn't part of the term, and linked to a nonexistent version of the headword without it. That probably should be fixed, but there may be other problems like that, because software on this site tends to assume that no one types ‘ on purpose.

What it all boils down to, is this: unless someone knew the difference and decided to use a left single quote instead of an apostrophe, it's better to use the version that Wiktionary users are most likely to get when they type on their keyboards. Otherwise you have to use extra workarounds to get everything to work the way it would with the plain apostrophe. In my experience, the character used to indicate the glottal stop isn't generally specially chosen. The Hawaiian okina is the only exception I can think of- and it has its own Unicode code point. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

that makes sense, i just didn't want to make a language up, however with my experience with Western Apache they use a fancy apostrophe for sure,words just don't seem to start with one.Ndołkah (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

San Francisco Bay Area why no translations, it's useful.Ndołkah (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Whether it would be useful or not, you obviously had no clue about any of those languages. That one module error tells me that you were going to Wikipedias in those languages and copying whatever they had. First of all, wikis aren't sources. More importantly, Wikipedia editors make things up all the time- their focus is on writing an article, not writing a dictionary, and they may not know off the top of their heads the term people actually use in real life, so they paraphrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know French and Spanish where right as I speak them. Can we keep those? The local news channels use Área de la Bahía for the area.Ndołkah (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with that. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did not understand why you reverted my translation "pelliccia di coniglio". I quote Treccani Enciclopedia…lapin ‹lapẽ′› s. m., fr. – Coniglio; pelliccia di coniglio; con questa seconda accezione è termine molto icn uso anche in Italia nel linguaggio della moda: una giacca di lapin.Angelucci (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

First of all, if you put an equal sign (=) in a template parameter, the system interprets everything to the to the left of it as the name of a parameter, so there was a module error. Secondly, you quoted an encylopedia article, but would an Italian dictionary have an entry for that phrase? I'm not that great with Italian, but it seems like what we call "sum of parts": the meaning would be covered at the entries for pellicia and coniglio. If I made up a word "xyz" for an animal, wouldn't you describe its fur as "pellicia di xyz"? I've seen some of your other entries in Requests for deletion because of the same issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck, I'm a bit stuck on where to ask this. User:Huhu9001 contacted me via email after they discovered they're subject to an IP range block, and cannot edit. I'm wondering if you, in your role as Steward, might be able to either handle this yourself, or help me figure out where to post such a request. TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm a Bureaucrat, not a steward- I'm just a regular user outside of Wiktionary. I checkusered their account, and they just started using an open proxy that was globally blocked by a steward. Someone commented on a talk page recently about the Chinese government having just blocked access to Wiktionary, so I assume they switched to the proxy to get around the restriction- out of the frying-pan, into the fire...

At any rate, I can't touch a global block, so I granted IP block exemption.

By the way: did you check whether you have the ability to do that? As a Bureaucrat, I can't tell (I would have that, either way), but I could have sworn that any admin has the rights to do that, just as they can make an account an autopatroller or give it a flood or a bot flag. Go to a user or contributions page, and look for the "Change user groups" link on the left to see what user groups you can change. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Aha, thank you! It seems I can get to that menu. I had no idea what that was for, so thank you very much for the pointer! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

PS mw:Multilingual Templates and Modules Capankajsmilyo (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

We have our own policies on user boxes and other general templates, so we take a dim view of people importing things from Wikipedia without checking whether they're compatible with our approach. If you want to implement a major cross-wiki initiative like this at Wiktionary, please provide an explanation at the Beer parlour, and get community consensus first. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I think you could help me. There is an entry there's many a slip twixt cup and lip, but the naming is amiss. It should be: there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip — that is to say, the definite article is missing before "cup" and before "lip". Wherever else you do search, you would find the definite article. Since I do not know how to change the heading of a lemma, could you kindly do the needful change? Thanks for the heed! —Lbdñk^{(⏳)·(🙊🙉🙈)} 18:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The current form is fine and can be easily found in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The other form scans better metrically, and is the one I'm familiar with. I think we need both, with one as an alternative form to the other- though a redirect would work. It's just a matter of seeing which is the best known/most common. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

They seem both comparably old in print, with the early cites (c. 1820) already suggesting that they were both well-known proverbs at the time. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why exactly did you delete my entries? Last time I checked, "zmírnění" was Czech for "mitigation" and "maltroigo" was Esperanto for "mischief". I sought all the exact translations I could find. — This unsigned comment was added by 2601:c7:c201:c640:11d5:512b:c7fc:940b (talk).

(chiming in) I suspect you might discover some of the reason if you actually look at our entries for zmírnění and maltroigo -- neither indicate the meanings you've listed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The IP has not edited either of those pages. DTLHS (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• @DTLHS -- This particular IP hasn't, but if you expand to the /64 block, you'll see it: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Contributions/2601:C7:C201:C640:11D5:512B:C7FC:940B/64

Part of the joy and wonder of IPv6 is the vastly larger address space for confusion.  :-/

• To the IP user -- Google Translate is not a valid reference for any single-word lookup. (C.f. https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=zm%C3%ADrn%C4%9Bn%C3%AD and https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=maltroigo, where I suspect these translations came from.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• The first thing I noticed was translations being added in an impossibly diverse range of languages all in a just a few edits. Albanian Burmese and Welsh are very tricky languages that are hard for non-native speakers to get right. Cebuanu, Hausa, Igbo, Kannada, Kyrgyz, Maltese, Samoan, Sundanese and many others are regional languages that very few people from elsewhere in the world study, let alone master well enough to be adding translations. For that matter, there aren't many people who've even heard of all those languages. The kicker, though, was removing a Czech translation added by a native speaker with the comment that it was "not accurate". That requires being either arrogant and reckless or utterly clueless. Either way, the only safe thing to do was revert. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I need to be able to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js, please. I always was, until recently. I and others have pinged you but you may have missed. Could you please enable my access? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck. I am still here, waiting for your response. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been ignoring you, but I'm waiting until tomorrow when I have the day off to decide how to address this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

What does it take to decide? Let's just give Anatoli his user rights back (and anyone else known to be trustworthy who asks for them). It will only take you a click. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's OK, I can wait, as long as it gets done. Someone else did what I needed to do immediately. I need to access MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js as well, in case the access rights are different. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chuck, I still need it, please. Shall ask someone else, since you're busy or don't know how? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

What's the point of Special:AbuseFilter/56? What's wrong with triple braces, anyway? 68.193.209.173 00:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very simply, the kind of wiki syntax that uses triple braces should only be used in templates, not in the entries themselves. If you're triggering that abuse filter, you're doing something wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey! In hewers of wood and drawers of water, what was the need to drastically cut down on the the origin of the term? The biblical background is necessary for the reader, and just stating where the term is first mentioned in the Bible is sorely insufficient. Our policy is to make Wiktionary unique: if a piece of information (that is not readily available) be shown here, then where is the problem? I want the removed background to be brought back anyhow. Regards— Lbdñk^{(⏳)★(🙊🙉🙈)} 15:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sir,you reverted my edits on idioms. But i did add it under the heading of bengali. I fail to recognise the cause of reversal. Perhaps you intend to say that the definition should be clearer Kuhu chan (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Kuhu chan Please read our Entry layout page. Our entries are arranged by spelling, not by subject: idiom should only have information about the English word and words in other languages that are spelled the same. Since Bengali terms are spelled in the Bengali script and English terms are spelled in the Latin script, Bengali and English can never be on the same page. If you want to see how Bengali is done here, go to Category:Bengali language. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Kuhu chan: I have just made this very simple basic Bengali entry: বাগধারা (bagdhara). (This spelling matches the dictionary I used).--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck,

I note that you reverted my definition of "windjammer", supported by references back to a definition that appears to be over constrained and not supported by references. Let's discuss this at Talk:windjammer.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think I didn't understand why you removed pronoun in 'how much'. Why have you removed it? Osbri (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chuck, I am guessing that this person didn't remove the comments of others maliciously, but rather isn't familiar with how wikis work. Seems like a good faith edit to me. - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but you'll notice that the account was created a minute after an IP was blocked by an abuse filter from making that edit. Feel free to reduce or remove the block, though. I have my doubts whether they're really going to participate here, either way. My impression is that we're dealing with loyal supporters off-wiki who think that this is a challenge to the OPs expertise on the subject, rather than to the suitability of the term itself as a dictionary entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think you are almost certainly right, but I was going to leave them a note on their talk page about why I undid their edit and noticed the block. I'd like to give them a chance to state their case, even if it is unlikely to be relevant for our purposes. Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 15:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Other usage for Islamocracy has been mentioned on its talk page. The citation of the person who is said to have coined the term (wikipedia:Democracy#Non-governmental_democracy) is from 2013 but other usage dates back to 2000.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I asked about a quotation that refers to a fictional character in order to understand which definition of the word 'female' (in this case, one who is gender-fluid) the story means. It can help when each sense will be separated to two different definitions, one for sex and one for gender. Then this quote can come with the one that fits. הראש (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask why you reverted my edit to Albtraum? According to Wiktionary:Style_guide images are allowed on the right hand side of the page. CaGlwwWEDymzc7KBQC8u (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck. Thank you for being so open to a discussion. (I have experienced worse behaviour.) When, in reading the article "criteria", I reached the end of this article, I became aware that I had still not read a definition that is: the meaning of this word. And I had to think about it, before I recognized that the meaning probably is given in the article about the singular form. And I can imagine that there are others who are not familiar with this dictionary and it's rules. And I might not be the only one who would experience this. Of course: if one is familiar with this dictionary one knows that the meaning is only given in the article about the singular form. Maybe this is even written somewhere, but these cases of a plural having a rather un-common form, compared to its singular form, are not so often. And to help those others I added this hint.
And I would, for the sake of the other users, apreciate if you reverted your revert. --Steue (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

So what's up with User:I learned some phrases? I just got this message on my user talk page. I feel there's some background to this that I'm missing. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another User:AryamanA/Wonderfool. Equinox ◑ 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Am I right in guessing that WF's modus operandi is to mix sensible contributions with not-so-sensible ones, and then after a while he (she?) gets blocked and then switches to another account (or accounts) and starts over again? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

He always passes a certain point and "gets bored" and rapidly creates a lot of junk. He usually announces this in advance, as you saw. I think the amount of bad/fake stuff slipped in during well-behaved periods is quite low, but there definitely is some. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, OK. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed that you made of my edit that added another plural form to "glans penis". However, if you look at glans#Declension_2 and penis#Declension_6, you will see that the nominative plural of "glans" is "glandes", and that the genitive plural of "penis" is "penium". Therefore, "glandes penium" is the correct Latinite plural of "glans penis". I suggest reinstating it. The Patibulary Constabulary (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not in an English entry. English doesn't follow Latin declension rules. More importantly, we're a descriptive dictionary, and a quick Google search shows only one example of "glandes penium" being used in an English sentence. Ever. If someone wrote "glandes penium", very few English speakers would even know what was being referred to. For that matter Google doesn't even have any examples of "glandes penium" being used in a Latin sentence. Having the phrase in an English entry would only confuse people and misinform them. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rather than move-protecting hundreds of individual pages I wonder whether it would be more profitable to start a discussion about tightening users' default page-move rights. Equinox ◑ 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

New and IP users should be able to move some pages, especially those they created themselves. Don't worry- I don't intend to make a career out of this. Just a bit of yak shaving while I build up the motivation to start on some things I've been procrastinating on. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You deleted my modifications to MY NAME. How can they be incorrect? It's MY NAME, MY NICKNAME. Also, my neice's name and nickname. Both are variations of the original name Hannelore. Phonetics pronunciations were also added. If it is the coding I did incorrectly, please fix for me as I am not a coder, but only a user. If it was incorrect, just send me a message as to why you deleted it. Contributors should recieve communications like this so instead of just "DELETE" because maybe I didn't understand the "coding". I don't understand your lack of consideration in this. — This unsigned comment was added by Hanalore (talk • contribs).

@Hanalore The entry was about how German speakers in general use the name. Not about how it's used in the US, where it would presumably be used as an English name- I sincerely doubt that anyone in Germany would have the nickname "Honey". My given name is Charles, which happens to be from French, but I know better than to put information about US pronunciation of my name and my nickname under the French entry, because it's irrelevant- everybody here speaks English, not French. Basically, you got carried away by the coincidence that you have a similar name and decided to make the entry about you and people you know in the US, rather than about the the stated subject of the entry. The fact that you massively violated our formatting rules (see WT:EL) didn't help, but wasn't the reason for the revert. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You removed User:Tooironic's and User:SemperBlotto's contributions to WT:TR concerning ] in this diff. Where should they have gone? To WT:RFC, which has little activity? DCDuring (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, to the monthly subpages, which is where Wikitiki89 said they had been moved when they were removed the first time. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I didn't look at the year and thought it was a current matter. DCDuring (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I object to reverts without comments. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Suslindisambiguator (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

This isn't Wikipedia, and you'll find that invoking Wikipedia policies isn't very popular around here. At any rate, I reverted you because you added links to YouTube videos, which is almost never allowed in the dictionary and definitely not allowed for something basic like pronunciation. We take a very dim view of anything that could be interpreted as promoting a commercial website- if I had thought you were doing it intentionally, I would have blocked you on the spot for spamming. If you can't find appropriate sound files at Commons, you'll have to settle for spelling it out in the International Phonetic Alphabet. I'll add our welcome template to your talk page so you can learn the appropriate policies for editing here. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chuck, I was wondering why you deleted two portmanteaux from the list? I didn't see any explanation in the page's history description, so I undid the edit. Now that I see you're an admin I figure there's got to be a reason, so clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why you delete my change on the page "one"? The rightful abbreviation of Low German is NDS. Not NDS-DE. Low German is not part of German, it's an foreign language related with English and Frisian with an own language code. Phillipm0703 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Phillipm0703: Wiktionary treats nds as two main languages: German Low German (nds-de) and Dutch Low Saxon (nds-nl). See WT:ANDS. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you please keep the "-kau" (second person possesive) part? --TNMPChannel (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no clue about the content- I don't speak Malaysian. The only reason I reverted was that you renamed a variable without changing the code that referred to it, this causing module errors in hundreds of entries.

First of all, don't make changes to a widely-transcluded module unless you thoroughly understand what you're doing, and second, always check CAT:E for at least an hour after you do make any changes, so you can see if your edits trashed things. It would also be a good idea to look at a representative sampling of entries to see if your changes caused any problems other than module errors.

You have to realize that when you edit a template or module, you're simultaneously editing every entry that uses that template or module- so tiny mistakes have huge consequences. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you check if SKA-KSI is a sock of IMIPER? I got this message on my talk page from the former: "Is there a reason why illyrian(messapic) entries are constantly deleted and sabotaged? My entry was sourced!" They are referring to Reconstruction:Illyrian/rhinos, which I nominated for deletion, but IMIPER was the one that created it, so "my entry" is suspicious. —Rua (mew) 09:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Would you be willing to remove my rollback rights from my Chignon (talk • contribs) account and 'transfer' them to this account? Canonicalization (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

No offence but you're such a pain with your 99 user names. Can't you settle down? Equinox ◑ 10:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy with the current one and don't plan on switching again. But it's not the first time I've said that... Canonicalization (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was asked to stop trying to speak French on some Internet place because I was so bad at it :D it makes me want to continue Equinox ◑ 10:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Normally I would take it to the whitelist, but you're equally well known by both names, so this is pretty uncontroversial. Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Canonicalization (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just like when i had to explain in 2018 why my obsolete -> archaic edits should not have been reverted—and without expressed reasoning, at that—i'm reverting these rollbacks, because these terms fall under Wiktionary's definition of archaic, not obsolete. A quick Ngram search reveals they've still been used into the 20th century. BenYaMan (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@BenYaMan Ngram searches aren't infallible. It's easy enough to find surnames, mislabeled Yiddish, scannos, variable names (yold vs. ynew), but I have yet to see any form of yield. I dare you to find even one in Google Books. What's more, I suspect that 99.9% of modern English speakers would have trouble figuring out the forms if they saw them in a sentence. A few fluke uses might allow the forms to pass rfv, but for labels we're talking about general patterns, not mere existence. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that, per the classification policy page, if you narrow down the sample of modern English speakers to educated speakers who'd potentially find themselves in the position of reading a text using archaic terms, they'd typically be able to understand it unaided, and understanding, or, in other contexts, cause, of the term's usage might be spurred by a natural niggling intuition some should feel—that yield should exhibit ablaut. BenYaMan (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@BenYaMan Well, if you told them about "grield", a word you made up, those same people would be able to figure out "grold" and "grolden". That doesn't make it part of their vocabulary. At any rate, show me usage in the past century that's not someone playing word games. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does a term being understandable between speakers not constitute something being a part of the modern language, as opposed to whether it was in the listener/reader's vocabulary in the first place? If something's understandable, even if only by the mechanism you demonstrated above, does that not, according to its very definition, preclude it from being obsolete? Anyway, i concede defeat on the front of modern attestation, in genuine surprise at how old all the texts are. I reflect that it's a vicious cycle, if a dictionary labels a term as obsolete: when the term would still have otherwise been used and understood, in so doing providing more evidence for its existence, it's now become prescribed against, bringing about further decline in its use when it would still have otherwise found itself in the vocabularies of speakers, and that's not the point of a descriptive dictionary. BenYaMan (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me. Who can delete a page directly? -- Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Only an admin has the capability. We generally defer to the community in deciding whether to do so except in the most obvious cases. If you want something deleted, how you request it depends on what it is, and why it should be deleted. I it's something obvious like a one-off typo, an entry you just created based on a simple error, or an act of vandalism that blatantly violates the rules, the {{delete}} template or one of its alternate names like {{d}} can be used.

If it's something that will require consensus and therefore discussion, you use one of the request templates: {{rfv}}/{{rfv-sense}} (with the appropriate language code) if you think it doesn't really exist in the language as used, {{rfd}}/{{rfd-sense}} (again, with the language code) if your reason hinges on some other aspect of our Criteria for inclusion, and {{rfdo}} if it's a page other than an entry in the main dictionary. Then there are cases where you're not necessarily deleting something: {{rfc}} when it just needs to be fixed, {{rfm}} when it has the wrong name or it needs to be merged with something or split, and {{rfv-etymology}} when you think an etymology is wrong (there are also requests where you'd like something to be added that's missing, such as {{rfap}}/{{rfp}}, {{rfe}}, {{rfi}}, {{rfq}}, etc., but that's probably getting too far off-topic). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Thank you. -- Thedarkknightli (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey. You seem pretty reasonable. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe this rollback was in error. "Agape" is a homonym for /əɡeɪp/ and /ɑɡɑpeɪ/. "Agapeic" is derived from the latter, so my edit was to clarify which word "agapeic" is formed from. As evidence that this is the correct etymology, see Collins, and also the fact that "agapeic," as an adjective, is unlikely to derive from the adjective /əɡeɪp/ (whereas deriving from the noun /ɑɡɑpeɪ/ makes morphological sense). I realize also that the piped link should be added the "agape" in the etymology section.

Am I good to revert? Anthologetes (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's never a good idea to refer to a numbered section on a wiki: all it takes is for someone to rearrange, add or subtract sections, and your reference will go wrong. "Etymology 2" could be Etymology 1 five minutes from now. Better to add a gloss to tell which one. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a new but real usage of the symbol, and at this point is more common among English speakers than the original Japanese use. There is no reason to exclude it. --PDVk (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see you deleted this nickname as "inherently unsuitable for an entry", after somebody tagged it as abusive or some such. So is this only true when it's derogatory? Would we keep flattering nicknames? What about Iron Lady (Maggie Thatcher), Drumpf (Donald Trump), etc.? Equinox ◑ 20:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! My mistake. It seemed a bit too much of a reach for anyone to use it in real life, and I was in a hurry. As for the "inherently not suitable for an entry" part, that's my standard creation-protection comment when I delete something that's open-and-shut non-dictionary-material- things like the name of some non-notable individual or musical group or some lame made-up protologism with zero Google hits not generated by the one person. This one wasn't quite to that level, so I only gave it autoconfirmed protection. If I would have checked it out on Google or even looked at the edit history I would have realized that it the evidence wasn't up to my normal standards and left it alone. I'll have some time this weekend to look into it further and decide whether it's even worth rfv-ing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

These are horrible entries TBH but we have to be consistent... Equinox ◑ 23:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Vandergay (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

By using {{gl-noun}} you marked the entry as a Galician noun, you used the header "Substantive" rather than "Noun", you added links to a bunch of external web sites, and it would be easier for someone to recreate everything from scratch than to fix it. I'll add our welcome template to your talk page so you can learn how to do things right, and I'll hold off on reverting your edit to embarque to give you a chance to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right, I did that on a whim. Should've used noun, but switching languages does that to you. As for the external web sites, what's the proper way of citing dictionaries, etymologies and corpuses? I saw it in another entry actually and copied it over so the formatting was the same (I used saída and exit). I've fixed both articles apart from that already. This is actually my first edit on Wiktionary after a lot of time just using it, so cheers! Thanks for taking the time to reply. Vandergay (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is already a reference template for {{R:Michaelis}} (see the changes I made), and you could make one for Dicio based on the code of the templates at Category:Portuguese reference templates, and take a look at the existing templates you can use. I could also help with that tomorrow (I'm not very good with code, but I've made some reference templates). Personally I don't recommend linking to the corpus because the url doesn't change with each word, but that's just my preference. Ultimateria (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/113.0.64.248 and Special:Contributions/113.0.5.32. --Xiplus (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you reverted my edit which changed practise to practice, where the word was being used as a noun. I'm not aware of any standard variety of English that uses "practise" as a noun. Was this perhaps in error? AllenY99 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! My mistake. Since I don't use it myself, I was unaware of the difference between the spelling of the noun and the verb. We try to avoid switching between UK and US spellings in entries, and I thought that was what this was. I've restored the correction. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! AllenY99 (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's like advise and advice, devise and device. The difference is that the pronunciation does not differ between the verb and the noun. 98.185.189.181 02:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think this rollback is in error. {{w|en|Kingdom of Benin}} and {{w|en|Benin}} both send you to the Wikipedia page EN; the intention of the OP was clearly to have them link to the Wikipedia pages Kingdom of Benin and Benin.  --Lambiam 22:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree. That's why I reverted myself immediately. Unfortunately, the links for viewing a diff and rolling it back are very close to each other, and things jump around a bit as they load on my old, slow system. Sorry for the error! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Explain your rollbacking, which clearly was no improvement. --Cory Jewed (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

To start with, it would seem to me a better idea to move the human being translations to the closer, and clearer, semantic equivalent, human, than to the ambiguous "man". I would have moved all of the translations for the "human being" sense at man there- as far as I'm concerned, you moved them in the wrong direction.

More importantly, though, I would have discussed such a major and potentially controversial restructuring before doing anything. You could have brought it to the Tea room, though Requests for moves, merges and splits would be a better fit. If you didn't know the correct forum, you could have asked at the Information desk. Yes, this is a wiki, so you can do all kinds of things without asking anyone- but with that comes the responsibility to work with the community and to make sure you have consensus before making major changes. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Mr. Entz, I really do wonder how you do it, sometimes.

The amount of promotional material and vandalism slipped into Wiktionary on a daily basis is astounding.

I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation ought to send out flyers or put up posters explaining, in a nutshell, why vandalism of Wikimedia projects accomplishes nothing, and is (rather) merely a good way to get oneself banned.

In any case, keep up the good work!

—Tharthan (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, though there are several people who do more than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page - yes, I think that your rollback is at least an error, and most likely the vandalism. 217.19.216.241 20:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if Special:Contributions/FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia matches any of our previous Cyrillic-minded editors, at least based on behaviour. It might be Diabedia, but I don't remember if we've had them at en.wikt before. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

We do have Special:Contributions/Учхљёная who was strongly suspected by Wikipedia of being a Diabedia sock, though they couldn't prove anything. They were, however, indef-blocked for disruptive, Diabedia-like edits and block evasion with sockpuppets of their own. As for FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia, they just survived a sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia as a suspected Diabedia sock due to insufficient evidence to justify running a checkuser check. Their interests are certainly quite similar to both Diabedia and Учхљёная. At any rate, as long as we don't have evidence of either Учхљёная or FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia doing anything wrong on Wiktionary, I'm not going to run any checks. So far there's just that one Dzongkha entry at rfvn, but we should certainly keep an eye on both of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Учхљёная has been blocked by both you and me in the past on Wiktionary, and I recently had to revert a blatantly bad edit by FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia at 日, so I wouldn't say they aren't doing anything wrong. But I was mostly curious if you had any more clues based on the editing patterns that I wasn't picking up on. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am User:Huhu9001. Have you deliberately ignored me or just not receiving my ping? Please reply "yes" if you have chosen to ignore me, or "no" if that is not the case. This is my only question here. Thank you very much. Huhu9002 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I received your ping, but I was already aware of the things you pointed out, and they didn't seem to be reason to second-guess anyone over something I don't know that much about. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It is very kind of you to bestow a reply to me. Huhu9002 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

(CC @Canonicalization)

Is this user a certain troublesome Thai IP address that would make troublesome French (and other) edits? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It certainly looks like it to me, but that's not enough to justify running a checkuser check. I can only run checks to prevent damage to the site. Have you or anyone else had to revert their edits? We weren't able to communicate with them before because they kept changing their IPs, but the account changes that. We need to at least try to discuss with them what they should and shouldn't be doing. We can't really do anything until we've given them a chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am adding in the latest findings for it--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not disputing your facts, but this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia- you added too much detail. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I will add them a briefer description later. Sorry for the misunderstanding--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Walterblue222 was my original account, which was unjustly blocked after being repeatedly harassed and insulted by ‘Equinox’.
Equinox has a habit of responding by batantly lying, insulting, and degrading others instead of presenting any logical argument or rebuttal, then blocking them and refusing to ever address the situation in an appropriate manner.
‘Metaknowledge’ then blocked me on false charges of "edit warring", which I did not engage in; the edit I was blocked for making was valid, was re-added by another user without issue, and is on the current version of the page.
None of my edits were malevolent, disruptive, "clearly nonsensical", or "troll edits", and basing a block on multiple previous blocks from a different site is not appropriate - yet, Walterblue222 was permanently blocked.
I am not associated with Theraputicartsgroup.
XavierDuvall was created after the inappropriate blocking of Walterblue222. XavierDuvall is not a sockpuppet because it is not an additional account belonging to me; rather, a replacement account for my original account which should never have been blocked to begin with. I have never had more than one account at any time. Amarach was created after XavierDuvall was inappropriately blocked by Equinox.
I don’t have a problem with others disagreeing with me - as long as they can provide a valid explanation for doing so. Equinox is a prime example of someone who is unable to support their argument logically or rationally, thus behaving like a petulant child, attacking and ignoring others instead of accepting and admitting when they are incorrect about something. I never claimed to be infallible, I make mistakes - everyone does. I have the decency to admit it when I’m proven wrong. Equinox does not.
When I tried posting this explanation to your talk page on Wiktionary, Metaknowledge removed it and blocked me again. They will probably do so again.
Why is this type of behavior permitted? Why should I be blocked for following the rules and expecting others to support their position when they disagree with something I've said? I'm not trying to force my views on anyone and I explain my arguments, but in response all I get is insulted and criticized without any comment on the issue itself.
Please Advise.
Thank you. WalterBlue226 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@WalterBlue226: Actually, User:Walterblue222 wasn't blocked permanently, just for a month. (See the block log.) You can use that account again now if you've still got the login information. — Eru·tuon 22:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware of this, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I won't use any other accounts since I have access to this one... provided I don't get blocked again unjustly, that is. Walterblue222 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up: User:Walterblue222 is blocked on Wikipedia as a sockpuppet. Equinox ◑ 13:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. That cluster of users displays a roughly similar approach to the anon arguing about 鉈 (nata). I even noticed some similar turns of phrase. @Chuck, the anon's various IPs geolocate to Sweden when I've checked. Does that correlate at all with Walterblue222 and aliases? Or do you have any way of telling if the Swedish IP addresses are for open proxies? Then again, this particular flavor of narrow-focused combativeness might just be a personality type as opposed to a single individual. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm well aware of Walterblue222's status at Wikipedia- I checked their edits on other wikis even before I did my checkuser investigation. As for the Swedish IP: I'd rather not discuss checkuser data- all you need to know is that they're not the same person. if you look at the sockpuppet investigation and click on a few links there, you'll be able to find out more than enough about this person, anyway. Besides, the tone is quite different. The Swedish IP sounds much more reasonable and rational, even though they're doing the same sort of thing.

I might as well mention, by the way, that I may not have access to a computer again until Tuesday, so don't ask me anything that needs an answer before then. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Chuck. I have no desire to discuss any checkuser data, no worries there -- it's enough for me to know that these aren't the same person. I'm not sure I agree that the IP sounds more reasonable and rational, but then again I haven't read through all of the Wikipedia threads relating to the WP sockpuppets...

Cheers, and I hope your time offline is a useful and healthful break from the perils of the interwebs.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Eiríkr Útlendi, perhaps you missed the part where I explained "XavierDuvall was created after the inappropriate blocking of Walterblue222. XavierDuvall is not a sockpuppet because it is not an additional account belonging to me; rather, a replacement account for my original account which should never have been blocked to begin with. I have never had more than one account at any time." - so please don't accuse me of sockpuppetry. Equinox thanks for your insight, it's really relevant! But seriously, conduct on one website is not grounds to take action or ban someone on a different site. Interesting how YOUR conduct violates nearly every guideline for interacting with others here... wishing death and disease, banning people inappropriately without justification, refusing to rationalize your position or explain the clear inaccuracies on an entry, insulting people trying to contribute, harassing them and calling them names, antagonizing them because you disagree and can't behave maturely... You're quite talented! WalterBlue226 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• ... um, I never mentioned XavierDuvall... <confused/>‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's not what a sockpuppet means; it refers to any other account used for illegitimate purposes by the same editor. In this case the use case was block evasion, which counts as an illegitimate use and therefore it counts as sockpuppetry.

The only way you can consider me guilty of "block evasion" is if you ignore the fact that the block being evaded was not justified. The block was illegitimate, therefor evading it was not, thus it does NOT count as sockpuppetry. Walterblue222 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Circumventing a block is sockpuppetry, regardless of how "legitimate" you consider that block to be. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not according to the definition of “sockpuppetry” it isn’t! You seem to misunderstand the definition of the term; where are you getting your information from? Mine is from en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Sockpuppet_(Internet) , which states "the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the main account operator”. At no point did I do this, so again I will reiterate: my actions do not qualify as “sockpuppetry”. If you disagree, kindly provide the source that contradicts the information provided on the wiki article - and explain why the wiki article contains incorrect information. Walterblue222 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

This isn't Wikipedia, but since you insist on using their pages (the reason I mentioned "bludgeoning" is because that is not a policy), w:WP:SOCK clearly states that one of the forms of sockpuppetry is "creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions", i.e. evading blocks counts as sockpuppetry. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

-I- insist on using their pages? YOU brought up bludgeoning with a link to Wikipedia. I was never “creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions” - if I was, why would I voluntarily admit to being the same person with a new account? So once again I have to correct you and confirm that no, I did not engage in sockpuppetry. Walterblue222 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

"conduct on one website is not grounds to take action or ban someone on a different site"

It isn't, but it's a sign that shows that the editor has gotten into trouble on another Wikimedia community, so there's probably a reason for that.

...but it still doesn't legitimize the actions taken here, on Wiktionary.

"banning people inappropriately without justification"

"Ban" and "block" are not the same thing. There was justification - seeming intent to disrupt by bludgeoning the talk page as if you were just trying to win an argument rather than actually improve the dictionary in any significant way (no, arguing reams over whether a meaning should have a "rare" label or not, especially with your means of arguing, does not count). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Intent to disrupt by bludgeoning the talk page as if you were just trying to win an argument rather than actually improve the dictionary in any significant way" - this was never my intent, and this was stated - assuming that it *was* goes against assume good faith, does it not? Walterblue222 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is not at all an unreasonable inference. If the intent was not to disrupt, you should regardless be aware that that was ultimately what you ended up doing. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I guess it depends on one's subjective opinion of “unreasonable inference”. However, since I stated my intent, there should be NO inference - reasonable or otherwise. My purpose was stated, assuming that I lied while also assigning assumed motive is in direct conflict with DNB, WQ, and AGF. Not to mention that, as seen repeatedly with Equinox’s conduct and used to excuse his uncouth behavior, these are guidelines - not policies. If it is justifiable to take action against someone for violating guidelines, it would still be inappropriate to do so against me for the reasons stated above; Equinox, on the other hand, has continuously violated guidelines with no repercussions. Why the double-standard? You claim that I ‘ultimately ended up’ disrupting - in what way? Walterblue222 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why should I believe the intent you stated when your actions clearly speak of the contrary? Your only actions have been to try to force your argument through on one entry, get blocked and then talk endlessly about that block and do nothing else worthwhile on the site. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

How do my “actions clearly speak of the contrary”? I didn’t try to “force my argument through”, I presented a valid argument and requested changes, or a simple explanation of why I was incorrect - which has STILL not been given. I don’t see how it’s possible to do anything “worthwhile” (again, subjective) while being blocked. How can someone contribute while blocked, exactly? Walterblue222 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now that you are here, could you explain why one of your earlier accounts partook in vandalism? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

What vandalism would that be? Walterblue222 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

As seen from the account's only edit, intentionally breaking the formatting on that citation page. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, you assume intent. Have you EVER reviewed DNB, WQ, or AGF? Walterblue222 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

AGF and the other policies you link clearly exclude obvious cases of vandalism such as this one.

Note that I won't be responding on this talk page further. If you still feel like using your bludgeon, please do so on my talk page. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, this wasn’t vandalism, so the policies are perfectly applicable. Refrain from responding if that’s your prerogative - all you seem to do is claim your subjective statements to be factual while disregarding anything I say. What “bludgeon” are you referring to? Walterblue222 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I got my computer back from the shop on Saturday evening, but I have a solid state "hard drive" and they had to replace the logic board- so I lost all of my data. I've been spending my time since then re-downloading stuff to get back to normal. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

You were quite properly blocked for being disruptive. The substance of what Equinox did was perfectly fine. Insulting and taunting you was wrong, but I understand why he lost patience with you. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

LOST patience with me? From my very first interaction, he insulted, degraded, lied about, mocked, and disrespected me. There was never any "patience" to be lost. Can you please explain to me how "thanks for playing" is a valid reason for permanently blocking someone? Walterblue222 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Cuck! How are your double standards doing? There's still loads for you to clean from the time you amiably gave notice about not being able to sleuth WT for a few days. Go clean up like a good boy, don't just slack and remove this part. Bye!

Ah, yes, your insults are just as inept as always. News flash: mind games don't work on someone who doesn't care what you think. Thanks for finding another proxy for me to block. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why whoever this was decided to post their remarks under the section I started, but I hope you are aware this was not me. Walterblue222 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, quite aware. The person in question always was sloppy and overlooked things, so their crashing someone else's thread is hardly surprising. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Walter is still trying to be a pain. After I deleted his unwanted comments on my talk page (which he at first re-added), he then sent me e-mail (which I deleted unread), and is now abusing the Thank feature to send me thanks notifications. I know I can block those from chosen users, and will do so now, but just letting you know he's clearly trolling and trying to annoy. I don't trust his "oh I'm so upset" bluster. Equinox ◑ 14:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're hilarious! What comments did I re-add? I did you a favor by notifying you that your signature included a dead link. I didn't abuse the thank feature - and that's pretty rich coming from you, who went through every single contribution that I had made, "thanked" me for them before reverted them, harassing and insulting me, and blocking me without justification. Calling someone else a troll is the pot calling the kettle black. I was never "trying to annoy", and I really don't care what you trust or not. You're a vile, despicable bully who lies and insults strangers without provocation. I even tried to move past that by informing you of your broken sig and being respectful in the e-mail you 'deleted unread'. I just hope karma catches up to you, because boy oh boy, if there is such a thing as karma, you've got some serious suffering in store. Walterblue222 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

If and only if rhetoric beats truth, then well done, you win. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

False. You've repeatedly lied to and about me. I've been nothing but truthful. 208.58.254.224 13:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck, I noticed that you reverted that 86 anon here. I've sporadically checked their edits, and they seem to be working in good faith, adding in the syllable-divider % marker in the kana strings for {{ja-r}}. Have you noticed anything pernicious that I might have missed?

Cheers and TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nothing pernicious, just an mistake that caused a module error: "Lua error in Module:ja at line 626: The pattern did not match the kana.". Since I had no clue what the correct version would be, I decided to revert the whole edit in hopes that the IP would get a notification and check to see why they got reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

"just an mistake"... It's great to know that you are in charge of checking other people's entries — This comment was unsigned.

And we are blessed to have valuable contributions such as this from you. DCDuring (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, "sınalgı" isn't Turkish and there is no at the Turkish. That word is not truth, it is fake, lie. --123snake45 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know that, but it just barely passes the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion, so we can't delete it. I think the entry as it now stands does a pretty good job of warning people that this isn't legitimate Turkish. I noticed, though, that an IP from Turkey added it to the translations at television. Even though they included a disclaimer that it was rare and nonstandard, I removed it. Translations aren't directly covered by CFI, and should be terms that speakers of the languages in question would understand. Feel free to remove such translations, or let me know so I can do it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chuck - noticed you rolled back changes to the Levi tag on genericized trademarks - the TM is not generic (https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/4/EU000033126) and its primary country of registration country is the UK, which is why I moved it into the English Trademarks category. Any issues here, pls let me know. Note at top said add messages at the bottom - hope this is correct form. Useragem (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC) UseragemReply

Can we get rid of the last part of the definition "caboose"? A youngest child born after a big age gap is sometimes called a caboose, but it's more of a "slang" term and doesn't really belong in the dictionary. Especially can we get rid of the "what is wrong with my child?" example with the 7 year age gap? 7 years isn't really a big age gap in siblings, there are bigger gaps than that. A 4-7 year age gap, sometimes 3 or 8 years, is not super close like 1-2 years, it is definitely a medium age gap, but usually not a problem. A 9-10 year age gap is definitely large, and anything above that is a big age gap. That is just my opinion, but I don't think 7 years is big enough to have a "caboose" baby. And again, caboose doesn't really belong in the dictionary. Thanks.

67.148.129.78

We don't decide what words to include based on what we feel is "proper language", but rather based on how people actually use the language. Thus, if people demonstrably use "caboose" this way, we include that sense even if some may object to it. Put concisely, Wiktionary is descriptivist and not prescriptivist regarding language and which words are fit for inclusion. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I made those edits because they are factual edits. An aspect of language is not incorrect if it is often used by native speakers. It's just an aspect of language. Borders are imaginary (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary's descriptivist stance follows lexicographic norms, but tends to be confusing for people who may not have much of a background in linguistics yet and have only recently been introduced to the idea of prescriptivism versus descriptivism. A truly descriptive dictionary doesn't mark everything as an alternative form just because someone uses it. Instead, we describe the context in which lexical items are used. Our job is not to be prescribing that context, but we also can't pretend it doesn't exist. Ideally, when we mark something as a "misspelling", what we mean is that a majority of native speakers with a high school education would call it a misspelling, and wouldn't use it on, say, a job application. The reality is that language use is prescriptivist, so in order to be truly descriptive, we must describe the prescription. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then that should be specifically mentioned somewhere. Simply writing it as "misspelling" reinforces an idea. Borders are imaginary (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, this label describes the norm, it does not introduce it. Fay Freak (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

That one "days of the week" fellow has returned. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Gone. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of these translations?

Afrikaans: groot-oom Albanian: madh-xhaxhai Amharic: ታላቅ-አጎት (talak’i-āgoti) Arabic: عظيم عمه (eazim eamah) Armenian: մեծ-հորեղբայր (mets-horeghbayr) Azerbaijani: əla əmi Belarusian: стрыечны дзядуля (stryječny dziadulia) Bengali: মহান-চাচা (Mahāna-cācā) Burmese: အကြီးအ-ဘထွေး (a kyee a- bh htway) Cebuano: daku-uyoan Central Huishui Hmong: zoo-txiv ntxawm Corsican: maiò-ziu Czech: prastrýc Danish: grandonkel Estonian: suur-onu Georgian: დიდ-ბიძა (did-bidza) Greek: μεγάλη-θείος (megáli-theíos) Gujarati: મહાન કાકા (Mahāna kākā) Haitian Creole: gwo-tonton Hausa: babban kawuna Hindi: महान चाचा (mahaan chaacha) Hungarian: nagy bácsi Icelandic: mikill-frænda Indonesian: paman yang hebat Irish: mór-uncail Javanese: buyut paman

I'm not qualified to say whether these are any good- are you? Do you know all of these languages well enough to be adding translations? It's not enough to be able to look up "great" and "uncle" in those languages, or to find things on other wikis (people make things up all the time). You're including languages such as Albanian, Burmese and Irish, which are notoriously tricky for non-speakers to figure out, which makes me nervous.

Besides, the set of people who can safely work in minority European languages like Albanian, Corsican and Irish, African languages such as Hausa, Turkic languages such as Azerbaijani, Indian languages such Gujarati, Slavic languages such as Belarussian, Arabic, Burmese, Georgian, Javanese, etc. is vanishingly small, and they don't usually do a bunch of languages at once like this. It may be a long time before these are seen by anyone who can spot any mistakes, so you could do a lot of damage without realizing it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

• To the anon: I can say that your Japanese translations have not been correct in general, and show evidence of "dictionarese" rather than any knowledge of the language and how to translate effectively.

If your Japanese translations are any indication of your overall approach, please stop. As Chuck notes, you are actively damaging the site by including these. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your rollback at bubbe meise was incorrect. You left the Yiddish etymon transliterated as "babe meshh"; the correct transliteration is "bobe mayse". Ajd (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

You removed the formatting. The template you removed puts the entry in Category:English terms derived from Yiddish as well as providing the transliteration. It also put it in Category:Requests for transliteration of Yiddish terms with Hebrew-only letters, so it would have been fixed eventually. I didn't have time to fix it yesterday, but I've done my best now, as well as tagging it for attention from Yiddish editors. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I assume we can delete Template:rfqez, right? --Vealhurl (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. I only created it to save typing back in the days before {{auto cat}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. Well, I totally disagree with you. I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor, but this is a clear-cut case of a calque. When Europeans first came across this soup in China (17th cent at least) they would've been told that it's called "bird's nest soup", because that is the Chinese name for it. It is going out on a limb to just assume that that is what they "would've" called it based on some logical system of naming soups hundreds of years ago. It doesn't matter if a calque seems logical in both languages, it is still a calque. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck, I discovered this morning that we've got a Thai IP with multiple addresses resolving to the Kanchanaburi region, who is editing single-kanji JA entries to "fix" the readings. Sometimes this involves only adding a nanori (name-only reading), as at this edit at 滝. However, most of the edits include ignorant and incorrect changes like this one at 秋 that also included a correct-but-low-value nanori reading, or this one at 猿 that didn't add anything, incorrectly moved two kun readings into the nanori section, and completely removed correct information regarding historical spellings for on readings.

They've been quite prolific. The nanori they're adding appear to be taken from WWWJDIC, and aren't wrong, although WWWJDIC often lists archaic kun as nanori, which makes sense for their purposes but would be a lexicographical mistake here, and which likely led to this anon's mistaken edit at 猿.

I've seen how to simply nuke an editor's new entries in one fell swoop, using Special:Nuke. However, do you have any advice on how to do a mass-rollback of an IP's edits when they're changes to existing entries? Ideally, focusing on unpatrolled edits. Is there even any such capability?

@Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, who also appear to be cleaning up after this anon. I'm unsure if this anon might be the same as Makimurasatoko2544 (talk • contribs); the editing patterns seem similar.

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I've blocked Makimurasatoko2544 (talk • contribs) for a week to give us time to figure out what's going on there. Going through 15 of their edits, pretty much all were problematic and required cleanup. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Known IPs related to this editing pattern:

• 125.26.37.15 (talk) -- fully vetted, almost everything reverted as bad edits. Blocked for a week. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
• 125.26.72.149 (talk)
• 118.172.21.67 (talk)

If anyone is aware of others, please add. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add any Thai IP ranges you find to the -th abuse filter. That blocks any IP in the given ranges from editing a page that doesn't have either a Thai section or Thai translations. This is probably the same person who made that necessary in the first place. That person is somewhat competent in a wide range of languages, and doesn't realize that editing a reference work requires far more than mere competence. There's obviously also an ego element here- they love to use obscure and specialized templates and labels so they can show they're more advanced than the average editor. They don't realize that working out of one's depth can make even a smart person look like an idiot. I've always suspected that this IP editor is the same person as Theo.phonchana (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), so I'm not surprised that the bad Thai IP edits have picked back up since they were blocked a few weeks ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Chuck. I've added the three above. I copied one of the existing lines with a /17 suffix, in triplicate, and then edited the first three octets of each copy to match one of the addresses above. I'd appreciate it if you could double-check, since I'm a little fuzzy on IP range blocks. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Spotted and added another, 125.26.163.92 (talk). This is becoming tedious. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Striking the fully vetted IPs. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection also cleaned up and blocked further sockpuppet Makimurasatoko254402 (talk • contribs). Thank you, Surjection!

Chayanont0018 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

101.51.97.141 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The word is clearly an English one, and I haven't ever seen it as part of Spanish language at all. I'm Spanish speaker, so I know when it is or is not part of the language. You are the one who have to provide any kind of valid proof it supposedly is part of the language. (You know, such as "you don't have to prove you aren't guilty, but the prosecutor has to prove you are guilty"). In the article there is none, zero, nothing, not a single source about "endpoint" being a word in Spanish language.

I'm going to revert the change the last time, because I know I'm right and I want this project to become better, but if you revert it I'm not going to undoing it anymore, in order not to break 3RR.

You will be responsible of spreading false or fake information, or the real and factual information. --Zerabat (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's English, just as cilantro is Spanish- but languages borrow from other languages all the time. I've nominated it for verification, and if it's not used in Spanish by Wiktionary standards it will be removed. I'm not saying it's a valid entry, but you can't make yourself judge, jury and executioner based on just your own standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to keep track of the editor editing from 89.164.171.158/18 and 193.198.212.111. The edits are mostly fine and useful, but occasionally have strange errors in translating some tenses for passives. There has been radio silence since late November on the mentioned IPs. Do you know if the latter IP is also part of a range from which there have been edits? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you be willing to perform the user rights change for Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2019-12/User:ToilBot for bot status? — Eru·tuon 00:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mr. Entz. Since you seem to have a fair amount of cachet here in the Wiktionary community, I would like to ask for your opinion about a recent reversion. I added a specific legal definition to the attest page's English entry. The definition read: "(Of a notary public) As a legal formality, to certify by affixation of the notary's signature and official seal, that the signature or mark appearing upon, and in verification of, a legal written instrument was, indeed, made by the signatory or by an agent of the signatory at the signatory's direction." Said definition was reverted by a user named Robbie SWE with the following comment: " ...huh, legalese shouldn't be used to describe a sense" My arguments in response would be: (1) that the legal definitions of words are very particular in meaning, and other entries might lead a user astray if the strict legal definition is what is needed, (2) some legal definitions might require somewhat arcane legal terminology to be absolutely correct, and (3) to what legalese herein does Robbie refer? Pertaining to (1&2): I am currently writing a loan contract, and came upon this entry in the course of needing to understand the variations in legal meaning between words like: attest, authenticate, certify, verify, and the like. In such a situation, exactitude of language in the definition of words is quite necessary. In that search for exactitude of legal meaning, I found Wiktionary to be unhelpful, and I wished to provide a more exacting definition of "attest" in the legal sense, so that others having similar situations in the future would have that benefit available to them. Pertaining to (3): The words certify, affixation, mark, verification, instrument, signatory and agent are not particularly legal terms, and all appear defined in Wiktionary already. There appears no Latin or otherwise arcane terminology in the definition. Where Robbie finds "legalese" in this definition, I cannot discern, can you? Perhaps what Robbie means, is that Wiktionary seeks to maintain the language used therein to a fifth grade reading level or less, as, famously, some newspapers in the U.S. once did (before the changing ways in which people obtain their news caused them to shutter their businesses)? I hope that is not the case. I do not think that the instant reversion was warranted, for the reasons shown above, and would like your opinion of this matter.

As an aside, I have, in the past, noticed from this user, Robbie SWE, a certain irksome unprofessional tone which I would like to call attention to. The tone is evident in Robbie's commentary noted above: "...huh..." I have had reversions of my contributions by other Wiktionarians who have not found it necessary to include "snarky" commentary into their explanations. Frankly, I am more bothered by a warranted reversion rendered with a smart-assed comment, than I am by an unwarranted reversion. I fully realize the need for those with a certain type of "watchdog" mentality on Wiktionary, given the technology used on this platform, and pursuant to that, I will readily avow that Robbie seems to perform a valuable function. The kind of aggressive sarcasm and vague derision that I have seen from Robbie, though, can only lead to the type of online "pissing matches", made all the more ridiculous by the facts of anonymity and remoteness, which one can see anytime in the reactions to video content on "YouTube" and elsewhere. On the type of site which Wiktionary, I hope, represents, I would think that, so long as those acting are acting in good faith (and, obviously this is not always the case), a spirit of collegiality and professionalism would be called for. I would hope that someone with a certain amount of "cachet" on here would have a private word with Robbie (if that is possible) about the need to maintain a tone, if not of collegiality, then at least of professionalism.

Thank you, Mr. Entz, and I eagerly await your thoughts about the reverted definition. — This comment was unsigned.

Well, I would say that your definition is much too detailed and specific. Don't forget that this is a global website: every country on the planet has different legal standards, and I would bet that there are enough differences affecting the legal concept of attestation for your definition to be invalid in many of them. Spelling things out in such detail for all of those would render the page unreadable, and possibly too big for the system to handle (see CAT:E for more than a dozen entries already exceeding system limits).

You have to realize that a dictionary is about words and phrases as language, not about legal concepts. It's simply the wrong tool for the job. I'm sure there are astronomical volumes of text out there with judges and legal scholars opining at length on the finer points and nuances of legal terms of art- no dictionary could possibly do it justice.

As for Robbie SWE: it would be nice if he could be more diplomatic, but I spend hours every day looking through the recent edits, and I only catch a fraction of the vandalism and bad edits that he does, day in and day out. We have more entries then Wikipedia, in dozens of languages, but far fewer patrollers and other resources. It reminds me of the classic I Love Lucy sketch at a factory where they keep speeding up the conveyor belt with Lucy frantically trying to keep up. Dealing with that volume of sheer garbage- especially the deliberate, devious attempts to wreck things- can make one grumpy after a while. Aside from the quantity of his efforts, his knowledge of Romanian and several other languages is quite valuable. I'm reluctant to tell him how to do things when I know that I couldn't do half as well at what he does. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Chiming in from the sidelines, I would note that the anon's hyper-specific definition is, in fact, already covered by the preceding broader sense: "To certify in an official capacity."

Specific legal dictionaries exist for recording the specific legal senses in ways that are pertinent to the legal systems of the targeted readership. See, for instance, Black's Law Dictionary. As a globally-targeted website, Wiktionary is not the place for the hyper-specificity of legalese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You mean, Massachusetts Law does not prevail in the jurisdiction of Kathmandu, Nepal? By this, I mean, of course, that you make a valid point...in fact the cogent point as pertains to such non-universal subjects as systems of law represent. I honestly did not even consider that aspect of my contribution, and I can fully appreciate its significance. I realize as well, in what is, perhaps, a somewhat more vague way than yourself, that space is an issue even with this type of technology, such that even specific definitions relating to subjects comparatively more universal than systems of law should be carefully considered prior to inclusion. Given the consideration of space, Eirikr is correct in his appreciation, although if space were not a concern, perhaps that would be different.

Of course, we who are not lexicographers except in an amateurish fashion, need the guidance of those of you who have made this their vocation (even if not their profession), for it takes a certain amount of training of the mind to think like a lexicographer. Also, I altogether appreciate the necessity of the purpose which Robbie seems avidly to pursue; without such fellows (I'm not sure what you call them..."editors", perhaps?...I think they are somewhat below the level of "administrators" on this site), then Wiktionary would, without doubt, quickly become a "shit show". Robbie's problem, however, seems not to relate to diplomacy in particular. I have always believed that responsibility and propriety must grow in close association with authority. Such has always been recognized within the military, where as one rises in rank, one gains not only additional administrative responsibilities, but also has an increasing responsibility to maintain an ever-increasing "military bearing". In fact, the modern military could not function without this central concept. Within the U.S. military, there is virtually no non-criminal act of which an NCO or above can be accused as shameful as that of one's having lost his military bearing. As Alexis de Tocqueville famously realized, this is what the good aristocrats always recognized: that with great authority comes great responsibility, and this especially applies to one's personal conduct. The CEO of a company should not behave in the same manner as the guy who works in the mail room. Alas, within our modern "democratic" societies, and in parallel with the growth of democracy and the notions of "equality" (whatever that means) which attend it, this notion has been lost to a great extent. It is incumbent upon those who have an increase in authority to cultivate growth in their sense of responsibility as well. Those who do not, frankly, ultimately become the type of obscene authoritarians with which we here in the U.S. have currently become intimately acquainted, if you know what I mean (and this is coming from a staunch conservative, an anti-"progressivist", though one more in the vein of George Will than any others we currently see). Robbie's status as one having the authority to revert edits in and of itself demands a growth in what I would call "authoritative comportment", and he should seek to constantly rise above the emotional fray of the average users. Perhaps Wiktionary should develop a type of "code of conduct" to be signed by all those who accede to such positions of authority, because, after all, those in such positions by the very nature of their role, have come to represent Wiktionary, and any misbehavior that they engage in must, subsequently, reflect upon Wiktionary itself. Of course, the term "misbehavior" pertains somewhat differently to one having authority than it does to one without, which is the point I wish to emphasize. Even when doing something as extreme as blocking the IP address of a persistent vandal, those with authority here should be polite and maintain a certain level of decorum, even when speaking in anger. Robbie's persisting failure to do thusly finally exceeded my capacity for forbearance, such that I had to say something... One thing might be helpful in encouraging civil discourse might be if there were an "edit log" attached to each Wiktionary page where the rationale for edits and reversions can be announced and, perhaps, discussed. Thanks for entertaining my thoughts, Mr. Entz, and take care. — This comment was unsigned.

We usually allow and should allow briefer legal definitions, especially those used in English-speaking countries but not limited to specific jurisdictions.

In this case: "(Of a notary public) To certify that the signature or mark appearing upon a legal written instrument was made by the signatory or by an agent of the signatory at the signatory's direction." would seem to include the essence of the term. One could argue that "or mark" and "or by an agent of the signatory at the signatory's direction" could be excluded as being atypical exceptions. It would not seem to be a formality in many cases, as it plays a role in discouraging forgery of signatures. Such a definition could appear as a subsense of the sense referred to by Eirikr. DCDuring (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, DCDuring, I understand the rationale for non-inclusion here, even more so upon learning that there are "system limits" for each entry. I might not have even questioned the reversion, but I have been the object of Robbie's sarcasm several times, and his "...huh..." in this case provided me "the straw that broke the camels's back". Sorry for being so verbose above; my intention in so doing was an attempt at persuading Mr. Entz and others to recognize the need for, perhaps, a bit more emphasis on decorum. What you folks are doing here on Wiktionary, including Robbie's efforts, is very valuable, an I feel that the standards observed by those creating Wiktionary should accord with the value of the project.

Clearly, the word "leid" is not in use in the English language. No English dictionary has a definition for this word. The English equivalent of the Scots "leid" is "lede" and has a different meaning. Furthermore, the usage example is given in Scots ("daena" is not an English word, and nor is "a" as used to mean "I"), and the entire section is literally copied and pasted from the Scots section. Please revise the issue again and make the appropriate changes. Oldstone James (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Note Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#leid. There is a procedure on Wiktionary for removing terms you think are not attested in a given language, and simply removing it from the page without further ado is not it — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

In my first edit, I was trying to show “Bellyache” in Japanese. Do I need to source it? Do we not do that in Wikitionary? WikitionaryGuy (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's a translation, so would add it to the translation table, but in the correct script. We have an entry for fukutsu, but romaji entries are only for referring the reader to a kanji, hiragana or katakana entry. We don't add language headers for translations: look at water#Translations and try to imagine what the page would look like if there were language headers for all of those. We also don't automatically capitalize everything: Polish and polish are different entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply