User talk:Chuck Entz/2020

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=wacko&oldid=prev&diff=58266710&markasread=17573346&markasreadwiki=enwiktionary Why did you revert that? Did you hear the pronunciation in the sound file? Did you see google page I referenced (in words) in the edit summary?

Yaroslav Nikitenko (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC) UPD January 5. Do you care to answer? How to I complain about a wikipedia member? Just now I revert back my changes.Reply

I think your rollback was in error. I've reverted the rollback. Zeimusu (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

In hindsight, it was probably too extreme an action, but this sense of notch is probably better treated as an alternative form of nock, which is the most common term for it in archery. I'll bring it up at the WT:Tea room. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Any chance this is BedrockPerson? I don't remember them using an IP, but some bad edits made me suspicious. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

They used everything but the kitchen sink, and the IPs they used geolocated the same as this one- Optimum Online, usually Oyster Bay, or Brooklyn, New York. See Special:Contributions/74.90.120.94/21 for some recent stuff. I was going to mention it to you today, but then I saw that you had already reverted one of their edits, so I figured you were already aware of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you know, please block! I reverted what came across my path, but now I'll nuke it all just to be safe. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and concerning overlap on certain entries with Special:Contributions/Inqvisitor, who I think is not the same person. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

No overlap on the back end. Certainly not using the same IP or device. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you think all of these are PaM socks? There are probably more - it seems there's a new one for every batch of pages they create.

• Special:Contributions/Xaaladaamarabi
• Special:Contributions/Mitecrockuthown
• Special:Contributions/Aywurtheme8
• Special:Contributions/Dhegeysodumarka
• Special:Contributions/Nmbg7t9
• Special:Contributions/PrNDthree
• Special:Contributions/Uwger99
• Special:Contributions/Xawaiyobeeshasare
• Special:Contributions/Angel protpeyyu
• Special:Contributions/Iskuqorroqk
• Special:Contributions/Habbannezakiyaab
• Special:Contributions/Arintaarintab
• Special:Contributions/Tufuoo00

— surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If my suspicions are correct, I can start blocking new ones on sight. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Here's what I've found so far (all confirmed):

Angel protpeyyu (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Arintaarintab (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Cluwdglued949 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Dngwuufhuyey (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Drimidhalfdemonzu (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

Habbannezakiyaab (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Iskuqorroqk (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Kus55fazow (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Martam Brigmah (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks),Mitecrockuthown (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

Nmbg7t9 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), PlHHY6b (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Patientluckywell (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Qarnigilixaadleh (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Ratherbgtfborn (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

Tufuoo00 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Xaaladaamarabi (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), Xawaiyobeeshasare (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

As for your others: I can only run checks on edits that are less than 90 days old, so anything before mid-October is out of range. When I have time, I'll have to put together a filter to tag account creations in PaM's IP ranges. There's a large body of known IP edits, so I don't need to dip into confidential information to tell you that their profile is ISP: TalkTalk/Tiskali/Carphone Warehouse, Region: Northeast London area and neighboring Essex. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it, I don't believe the abuse filter has access to IP information for accounts, so scratch that. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why do you revert everything without an explanation? You are obliged to provide description to every edit you make. Why did you revert that Margarita doesn't mean Daisy? Do you have any sources to support your actions? --Dignitee (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any sources to support yours? "Margarita" means both "Daisy" and "Pearl", with both being valid English given names. As for the rest, the rollback tool doesn't allow for an explanation, and at Wiktionary- edit comments are a matter of etiquette, not rules. I had no time to do it the nicer way. Sorry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also he forged an unsourced connection between the Iranian word which is of Turkic origin and the Greek word. See manipulation? --Meatbowl (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

And the thought of the ultimate origin comes from Victar: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/arpasyaH&action=history --Meatbowl (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, what caused your edit rollback in the page Pridnestrovie? Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

First of all, it was ungrammatical and poorly phrased, but also it was really excessive. You did everything but say "they'll shoot you and you'll DIE LIKE A DOG, then THEY'LL SPIT ON YOUR CORPSE!!!!!" Wiktionary has a neutral point of view policy, and that kind of overheated, threatening tone is not welcome here.

Besides, most people outside of your region simply don't care, and if they see that kind of thing, they're more likely to laugh and make jokes about it than to change what name they use. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

And what did I write in a non-neutral tone? That this word is offensive and extremely undesirable for use in Pridnestrovie? So this is a fact (the confirmation: 1234), there is not a hint of any threats or emotions. But your version, as it were, asserts that there is supposedly a "real name" for this place, but the evil authorities of the PMR have come up for their own term for incomprehensible reasons and make poor people use it. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are absolutely right, Mr. Entz. I just navigated back there to delete that in favor of later creating a page for ἐπίγονος, to find that you have done it for me. I cannot devote time to doing so at this moment (I am messing with the draft of a promissory note at present), but will try to remember to do so when I can. I did just create the English epigonous page, though; that was the word I was looking for as pertains to my document, and I found that Wiktionary did not have it defined (I also put a link to it at epigone under "Derived Terms"). I recently made what I think will be my happiest addition in creating the pages for roof tree and roof trees, which terms I encountered in a Yale Law Review article about the Lien Theory of mortgages. You must admit: "roof tree" is probably one of the most interesting terms of art that I am likely to find...

It is a day later, Mr. Entz, and I have created a page for ἐπίγονος. I hope that it is in correct form.

It looks okay, but I haven't edited Ancient Greek in a long time, so I might be missing something. As for my most recent reversion: on a wiki, it's almost never a good idea to have definitions in the "form of" entries, because people tend to make changes to whatever entry they're working on and not update the other ones. The result is that things can get horribly out of sync. By convention, we treat the nominative singular as the lemma and have everything there. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The rollback https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=everywhere&oldid=58458783 is incorrect, though I'll grant I'm not sure what the correct way of specifying the etymology is. "Everywhere" is not a compound of "every" and "where". The 'y' is actually all the remains of the old english prefix 'ge-'. So the original compound was of the old english versions of "ever" and "ge-where", with "ge-" acting as an intensifier.

Perhaps. However, the word wasn't formed in modern English from two Old English morphemes. It had to have been inherited from Middle English, which inherited it from Old English. You need to look at how other descendants of Old English compounds are handled. Just off the top of my head, I would say that compound templates such as {{compound}}, {{prefix}}, {{affix}}, etc. shouldn't be used, because they add the entry to a category, and whatever category they generate will be wrong if the compounding happened in another language. There are probably other considerations that I'm not thinking of. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Entz, I wonder if you will visit the epigone page when you are able. I believe the statement within the Etymology there, that ἐπίγονος comes "from ἐπιγίγνομαι" to be incorrect, as it suggests that γόνος is derived from γίγνομαι. Rather, I think that γόνος entered Ancient Greek more directly as a lemma from earlier IE sources; see the Etymology at γόνος for what I believe to be the correct understanding (wherein γόνος is indicated to be merely the equivalent of γίγνομαι + -ος). I am loath to change any existing etymologies, as I am really not that learned in linguistic history, and so would like another set of more experienced eyes on this. I do not know of your facility with Ancient Greek; perhaps I will consult with User: Erutuon on this, as well? If you should indicate that I can go ahead with it, I shall introduce the changes as indicated above.

I'm not really at the level to verify this kind of etymological detail. Erutuon might be. The safest thing to do in such cases is to add {{rfv-etym}} and start a discussion at the Etymology scriptorium using the "+" link it generates.

That said, there's no reason in principle that γόνος and ἐπίγονος can't have different derivations. I can see how having the pair γίγνομαι and γόνος would prompt someone coining a noun from ἐπιγίγνομαι to model it on γόνος- that kind of thing happens all the time. I've seen a number of reconstruction entries for compounds deleted because it was obvious for historical reasons that the compounds couldn't have dated back that far, even though their component parts did. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Mr. Entz. I think that the best thing for me to do at this juncture is to pass this on to Erutuon, and let himself and other qualified people consider what to do. I will initiate a section for this on Erutuon's talk page, and so bring it to his attention.

I had to update my reply to you. --Apisite (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now I see why you did all those reverts. It is because Template:RQ:Shakespeare Timon, annoyingly, requires a page number. If there isn't one an error message comes up. I'd say the easiest thing to do is fiddle with the template so it doesn't matter if there's no page number. Not my job, of course, I haven't the know-how --AcpoKrane (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for this; I clicked the wrong link in my watchlist. Rollback links are a bit too powerful sometimes. — Eru·tuon 01:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not like I haven't done that a dozen times myself... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Think this might be BedrockPerson on an IP? The range (/19) seems to belong to New York University. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Considering the other activity on this range in the past, I decided to go ahead with a block already anyway. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 20:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You unblocked this user, who is still creating useless crap. Please explain yourself. Equinox ◑ 02:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You blocked someone who was editing in good faith without any warning and no explanation except for the block message itself. If he was churning out tons of garbage, I would understand- but we're talking about fewer than a dozen edits outside of user space over a month and a half. I'm not saying that blocking is out of the question, just that you were premature.

For what it's worth, I think we're probably dealing with someone who's quite young and has no idea that he's doing anything wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. It would be nice to drop me a little message of explanation though. But that's up to you. Equinox ◑ 03:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I created the page i don’t like you because I believed it met WT:CFI wikiguy (say hi! | what I did) 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, may I enquire why you reverted black swan event? Blockhouse321]] (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes. A dictionary is about words and phrases as words and phrases. Your entry was about a concept: events that are black swans. There's a reason for the redirect. If you want to deal with a concept, you do that at an encyclopedia. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

There many economic theories that include events in Wiktionary Category:en:Economics, some specific examples are: dualistic development, Black-Scholes model, ease of doing business index, etc. As an alternative, do you feel it should be listed as a definition under the idiom black swan? Blockhouse321 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

We haven't gotten around to considering those for challenge. Thanks fro drawing our attention to them. DCDuring (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's true, but words and "phrases" refer to concepts. To say that a word exists and refers to a specific concept is exactly the jurisdiction of a dictionary; going on at length about that concept is not. One could argue that it's SOP, but since it allegedly has a specialized sense in economics, that's not obvious. I've reverted to @Blockhouse321's version.__Gamren (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree. A black swan event is not an event that is a black swan. bd2412 T 21:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure User:Hamaabir is User:Irman making a block-evade. --{{victar|talk}} 20:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's been so long since we had a confirmed Irman sock I have nothing to compare with. Yes, the geolocation of the IP used is consistent in a very general way with what I remember of Irman's location, but it would be consistent with a lot of people who are interested in Persian, so I can't even begin to confirm any connection. If you know of any accounts active within the past 90 days, or even IP edits that I could use to narrow down the geographic range, it might help- but I'm afraid the checkuser tool isn't going to be much use here. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I pointed Victar to you on the assumption that you had saved the data somewhere. Given that you can't help, I've blocked him purely on the basis of my Spidey-sense, which is not optimal practice, but it looks to be the best we can do here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Metaknowledge. --{{victar|talk}} 10:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Does User:هندیمان سالار match Hamaabir? — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not conclusively, since the computer configuration is a bit on the generic side (the version numbers changed- but that just means they keep their software updated) and the IPs are different (albeit from the same "Data Center/Web Hosting/Transit"-type company). It's definitely consistent with the same computer assigned a different IP by the same provider after a couple of weeks. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Simichka is likely another block-evade of User:Irman. @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak --{{victar|talk}} 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge already issued a block. --{{victar|talk}} 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

But a CU investigation would still be nice, both as a post hoc confirmation, as well as another data point you can save for future Irman identification, where behaviour may be less conclusive. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now using User:Palangmoshk. @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak --{{victar|talk}} 15:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please stop doing nonconstructive edits to gallery, thank you! If it was made by a bot, please troubleshoot your bot. --173.68.165.114 07:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Are you fixing all those ids that I made years ago? I'm a terrible person. Good luck! THUMBS UP! Equinox ◑ 03:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert me? I think there should be examples. If I sound biased, still add your own examples. Yes it was made in error. Because I don’t know how, add a link to the English Wikipedia. We could have a discussion! Gale5050 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget that we're an international dictionary. Your examples would just be alphabet soup to someone from another continent. Besides, you added it to the definition labeled as specific to "rail transport". I'm not sure why we have that definition, or what it means, but it seems like the least likely to need highway numbers at the end. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so can you add something like the New Jersey Transit or Long Island Rail Road? 47.16.99.72 20:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought that he is one of the general authorities who distributes the topics. Belirsizkahve (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing. This is a wiki. Everyone here edits whatever they want to, as long as they don't seriously break the rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You’ve got mail, please check your inbox. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've decided I'm not going to quit. WikitionaryGuy (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ññ is borrowed by the Philippines from Spanish due to colonization however it is not exclusive only in Tagalog but also in other native languages of the Philippines.

Many surnames and places here in the Philippines have that letter in spelling. Mayon V (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I already tried to delete the Tagalog entry on ñ Mayon V (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I already tried to delete the Tagalog entry on ñ Mayon V (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I reverted you because you basically changed nothing with your edits except that you left a "----" section separator at the bottom of the page where it didn't belong. I have no opinion about the content that you added and removed. You should think about using "Show preview" so you can look at the result of your edits after each change before you click "Publish changes" to save the result. That way you can get it all correct in one edit (most of the time), instead of leaving a long string of partial or failed attempts in the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The verb “yap-“ does not have a meaning as “to fuck”. So make a little research before reverting every edit. Rd1978 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you think the meaning doesn't exist, use the {{rfv}} template and nominate it at WT:RFVN, don't just remove it. Also, remember that we're a descriptive dictionary: if it's used, we describe the use- even if it's considered bad or "invalid". I know there's lots of slang in my own language that I've never heard- I would expect the same for speakers of other languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ User:Chuck Entz: Many thanks for coming to the rescue. You might have guessed that my edits were taken from the Oxford etymology where the Norwegian form was included but might not apply now. My only reason for using that one was that the Old Swedish form 'sār' tended to blur the path to the root; but readers are more familiar with the Swedish cognates anyway. To link with Leasnam's progression to the P.I.E. root is Frisian 'such'; but am personally not carried by that root which initially seems to be that of 'seek'. Another less reliable source states that it derives from the root of 'sad' and Latin 'satio'. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC) AndrewReply

She had hundreds of thousands of subscribers on YouTube. Doesn't it seem like a fair number of them probably care that she deleted all her main channel videos? — This unsigned comment was added by 96.238.133.18 (talk) at 07:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

Meanwhile, 200,000 people have died of COVID-19, and perhaps a thousand times more than that are out of work. I don't think any of them are losing any sleep over videos on a YouTube channel.

That aside, vandalizing a quote in an online dictionary entry for the phrase "raindrop cake" has to be one of the lamest, stupidest ways to express an opinion that could possibly be imagined- especially since it's never going to be visible for more than a few hours. Even if anyone ever sees your little missives, they're far more likely to wonder what kind of moron would write such a thing in such a place then to suddenly come around to your way of thinking. And if you're trying to strike back at this person, chances are they won't even be aware that you did it.

You remind me of a fighter pilot who gets so focused on their target that they fly straight into the ground at full speed. What were you thinking? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chuck is totally right, IP - nobody cares. Take your petty disputes elsewhere. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article they were relevant to on Wikipedia got extended-protected.— This unsigned comment was added by 96.238.133.18 (talk) at 04:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

Of course it was. And the Wikidata item, too. You shouldn't be posting that kind of stuff anywhere, but definitely not on any Wikimedia site. That kind of behavior doesn't accomplish anything. It just wastes your time and everybody else's, and it makes you look really, pathetically bad. You need to find something more constructive to do, and hope that nobody you know ever finds out about this. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't see it as a waste of time given that I have nothing better to do with a lot of the time in this period of time in which everything outside the internet is shut down.

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Nut_(fruit) - "A nut is a fruit composed of an inedible hard shell and a seed, which is generally edible" I am reverting your rollback. cheers Paul venter (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Paul venter That's the botanical definition of fruit, which most of our readers are unaware of. The idea of a definition is to convey information to our readers, not to nitpick based on technicalities. If you want to be technical, a strawberry isn't a fruit, nor is the edible part of an apple, but a sunflower seed is- and a watermelon is a berry. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you don't want to be technical then you should not differentiate between nuts and fruits - most dictionaries define an orchard as a collection of fruit trees - no mention of nuts Paul venter (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see Wikipedia's article says "orchards comprise fruit- or nut-producing trees which are generally grown for commercial production". It looks fine to me, like talking about "meat and fish dishes" even though fish is technically meat. It's sufficiently different in practice for there sometimes to be an implied distinction. Equinox ◑ 09:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought our evidence is citations; authorities, like OED, MWOnline, etc, are shortcuts, ultimately inferior to citations. And, in any event, Wikipedia is not an authority.

We should have room for both popular and technical definitions of fruit and nut, as many 'unabridged' dictionaries do. DCDuring (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

is redundant to filter 100. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

For the record, the reason the filter was set up as is was because the person it's meant to block is already getting around it by adding spaces at random positions, which would not be matched now as the filter was changed. cave canem is a good example of this. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not a good idea to discuss the internals of abuse filters "for the record". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comparison of OneLook Dictionary listings for "semiaquatic" and "semi-aquatic" indicates not only that "semiaquatic" is strongly preferred, but that all the listings for the hyphenated form are derived from wiki projects. I would say under the circumstances that the burden of proof on this question falls on those who claim that "semi-aquatic" is acceptable; i.e., an authoritative source that supports this claim needs to be produced. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's in the OED, mate, which is better than your "OneLook Dictionary listings": Equinox ◑ 20:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

And before you say "OH BUT IT'S BRITISH", note that the Brit. gloss there applies to the pronunciation, not to the hyphenation. Equinox ◑ 20:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, I'd like to nominate you for supreme overlord of Wiktionary. Any idea how to set up that vote? --Odiumsatin (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Costello Any particular reason for completely removing my edit entirely? I was just trying to be helpful cause there's a distinct difference between Irish and US pronunciations of the name that I felt was important enough to note. MarcasÓB (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello? I think your edit was in error, or at the very least unhelpful. MarcasÓB (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MarcasÓB True, it was borderline, at best- I had a hard time deciding whether to revert it or not, and I had to think a bit about the best way to respond. Still, it was a bit of a mess. If you do the same sort of thing with the Irish that @Metaknowledge did with the American pronunciation, I won't revert it (assuming that really is the Irish pronunciation).Chuck Entz (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I saw nothing wrong with it. I think your rollback is an error. (162.253.56.55 19:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)162.253.56.55)Reply

Im viewing the Blue link and Red link

What's the difference beetween the blue and red?

Apdra IO (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Blue links go to a page that already exists, though there's no guarantee that the page has an entry in a given language or a given definition. Red links go to a page that doesn't exist. Clicking on one gives you the option to create the page (please read our Criteria for inclusion and our Entry layout pages before actually creating an entry, though). Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are no adjectives in Ojibwe. Aakozi is a verb, meaning "to be sick"

SteveGat (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but you can't call it an "Animate Instrative Verb" (whatever that is- the technical term is stative verb, but that won't work, either). I left a template on your talk page with the information you need. This particular part is covered in our Entry layout page. I would use simply "verb" with {{lb}} at the beginning of the definition line to spell out the rest (it may also require parameters in {{head}}, but I don't have time to deal with that now- I'm telecommuting in about an hour for the rest of the day. Sorry to revert your edit- we definitely need more content in the language- but it has to be right. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The litterature classifies Ojibwe verbs in a four way structure: intranstive verbs are classified according to the animacy of the SUBJECT (inanimate intransitive, VII; and animate intransitive, VAI), while transtive verbs are classified according to the animacy of the OBJECT (inanimate transitive, VTI; and animate transitive, VTA). The subclassification is critically important for morphology, syntax and derivation, so i don't think it can be ignored. I don't what is the best way to represent this classification on wiktionary, but a lot would be lost without it.

Also, while "aakozi" is semantically equivalent to an English stative verb, that classification doesn't make sense in Ojibwe. For example, another VAI is "bimose" which means to walk. SteveGat (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SteveGat, I'd suggest perusing the entries listed at Category:Ojibwe_verbs to get an idea of how other Ojibwe verb entries are formatted. If that formatting strikes you as problematic, I think the best approach is to strike up a thread at the Wiktionary:Beer parlour to discuss. HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit on Hang? I only added the Malay definition of that word in the thread.

Looking at it now, I'm not sure why I did that. You removed the "----", but that could have been easily fixed. I must have been led astray by the earlier edit that you removed. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

On 12:03, 14 May 2018‎, you did revert my edit on ῥύγχος, and I do not understand why. I added a list of taxonomic terms derived from 'rhyncho'. Manudouz (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The derived terms header is only for terms in the same language. If you think about it, almost every word in most Romance languages is derived from a Latin word, and most of the scientific terminology in the languages of the world is derived from Greek and Latin. If we did with all the Greek and Latin words what you did there, we wouldn't have room for anything else. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck -- A close associate of mine just sent you an email message. -- · (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. -- · (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fruit trees include nut trees - there was a discussion on the subject. Blocking someone because you don't like the facts they produce is nothing less than an abuse of power. Hoping that you will see some light. cheers Paul venter (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

This isn't about facts. This is about interpretation of facts. Your interpretation is different from that of most English speakers, who would get the wrong impression from your wording. By the way: how is exactly is masseter derived from mastax? Did Hippocrates know that he was using a term derived from English when he used the form μασσητῆρες (massētêres)? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I sincerely doubt that you conducted a survey to find out what most English speakers think - you are indulging in thumbsucking. What does seem obvious though is that you have appointed yourself watchdog and arbiter of all issues and are steadfastly blinkered to dissenting views, Paul venter (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Chuck -- your edits to the orchard entry are confusing at best. I note similar problems with other edits you've made, as at pullet and mastax. You appear to insist that you are correct in your approach, without regard for why others might be changing your edits, and without responding constructively when they try to explain. This is not behavior that will get you far in a wiki project. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Likewise. While your interpretation is correct for some people, the other interpretation is definitely also correct (I am a native speaker of English who has used the words fruit and nut for over 60 years and read widely in a variety of horticultural and agricultural subjects, and that's my understanding). For that reason, it's better to keep the distinction for those who are unaware of your interpretation. You are changing the status quo, so the burden is on you to justify your change. You can certainly make your case at the Tea room if you want to get others to weigh in.

As for mastax, let me spell it out for you: you listed masseter and masticate as derived terms from the English term mastax. Masseter is derived from the Ancient Greek word μασητήρ, which is possibly derived from the Ancient Greek word μάσταξ. Since English is not Ancient Greek, this is not a matter of interpretation- you are simply and incontrovertibly wrong- that is my problem with your edit there. I mentioned that because it shows an unfortunate sloppiness in your thinking that calls the rest of your determinations into question. Please stop reflexively rejecting everything I do and pay attention. On your current course you are heading toward an inevitable sitewide block. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why was my addition removed? “Gehäuse” comes exactly like “Behausung” from “Haus” (house) and means “housing”.

It's related, but not in the same way as the other cognates. It doesn't explain anything about the origin of the word and there's already a better German cognate in the etymology- it's nothing but extra clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I cut out more than I intended, but do you really want to put back the usex, if you do please comment in the tea room wiktionary:Tea_room#Los_pantalones_no_me_cabían The Language Learner (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cecina (not Cesina) salted, aged beef in Latin-American cuisine. https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Cecina_(meat)

— This unsigned comment was added by Peter39c (talk • contribs) at 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

You must mean cecina. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Peter39c While you're no doubt right that the correct spelling is cecina (our entry there agrees with you), everything you did to the entry at cesina was massively wrong in a number of ways. First of all, you removed all the content without checking with anyone. The correct move would have been to take this is Requests for verification, which I have now done. Next, you added content for a toponym entry that presumable should be at Cesina (Wiktionary is case-sensitive: polish is not the same as Polish). You then made it into an encyclopedia article about w:Cesina. Wiktionary is a dictionary, so there was no need to stuff Wiktionary's entry with most of the content that you had already added to the Wikipedia article. Finally, your content was completely devoid of any of the definitions, templates, formatting and categories that are required in all Wiktionary entries (see our Entry layout page).

To understand how wrong you were, imagine for a moment that your Wikipedia article on Cesina was erroneously at the spelling "Cecina". What you did would be equivalent to my converting that article into a dictionary entry, complete with a "Spanish" language header, An "Etymology" section, a "Noun" part-of-speech section, a headword line giving the gender and the plural, and a one-sentence definition.

It's great that you recognized there was a problem, but you didn't correct anything- you just made it wrong in different ways. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I apologize because I had never entered an entry in the wiktionary, but the toponym Cesina is correct. the philologic reconstruction of the term is correct. Thank you for your valuable help in clarifying the content. Peter39c (talk) 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why the correction keeps getting undone. Mais bien sur only means "but of course". I can find no support anywhere online for "yeah, right" or "as, if'.

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/mais-bien-s%C3%BBr.241416/

Put it into google translate or any dictionary.

Nowhere translates as "yeah right" or "as if", every single source says "but of course". — This unsigned comment was added by 73.180.104.177 (talk) at 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

This kind of usage is not covered very well in dictionaries, and Google Translate should never, ever, EVER be used as a reference. It's not bad for getting a very rough idea of what a text means that's in a language you don't know, but for idiomatic phrases like this it can be epically, horribly wrong. When in doubt, it's best to go with the instincts of a fluent or native speaker. In this case, you've been edit-warring with a Belgian native speaker of French. How would you like it if someone who doesn't speak English said you don't know what a common English phrase means?

Also, Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary- our source for a well-documented language like French is usage, not dictionaries or other authoritative references (see our Criteria for inclusion for details). If you think a definition is wrong and there might be any dispute about it at all, the correct procedure is to add {{rfv|fr}} (replacing the "fr" with the language code for any other language than French), and using the link provided by the "+" it shows to post a request in Requests for verification. If no one can find enough examples of usage in the right kinds of sources, it will be removed. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

"When in doubt, it's best to go with the instincts of a fluent or native speaker. In this case, you've been edit-warring with a Belgian native speaker of French. How would you like it if someone who doesn't speak English said you don't know what a common English phrase means?"

The issue wasn't that they didn't understand French, but that they didn't understand the English translation. And that's exactly what they did, tell me my English translation was incorrect. Note: I was correct and the entry was edited.

Hi, I believe that that should not have been speedily deleted. If you wanted to delete it, you should have RFDed it. Purplebackpack89 03:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Purplebackpack89 A deletion rationale wasn't provided other than "not dictionary material," but I see no evidence that the term is attested, even as a hot word (by Wiktionary's quite conservative standards anyway). Maybe wait another couple of years and see if the term continues to get used. As for if the entry should be deleted as a non-lexical proper noun, I'm divided on that issue. I would've restored the entry myself and sent it to RFD, but since it seems to be unattested yet by hot-word standards there's no point. If you want to challenge that provide some citations, but I did my best and found nothing. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps. It was a bit of a judgement call, I'll admit. The thing is, there's no reason to believe that this particular event will be remembered in a even a month or two, let alone a year. Not only are there massive, catastrophic things going on right now, Trump is a master at driving things like this out of the public conversation- something impossible to ignore will hit the fan in the next news cycle and this (literal) nonevent will disappear like a spark in a firestorm. You really should wait a few weeks before creating hotword entries from current events.

In case you're wondering: I only was aware of this because you left the entry with a module error. When I saw what sort of an entry it was, I decided it wasn't worth the minimal time and effort to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have a few detailed questions about the use of these abbreviations that I hope you can answer or that you can direct me to a possible source of answers. I have so far looked at Botanical Latin and GBIF's Terms Used in Bionomenclature without joy. I found only one WP article that used spp. with a supergeneric taxon.

I know that the use of spp/spp. is proper after a genus name. I take it to refer of multiple unnamed species in that genus, usually not all species in that genus.

1. Is spp. deprecated relative to spp in taxonomy? at Wiktionary?
2. Can spp(.) be used with supergeneric taxa? with subgeneric taxa? (I have seen neither at Wikispecies in 300 uses (of total 877) there of spp..)
3. Do you think this abbreviation should not be used in Wiktionary definitions at all or only if wikilinked?
4. Should it be used as an abbreviation of species (plural) in biological text other than after a taxon? (I have seen it so used at Wikispecies.)

If any aspect of use, by me or by others, of spp. is undesirable for any good reason, I am happy to correct it. "Insource" and regexes can work wonders. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can use spp. just about anywhere you would use species as a plural. If you Google phrases like "Brassicaceae spp." or "other spp." you get a decent number of hits. I suppose there might be cases where plural "species" might not be appropriate, but I'd have to see the context to say. As for "spp", I don't think I've ever seen it in use. If I did, I'd think it was a typo, or someone's idiosyncratic personal style- not that I'm an expert on such things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm glad that my past practice in this regard doesn't need correction. It is handy to be able to have a shorthand way of referring to 'certain' member of an order, family, tribe, etc. DCDuring (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

This user is ever and anon vandalising some entries (of Indo-Aryan languages, as I have noticed); for example, you can check the revision history of the following entries (ঠেং, টাং, কলা) and behold that they are not only changing the contents at their whim but also reverting back to their earlier disruptive revision, continually. So could you kindly take the needful step to hinder this behaviour of theirs? Thanks in advance. —inqilābī 19:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Guys I'm new here. Please how is things done here? Kamorudeen Oluwadamilare (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Kamorudeen Oluwadamilare: Hi Kamorudeen. Are you interested in working on Yoruba here? If so, I can help. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm almost 20 years at Wikipedia and similar projects but never have been treated so rude like on English Wiktionary. What's wrong with my edit of Kaupo? Kaupolikan is the name of a friend in South America... and he is of Mapuche ancestry... and everyone is calling him "Kaupo" for short --Caeschfloh (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

First of all, please see our Entry layout page. As a dictionary, our format is highly compressed and standardized. Think of it like an infobox on Wikipedia- each slot has a specific function and can only take certain specific types of information. Each language is in its own section with its own level 2 header, such as (==Spanish==). Your first attempt had a language header of "Spanish/Mapuche", and your second put a "Spanish" header between the Estonian section and its definition, leaving it without one. We also use headword templates that automatically add the right categories. Without them, no one would ever know about a language section on a page unless they're looking for that exact spelling. That's just for starters.

Also, do you have any evidence that anyone aside from your friend has that same nickname (especially with a "k", which is not part of normal Spanish orthography)? Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, so we place a great deal of importance on confirmed usage rather than reference works for common languages such as Spanish (see our Criteria for inclusion for details). Sure. you know one person with that name, but there are people out there with names like "Moon Unit" and "Dweezil" that are one of a kind- not a really part of the language as a whole.

Finally, keep in mind that we have more pages than Wikipedia, with content in literally hundreds of languages- but only a tiny fraction of the admins and other patrollers that Wikipedia has. We simply can't afford the layers and layers of procedural niceties that you find at Wikipedia. There are usually a thousand or more edits to patrol every day, and if we don't deal with them as we find them, they can easily sit there for years. We're still finding problems that should have been fixed 15 years ago, but only a handful of bots have edited those pages since. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

This rollback was a mistake. It is a correct origin of the word like in other Slavic languages. — This unsigned comment was added by 89.164.239.199 (talk) at 17:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

All except for the "inherited from Old Church Slavonic" part. The way we define Old Church Slavonic at Wiktionary, it's simply not true. Feel free to make your case at the Etymology scriptorium, but not only would you have to get consensus for it, someone would have to change the data in Module:languages/data2 or you would just get a module error. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should it then just read "Proto-Slavic *sǫmorkъ" as in it descends from Proto-Slavic, which is the case?

That would work. We only use {{inh}} when there is no borrowing at any stage in between, so you may want to use {{der}}, but I have no idea whether there was any borrowing in the history of this term. If it came from Old Church Slavonic, then the Proto-Slavic ancestor would use {{der}}. I wouldn't revert you in either case, because I don't know one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk)

Sorry I accidentally deleted the ]]on hello.thanks for reverting my edit. Linxi 1234 (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong with me linking the scientific term? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The term Ophiophagus isn't derived from the English prefix, they're both derived from Latin and/or Greek. Besides which, we only link to the same language in specialized headers such as "Derived terms". Ophiophagus is translingual. The closest you could use would be "See also", though it would be better if it could be linked from a Translingual entry (if there is one). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Definitely a mistake - words beginning with 'h' are only preceded by "an" as the indefinite article when the 'h' is silent an in "an hour" or "an herb" (US pronunciation). When the 'h' is pronounced - ie it has a consonant sound - then it should be preceded by "a" as the indefinite article, as in "a house" or "a herb" (UK pronunciation).

"An historical" and "an hotel" may be frequently-used abominations but we should have no truck with them in a dictionary. This may assist you: https://www.lexico.com/grammar/a-historic-event-or-an-historic-event - 121.44.38.245 01:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure, "a historic" makes more sense with current pronunciation (I say it that way myself), but "an historic" is a stylistic choice- not wrong at all, but rather dated. Any time I see someone declaiming about how eeevill something like this is, it makes me nervous. This is a dictionary, not a battleground. In general, I would rather leave things as they are and not have editors indirectly/implicitly demonizing each other over matters of taste. That said, I'm not going to start my own crusade over this- it's not that important. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with my edit? Timothy5597 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

First of all, the entries for the Middle English say they came from feorr, not feor. Even without that, Wiktionary is organized around lemmas. That is, there's a main entry where we have pretty much everything, and we try not to have more than the absolute bare minimum at inflected-form and alternative-form entries.

There's a good reason for this: if you have the same content in two places, someone is likely to make changes in one place without checking whether they need to make the same changes in other places. You then have two entries that disagree with each other- one of them is wrong, but how do site visitors know which one? Or worse, someone corrects one error at one of the places, and someone else corrects another error at the other place, so neither one is correct. In general, duplicating content just creates headaches for people trying to keep everything in sync and up to date. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I consider the following to be ridiculous:

1. That the entry for Acela Republican failed RfV even though there is extensive online use of the word.
2. That the redirect was deleted. A redirect is not an entry and therefore not subject to RfV. Also, the redirect is acceptable under the redirection guidelines, "Sum-of-part terms that are likely to be searched, to the part that the meaning mainly derived from"
3. That you edit-warred with me on my own user page. If I want to delete comments from my own user talk page, it is my prerogative to do so. Per Wiktionary:Usernames and user pages, "content may be deleted entirely" from a user talk page. There is no requirement that all content from a talk page be archived.

Purplebackpack89 16:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

See also User talk:Eirikr#‎Deletion of Acela Republican redirect in error. What a waste of everybody's time to make multiple threads, and to argue in this thread that this entry should have been kept at RFV, and in another that it should be deleted at RFD for being sum of parts. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, Meta, your assuming that any policy that applies to entries also applies to redirects, and I'm not sure you can do it. Also, if you wanted a centralized discussion, you could have easily created one by nominating Acela Republican for deletion instead of unilaterally deleting it by yourself. Purplebackpack89 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

A single undo does not constitute edit warring- I mostly did it just for the edit summary. I do find your Trump-like tendency to view everything as deliberate persecution by people who hate you to be rather annoying. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

• I have nothing particular to say about the CFI-worthiness of the phrase Acela Republican.

Purely in reference to the deletion of the redirect, your point 2 above, here is the relevant text from ]:

These uses of redirects are also de facto acceptable:
...

3. Sum-of-part terms that are likely to be searched, to the part that the meaning mainly derived from.

1) I doubt that Acela Republican is "likely to be searched", and 2) I disagree that Acela is "the part that the meaning mainly derived from".

As stated over at ]:

I strongly believe that users are better served by landing on a Wiktionary does not yet have an entry message, rather than landing on a separate page that does not include the sought-after term. In software design contexts, I have heard this described as "the principle of least surprise".
...

Even as a redirect for a sum-of-parts term, the phrase Acela Republican is composed of the term Acela modifying the head noun of Republican. Put another way, an Acela Republican is a type of Republican. Redirecting to Acela instead makes it seem that the term Acela is somehow the head noun of this phrase, which is both incorrect and confusing.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, and I'm not sure how this continues to be brought up, but where did you get the idea that redirects are inherently not subject to the regular requirements for attestation? It doesn't say that anywhere at WT:REDIR nor at WT:CFI. Redirects could absolutely be sent to RFV, though it certainly happens more rarely since redirects are generally frowned upon over full entries here. You can't just create a redirect for something that failed RFV on the basis that it failed RFV; it doesn't belong here at all until it can be attested, whether entered as a redirect or not. Redirects are still entries—lexical units that are entered into the mainspace–by the way. To claim that redirects should not be sent to RFV is, in your own words, "making up rules that don't exist." PseudoSkull (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Re this rollback, could it be that the user merely wanted to ask if we had a clue as to the meaning of the term kairological? The term is (also) used in Biblical studies: , , .  --Lambiam 06:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to undo my revert. It just looked to me like they were responding to something that wasn't there. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why my reword of the definition was reverted? I believe my wording was clearer. Was there a problem with it? - Montrealais (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Clearer, yes, accurate- no. It's a rather vague term as most people use it, but you were very specific, and made some detailed assumptions about how the undead become that way. I'm not convinced that most people have even thought about whether they died and were reanimated, or went straight from living to undead, or even were magically created from nothing. You might as well have said that the undead have one arm longer than the other, or are strangely attracted to muskrats. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It would have been helpful if you had expressed those concerns when you reverted my edit. Simply deep-sixing others' work with an automatic message, as though it were unambiguous vandalism rather than a contribution about which reasonable people may disagree and which could lead through dialogue to an improvement, feels frustrating, confusing, and dismissive, which I imagine is not what you're trying to convey. - Montrealais (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You might be surprised, there are far fewer admins here than at Wikipedia, and quite a bit of vandalism. The edit message on Chuck's revert is the default message when using the auto-rollback tool: "Reverted edits by . If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page."

Plainly speaking, we (those of us who patrol content) don't have much available bandwidth for leaving explanatory messages for reverts, and we often don't unless we recognize the editor we're reverting. There are many briefly-active editors who show up here out of good faith or bad, and who make a mess of the entries, so we just clean it up as quickly as we can. Please be aware that Wiktionary is definitely not Wikipedia -- not just in content, but also in community and editing standards. And please don't take it personally. The longer you're active here, the more you'll become familiar with how things work. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ Chuck Entz: Thank you for your reply, which I have only just read. I have copied your response and that of Metaknowledge into my talk page, so those two replies can be deleted from his now. I did not put it lucidly; but my question was as to whether any administrators of Wiktionary might have put Academia in touch with me and if so, to thank them very much. There is certainly no problem with your etymological edits and the same applies to the majority of other administrators/etymologists; but a few tend to blindly copy a few from their favourite dictionary, without applying the necessary etymological logic. The changes to that of dog, for example, are the worst I have seen! Coding references is OK scientifically, but undermines the readability of Wiktionary when the lucid ones are reverted - two instances of this I have seen recently! Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 18:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Andrew

I have seen infraspecies used as a rank (informal?) at Animal Diversity Web. See Formica rufa. I have found it occasionally in books and scholarly articles, but not usually as a rank and often attributively. Are you familiar with usage as a rank? DCDuring (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure where they got it, though I notice that they cite the Catalogue of life, which lists subspecies on a page with the header "Infraspecific Taxon Details", but they give the rank elsewhere as subspecies. It's possible that someone decided that an "infraspecific taxon" must be an "infraspecies", even though infraspecific just means "below the rank of species- subspecies are infraspecific. Apparently the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature only recognizes species and subspecies. It doesn't prohibit other ranks, but they aren't available as published names and they aren't regulated by the Code.

I'm not a taxonomist, but it looks to me like the safest thing to do would be to treat "infraspecies" as subspecies. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I had done exactly that recently on an insect entry that I had 5 years ago created with infraspecies as a taxonomic rank. I would not normally follow Animal Diversity Web, but sometimes taxonomy surprises me. In this case, I left it as an example for purposes of this discussion. I didn't find infraspecies in Hawksworth's Terms Used in Bionomenclature, published by GBIF in 2010. I'll change the Formica rufa entry. DCDuring (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, I'm curious why you did this revert. Is it because I had it in the Lakota section, but was using US English? = Paul2520 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Paul2520 Audio files should be made by native speakers, or at least sound like they would if made by a native speaker. As far as I know, this is not an English word, so English pronunciation for it is simply wrong. It also doesn't sound like Lakhota. Oddly enough, I've had schooling in Lakota: back in the late 80's I took a 10-week American Indian Languages class that included one lesson a week in Lakota, taught by a native speaker.

Lakhota has nasal vowels and an opposition between strongly aspirated and unaspirated stops. I also believe the point of articulation of the t sound is different from English, but it's been over thirty years, so I couldn't swear to it. All I know is that the audio file sounds like an Anglo American pretending to speak Lakota, which is useless as a guide to either Lakota or English pronunciation. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation & the context. I've undone my addition to winkte as well.

I had heard the pronunciation of this word recently in a college lecture, from a non-indigenous, white professor. But I don't want to give the impression that anyone is pretending to speak Lakota/Lakhota! = Paul2520 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not an idle rant, just an observation: Awhile ago, I changed an article's taxonomical header from Adjective to Adjectival phrase. Several editors read me the riot act. At the time, the edit was a reflexive response - not my intent to upset the Wiktionary applecart - and I had no linguistic ax to grind. It just was and still is my experience that most people identify the notion of "adjective" with the concept of a canonical adjective rather than with:

• a phrase that contains an adjective as its headword (what I'd call an adjective phrase e.g. "a brand new car")
• a phrase without an adjective but nonetheless functions like one (what I'd call an adjectival phrase, e.g. "a newly hired employee").

In my own lexicon, the distinctions help alert a reader concerning the syntactical context. Similarly, if a user looks up "most of all" here and tries to find the adverb in that phrase, which is identified as an adverb, perplexity ensues. IMHO, taxonomically identifying that phrase an adverb is ever-so-slightly better than calling it an idiom, as some dictionaries do.

In short, I'm not interested in waging a war against Wiktionarians who are enamored of the idea of taxonomically identifying, e.g., halfwitted as an adjective. I admit using similar ploys with students who have neither the interest nor the background to construe what a compounded adjectival passive past participle means. For the record, none of the grammar terms in my own lexicon entail more than three lexemes. And I readily admit that what I call "grammar terms" indeed are often linguistic terms in order not to intimidate people from Square One. But, all of my students are adult professionals who can handle the truth. They actually do want to know the lexical difference between e.g. mannerly (which looks like an adverb but isn't) and mannered (ID'd here as an adjective contrary to my own lexicon) in a phrase such as "A good, mannerly person" versus a "A well mannered person." In fact, they even ask, "Why the comma in the former but not the latter?" No such bases for distinction are evident in the Wiktionary taxonomical schema. --Kent Dominic (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think we try to keep the basic entry simple with respect to word classes and confine more detailed linguistic classification to categories. That does leave us with the occasional problem of determining which section of a multipart English-language entry the category refers to without, say, putting an intimidating label on a definition. DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz/2020,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email [email protected].

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you got it. That time again...--Java Beauty (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the pronunciation of ڮ in Nogay/Nogai and you deleted it, bruh. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know that you did it because of the name of that language but yes Nogay exists its a north-east caucasian language AleksiB 1945 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Chuck. Thanks for keeping an eye on the Jamaican Creole section. I appreciate it. I imagine that as the Jamaican Creole section grows, the real conflict between those who prefer to write Patwa using the English-like orthography and those who use the JLU style will only get worse. I think they both can coexist, however. Jamaican is presently protected from anonymous edits. Do you think Jamaica will also be a target? Have a nice day. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you give me interface administrator permissions? I would like to fix MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js to support {{multitrans}} and {{tt}}/{{tt+}}. These templates dramatically reduce the memory usage of pages with heavy translation tables, and are much easier to use than {{t-simple}}. The reason they're not currently used is that the translation adder doesn't support working with them. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I gave them to your Benwing account, since it has the admin privileges. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's what I meant :) Benwing2 (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

BTW the translation adder seems to work fine with {{multitrans}} if you insert the call to {{multitrans}} *after* {{trans-top}} instead of before. It will add new entries using {{t}}/{{t+}} instead of {{tt}}/{{tt+}}, but this doesn't cause any issues (other than use slightly more memory). I will still work on fixing the translation adder so it recognizes translation tables with {{multitrans}} either before or after {{trans-top}} and inserts {{tt}}/{{tt+}} as appropriate, but the immediate need is less urgent. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, you did help, but I did not want my talk page deleted, I only wanted it to be blank. Every time I try to create my talk page and leave it blank, it says the edit was blocked due to being vandalism. 173.3.251.237 03:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC) 173.3.251.237Reply

Try it again. I changed the filter. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is this right? Can I create?BuyAthenaTroy (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also there is a Wikipedia Chinese article for 恩潘納達.

How should I know? I don't think you've learned anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category:grc:Greek_deities&oldid=prev&diff=35968970

Hi. Why did you revert this edit? Please mention at least one of example of a Greek deity which is not a proper noun !! SoSivr (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SoSivr We don't add categories like that. There's a module that has the definition for Category:Greek deities and the list of categories for it. Those categories are automatically replicated not just in Category:grc:Greek deities and Category:en:Greek deities, but in 51 other language-specific categories.

That said, I don't think the fact that the terms in Category:grc:Greek deities are all proper nouns is of any interest to most dictionary users. For me, that goes in the "well, duh!" file along with the fact that they're Greek.

Besides, every one of these terms should have a "Proper noun" header in the entry itself, and be already a member of Category:Ancient Greek proper nouns, so adding the part of speech category to the topical category would just be duplication and clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, I verified that if you use {{multitrans}}, {{t-simple}} gets you no additional benefits; in fact it may make things worse. I compared, on the page color, using {{multitrans}} consistently and leaving the existing {{t-simple}} calls in place (39.45 MB) vs. using {{multitrans}} consistently and converting the {{t-simple}} calls to {{tt}} or {{tt+}} (38.63 MB). As a result I may remove some of the existing {{t-simple}} calls on various pages (it's used on about 300 pages) and fix any resulting memory errors by adding {{multitrans}}. Benwing2 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

My continued use of t-simple isn't because I have any objection to multitrans, but because I'm more familiar with t-simple. I have a system that saves me a lot of time and is also simpler to reverse without using a bot. I haven't gotten around to getting up to speed on the whole multitrans/tt/tt+ system, though I certainly can if I need to. By the way: why do you use dedicated templates inside multitrans, if you're running everything through a module? Wouldn't it be simpler if you could have multitrans parse the existing translation table as is, so you can just wrap everything in the template without changing it? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at the RFD/E regarding dress. What's the procedure for whatever the next steps are? --Kent Dominic (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

There should be an explanation at the top of the page at RFDE. Basically, people will discuss it and vote. The sense will be deleted only if there's a consensus to do so, though it may go on for a while, either way. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Chuck Entz, hello, I'm sorry for bothering you, the thing is there was a vote to remove all ƿynn entries and it was successful. - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns.

I know that you are most likely not involved in this subject and I feel really uncomfortable to disturb you, but I was told you might be inclined to assist if I make a convincing argument.

There is a discussion about it on the Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/November page - ]. I hope the arguments you find there can be convincing. If there were a vote to bring these entries back, would you support it? Sorry for taking your time. Birdofadozentides (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Chuck. I believe the SUC ("Wonderfool") is spreading malware via email to various users here. I received such an attachment ten days ago. Here's a screenshot. I don't have any proof that Backinstadiums is the SUC but you already know that Returning2stadia is. I don't know if anything can be done about it but it scares me to think how many have had their PCs hijacked by such an attack. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, Backinstadiums isn't WF, and he isn't (intentionally) sending malware. He's Spanish and is trying to learn English by reading grammars and asking questions rather than practice- like trying to learn how to ride a bicycle from a book. I've warned him once or twice about linking to resources that provide illegal access to copyrighted material. This looks like more of the same. Not that he seems all that sophisticated about avoiding malware- I wouldn't click on a link like that.

As for WF, after years of playing Whack-A-Mole with his socks, we reached an understanding: he uses only one account at a time, and we don't block him as long as he behaves. He treats it as sort of a game: he behaves for a while, then gets bored and acts up so we'll block him, then comes back with a new account. I've seen him trying to impersonate a non-native speaker, and he's not all that good at it. Most of the times that he's fooled people (including me, once), it was because no one thought to look for the obvious signs. At any rate, I've got to start my telecommuting, so I don' have time to say anything more. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think you're underestimating just how determined and clever this guy is. Something tells me that due to Wiki's privacy policy you all aren't allowed to check identifying connection strings for each user willy-nilly. I am absolutely certain that he has more than a few accounts active here now which haven't been blocked. When I stumbled upon what he did as Dangherous, it made me realise just how dangerous this guy really is. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good evening,

I just saw that you have rolled back my edit I made in Kashmiri word : https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D8%A2%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C

The word āzādī is not written as آزادی but as آزٲدی as we pronounce it as āzạ̄dī. Here is also a proof of the writing of the word from the Kashur Dictionary, Authentic Monolingual Dictionary of Kashmiri Language done by Jk Academy of Arts, Culture and Languages. Link of the page where is the word : https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.510168/page/n149/mode/2up

Imranqazi90 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

That may be true, but you got rid of the headword template, which is mandatory. If you just want to change how it displays, use the |head= parameter.

By the way: when you edit a module, always check CAT:E for a few days afterward. When you changed Module:number list/data/ks it caused a module error at پانژھ. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I didn't know how to edit the headword template. I will make the changes. As well for پانٛژھ Imranqazi90 (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just saw for the word پانٛژھ it has two pages actually. The one you have tagged is an extra one. The change I have made on the module directs to the page https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D9%BE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%9B%DA%98%DA%BE#Kashmiri.

Imranqazi90 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Chuck for the parameter. I made the change on the word āzādī.

Best regards Imranqazi90 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 Please see . I don't really know where to go or what to do, so I thought I would just go ahead let you know that something is happening. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: You need to stop posting random handwritings or signboard. Pictures should be of the entity itself, not a writing or printing of the word. Wiktionary is not your travel blog. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 There's no need to try to make fun of me. I am making a dictionary. See my message here: that says "Read the talkpage". The talk page discussion says that the image is a good idea ("Looks good." from Justinrleung). You deleted it here . --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: You should find a picture or font displaying the correct version. Not write one of your own. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 Why? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Of course we are not using handwritings to show what the standard form of a Chinese character is. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 Do you want only standard forms in this dictionary? This is a descriptivist dictionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: "descriptivist" does not mean random handwriting from any Tom, Dick or Harry. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 Yes it does. That is exactly what it means. But no matter- I have added the original wording back to the caption for your new image. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: That's a very creative idea. Maybe you should rename Wiktionary to Wikihandwritings. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 Stop reverting. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: You started reverting first. Stop it. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 In the above comment, you wrote the sentence: "You started reverting first." What you have written in the above statement is factually disproven by the sequence of the following edits: 2019 edit 2020 revert. This revert was the first revert. By your logic, it was you who started reverting first and according to your own principle you should stop reverting and start discussing. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: The current ongoing mutual reverting is started by you. What you mentioned above is irrelevant. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@恨国党非蠢即坏 Stop reverting immediately. 1) You are damaging the website by repeatedly and recklessly removing materials that have been on these pages for years. For instance, the change to the image used for 并 was an acceptable idea, but a total removal of that image was utterly preposterous. 2) You are accusing me of reverting first when you reverted other long-standing edits first. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)Reply

You are damaging Wiktionary by turning it into your personal blog. I hope I could have noticed and stopped you earlier. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for taking notice. I leave this issue in your hands Chuck Entz! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) This is long past ridiculous. Basically, you're having a fight to the death over whether it should be 3 in the morning and 4 in the evening or 4 in the morning and 3 in the evening, to borrow an example I saw somewhere... I've blocked you both from editing any entries until tomorrow, so you can cool off. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I would recommend checking to make sure whether images and content are or are not being removed by 恨国党非蠢即坏- for instance 2019 edit 2020 revert --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Pardon me. This problem is not going to be settled because Geographyinitiative has uploaded a bunch of photos about their personal life, trips and schoolwork and is seeking for any chance to post them here. Look at this File:樂觀 Optimism.jpg. This is merely a signboard with 樂觀 printed on it. How does it help to illustrate the concept 樂觀 to readers of that entry? If it is meant just to show the word itself, isn't the page title above, the header templates and all other texts enough? But Geographyinitiative just wanted to show this travel photo. Wiktionary is a nice album in their eyes. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

From my perspective, I don't agree with all the statements in the above comment. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Not a good example. Sure, it's a pointless image, but if you look closer you'll see it was uploaded and added to the entry by another editor entirely. I'm not exactly a fan of that kind of image, but I have better things to do than butt heads with other editors over the wallpaper while the roof isn't finished. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Yes, focusing on the roof is a good idea, but only until the wallpaper guy started to revenge you, as shown in the entries 朝三暮四 and 狼藉 below. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: In addition, 2 entries, 朝三暮四 and 狼藉, do not involve any image and Geographyinitiative even never edited them before. But obviously they just found them in my contributions and reverted them out of personal hostility. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Let's speak in a more practical way. We should decide, one by one, which of the images stays and which goes, should we? Or else this dispute is very likely to go on as soon as we two get unblocked.

1. File:樂觀_Optimism.jpg for 樂觀／乐观 (lèguān, “optimism”)
2. File:Sin_Sheng_Building_新生大樓.jpg for 新生 (xīnshēng, “new student”)
3. File:毋忘在莒_28954753564_a8f7498608_o.jpg for 毋忘在莒 (wúwàngzàijǔ, “don't forget to recover the lost territory (proverb)”)
4. File:莒光_29039943893_0a31ae9087_o.jpg for 莒光 (jǔguāng, “(place name)”)
5. File:軍令如山_35171818344_58791d064e_o.jpg for 軍令如山／军令如山 (jūnlìngrúshān, “military orders cannot be changed (proverb)”)
6. File:忠誠門_29599983525_262ec5a6c6_o.jpg for 勤勞／勤劳 (qínláo, “hardworking”)
7. File:Xiyin_29499934931_02da15c317_o_(1).jpg for 人定勝天／人定胜天 (réndìngshèngtiān, “Man's determination will triumph over nature (proverb)”)
8. File:學校_SCHOOL_20191126_161501.jpg for 學校／学校 (xuéxiào, “school”)
9. File:East_Campus_IMG_20141014_091916.jpg for 誓詞／誓词 (shìcí, “oath”) note in this picture the 誓詞 is the small text written under the CPC flag, not that big slogan above
10. File:East_Campus_IMG_20141003_140356.jpg for 棟樑／栋梁 (dòngliáng, “mainstay”)

@Geographyinitiative If here is not the proper place to discuss or you know who else should be pinged, please tell me. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

First, I'd like to say that the new result on the 並 page is just fine. But I want to say that I am not amused by what seem to be inaccurate statements above like "You are damaging Wiktionary by turning it into your personal blog." If we look at who uploaded the above ten images, we will see that seven of the images are not mine and are of places I have never traveled to. I want to help and I'll discuss anything on the relevant talk pages and here, but this seems like a hostile environment right now. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hippietrail --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You reverted an anonymous editor's addition of etymology to Sfax. Did you do that because you believe the etymology is wrong, or only because you are unconvinced it is right? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

More the latter, but it was unformatted, misspelled, and had unnecessary details about the conjugation of the verb. It would have required cleanup. That, plus there's an IP editor in that region who's convinced he knows everything and constantly makes up "facts". It was a judgment call and I'm not 100% sure I was correct, but they also removed the request template so it would drop off the radar and not get attention from others who might know more. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was going to clean it up but I wanted to let it sit a couple days in case a patroller had some thoughts on the information itself. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've done a little more research. It was built after the Muslim conquest on the site of a Roman settlement called Taprura, said to be named Ταφρούρια in Greek, which, judging by the translations given, was really τά φρούρια ("the fortresses"). There are a variety of theories discussed at w:fr:Sfax#Étymologie, most of which are typical folk etymologies. The claim that it was from Berber seems a little less of a stretch, but I have no idea whether it's plausible to anyone who knows Berber languages (maybe @Fay Freak?). At any rate, I don't see why Arabic or Berber speakers would use an Ancient Greek word for "slaughter" to name a city which already had a completely different Ancient Greek name in its history (come to think of it, one could just as easily make a case for Ancient Greek σφήξ (sphḗx, “wasp”) in one of the dialects, though that's not plausible, either). The etymology I reverted looks too much like a case of if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, with a Greek person assuming that everything comes from Ancient Greek (a particular failing of the Greek IP I have in mind). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chuck Entz makes all right points here, I support this removal. I do not deal with Berber at all (Metaknowledge and Fenakhay all know more, but surely we don’t have anyone around who knows much, and the toponyms of Northwestern Africa are a particularly hard topic obviously), only sometimes I have seen foreign words from it in Arabic or toponyms (like Tabuda, and that after some academic’s suggestion) for structural reasons discernible in the other languages. Any settlement beginning with ta- (as Taprura or Tabuda) for example is suspect of being Berber, even if looking Greek for a person only having a hammer, because one forms feminines and singulatives in Berber with a ta- …-t circumfix. Fay Freak (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

These seem like the same user. Uncertain why they have two accounts, which is concerning.

The copypasta is more concerning. Some entries they've added are too minimal to be much risk:

• 魚#Yoron vs. https://www.jlect.com/entry/1015/qyuu-'yuu/

Others are potentially more of a worry:

• もご vs. https://www.jlect.com/entry/1624/mogo/
• んじ vs. https://www.jlect.com/entry/3488/nji/
• よさり vs. https://www.jlect.com/entry/2159/yosari/ and https://www.jlect.com/entry/1453/yosari/

What's your sense here? Does this fall afoul of copyright?

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It depends on what their licensing is. If they have a Creative Commons Share Alike license, then it's possible that the mention of the source would constitute adequate attribution. If you go to the About page, they mention that they're integrating content from a number of sites that have CC licenses- including Wiktionary. They don't, however, say anything about whether they have CC licensing for their own content. So they may be borrowing from us at the same time we're borrowing from them- it seems vaguely circular, like an Ouroboros.

Also of concern is where their content is sourced from and what controls they have. They mention borrowing from CC-licensed sources, so it would help to know what's from reliable references and what's from wikis, and how rigorous their review is of the content they use. If they're just vacuuming up stuff, you have to wonder if some of it eventually traces back to the same sort of contributors as our Sky-Broadband nemesis. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am both of those accounts, though I don't use the former one anymore. I have this really awkward habit of throwing away and making new accounts whenever I'm dissatisfied with editing on Wikipedia. I'll stop doing that since it likely confuses the Wiktionary admins.

But regarding my usage of JLect, I mainly used it because there were tons of other entries that sourced it as well. It also doesn't restrict using it as a source as Chuck Entz mentioned, I saw so no problem with it at the time. But I can see the loophole since JLect potentially borrows material from Wikipedia. - Haimaunten (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you're a mere amateur in comparison to some of our serial name-changers. As long as you cross-reference and don't use your multiple accounts to deceive people or get around the rules, we can live with that. As for your using JLect, the main concern is that you're editing in languages you know nothing about, taking from a source we don't know enough about. If there turns out to a vein of made-up garbage in with all of the useful stuff, you'll never be able to tell the difference. We all stray outside of our areas of expertise from time to time, but you have to be very careful to use reliable sources and try to learn as much as possible about the extent of the what you don't know about your subject.

For instance, I don't edit Celtic languages because I know that there are complex interactions between words that affect the spelling and pronunciation. I might make a minor tweak on something that doesn't involve such things, but only if I have a good source. Japanese and its dialects are potentially dangerous because they tend to have pieces that go together in ways that make no sense to people who only speak European languages. I can fix a few extremely obvious problems, but even there I check with others who know more than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

swimming : the noun POS. This is just gerundive use, as borrowed from swim. It's not a canonical noun since it can't be pluralized and it's neither a mass noun nor a collective noun. On second thought, it also can be used as a present participle. Anyway, the sense of the entry at issue is still attributive.

ebony : The adjective POS. This is just attributive use of the noun, with no comparative or superlative form. On second thought, it seems more ebony and most ebony smell of adjectivization, but an ebony table is still an attributive use of "ebony." I mean, we don't want sentences like, "Lupita Nyong’o is more ebony than Beyoncé," do we? It's just as harsh as, "Lupita Nyong’o is blacker than Beyoncé," don't you think?

charming : The adjective POS This is just adjectival use regarding the passive past participle of charm, with no comparative or superlative form. Oops, Equinox seems to have added more charming and most charming. I count on his linguistic expertise for everything because he's always right, so forget I said anything. Please excuse me while I run and check to see whether married is an adjective, past participle, or whatnot. If it's an adjective, I hope the entry includes more married and most married. If they're not comparable, I'm sure Equinox will fix it. (I think Exinox's real name is Ron Sheppard). --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note: That coughing sound you hear is my choking on my own satire as I continue to hack up your reasoning for the RFD entry for dress (adjective).

P.S. I agree with your rationale from a purist perspective of linguistics, but I'd say lexicographical taxonomy is best rooted in applied Axiomatic set theory. It appears you've applied Naive set theory re. the dress RFD. True, the grammarians say the semantic usage remains the same regardless of what the linguists and lexicographers contend. --Kent Dominic (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

We have an entry for swimmings and it is clearly pluralisable. Equinox ◑ 10:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

See instead satire and chucklehead. Hurry, before someone deletes the entries. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I do disagree with your rollbacks. Walther is not strictly "power+army", but also "forest+master", or "forest+ancient". The reconstruction of "walt" as "power" is only a reconstruction. It is hypothetical. Even if it were accurate, it does not negate an alternate etymology. Such as the case with Reinold and Reinhold. "Powerful gods" has become "solemnly faithful". Then again there is no way to say that it cannot be interpreted as "forest of the gods".

The name "Walther" likely dates back about 2,000 years. Give or take. The interpretation of "forest master" has a 1,000 year history. How can you question that? How can you question the very writer of the text and tell him he is wrong?

Furthermore, the etymologies of "walt"(forest) and "walt"(power), are the same. They are simply cannoted different. Yet, the original idea was land ownership equates power. There is also a connection here with "crops".

Confer also "WALTHER THE WOOD-SPRITE, Gareth Morgan, Medium Ævum, Vol. 41, No. 1 (1972), pp. 16-19 (4 pages), Published By: Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/43627777?seq=1)

As well as "Cornelius Kilianus Duflaeus Etymologicum Teutonicae glossae (Antwerp 1575).

It should be noted. Since this is the story that made the name popular. And it is a totally valid etymology.

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Waltheri

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Walter

120.29.108.137

To start with, it would only work if the name was *Walder, so it's not a valid etymology. In some languages the distinction has been lost due to assimilation with the "l", but in Frankish/Old High German walt meant power and wald meant forest, a difference that remains in their descendants Gewalt and Wald. You may not think it's important, but consonants aren't interchangeable: God and Goth aren't the same word.

I think you're reading all kinds of things into what was written a thousand years ago that aren't there: saying someone is the master of a forest is not the same as saying that their name means "forest master". Even if they did say that, perhaps you should look up "folk etymology". In other fields, a doctor would laugh at you if you rebuked him for questioning statements from a thousand years ago about the causes of disease. I'm too polite to laugh at you for doing the equivalent in the field of historical linguistics, but I don't buy it.

Your etymology was also rather poorly worded, verbose, and unformatted, but that could be fixed. Mostly, though, I trust the judgment of @Mnemosientje, who removed it in the first place. They know as much about early Germanic languages as both of us put together. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

What's going on here is the IP is misinterpreting the academic source he used (Gillespie). Gillespie notes the etymology we have as being the correct one on page 136, and considers the link to "wald" (forest) to be a folk etymology (in footnote 10 on page 136), as exemplified in the Latin epic poem Waltharius which does have a passage in which there appears to be a pun based on the "forest" understanding of his name's etymology. Anyhow it's way too specific a folk etymology to be mentioned at Walter. It's still an interesting piece of information imo and is well located, with the right caveats, at Waltheri, which is where I left it after cleaning the IP's edit up a while ago. The 1575 source the IP added in some of his edits can of course be ignored, as can the claim that wald "forest" equals the root walt- related to power. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

What word fits the pattern? ... of flats / stumbling ... / ... party / this is a request for another Wonderfool ... because it's been a month already since the last one. La más guay (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Contacting you as an uninvolved admin. I think Dentonius needs to take a break from WT:RFDE and WT:RFDN, considering disruptive editing and personal attacks. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chuck! Please take a look at Dentonius' recent undeletion request in the WT:RFDN and the discussion that ensued. I'm at my wits' end. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but I find this quite disturbing. I have asked Dentonius to explain why it is important to keep tabs on other users, but I believe that the members of this community have a right to know that a fellow user is tracking their participation in the RFD Forum, for whatever purpose that may be. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I win! But seriously, making it about people rather than words is disruptive, hence my comment this morning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Vox. There is something wrong with personalizing this. OTOH, the list does motivate me to participate in more RfDs. DCDuring (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

If I were his psychiatrist or similar, I could find it disturbing. But since I am not, and it is for being pointy instead of being taken personal, I just find it thrilling, and I am disappointed that it does not show past data – it could be a beneficial productivity scale. And there are stats of user contributions under “edit count” at our contributions pages and on other sites anyway so it’s logical and likely legitimate. Fay Freak (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fay, say no more. On your suggestion, it now includes some amount of historical data. ;-) — Dentonius 07:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply