User talk:Chuck Entz/2024

????? TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TheguyinterestedinstuffIG: ????? indeed! Is something bad happening? All I see looks normal for this time of the year. If you look at the revision histories, some time during January in the past 3 years someone has moved everything from the main page to the pages for previous years. The system won't allow more than 2 megabytes on one page, and bad things start to happen long before that- it's best to split off the old requests so the page remains manageable. People still work on the requests from previous years, so nothing is lost.

As for the state of the main requests page since then: you might have noticed that there are already admins checking the page, since two of them undid your edits. Equinox, for one, knows far more about creating entries than I do, having created hundreds of thousands of them to my 30 thousand or so (which includes lots of pages that aren't entries).

Don't forget that we're all volunteers, so people will work on whatever they decide to work on, not what you or I might like them to. I've been doing this for 12 years, and a few others for 20 years. After a while, you learn not to take everything so seriously. Things will get done eventually. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you will have better luck with these words than I have so far: mermithized, mermithization, nanitic. (The latter is not anything about the sci-fi nanite robot.) Equinox ◑ 06:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: see Mermithidae for the mermith- words. Such parasites tend to alter the physiology and behavior of their hosts. As for nanitic ants, see here for a definition. It looks like they're just a smaller type of worker ants that are produced earlier in the life of a colony. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to make me do the work? I think you are confused about the roles in this colony. P.S. Can you fix the ant-related issues around "Gamergate" on Wikipedia? Equinox ◑ 06:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I remember a certain, slightly younger Chuck Entz who cautioned me against assumed that any -id noun meant "a member of the -idae". I was suitably cautioned. I get DCDuring to do it now. Equinox ◑ 06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't start at the Wikipedia article, I started here, which is a discussion of the effects of these nematodes on their hosts. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Damn GBooks won't show anything any more. I just get a blank page and a warning that I WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR. Pretty much. Okay I'll leave these ant words in my list for a future time. (The anti- words were easier.) Equinox ◑ 06:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way: you've been complaining about Google not showing as much in previews. I've noticed that if I use a toplevel domain in a link that doesn't match what Google knows as my locality, Google hides more. For me, that's anything that doesn't end in ".com". For you, I would assume that would be ".co.uk". If I remember correctly, it has something to do with international vs. local rules on sharing content. If you're using proxies, that might make Google assume you're from somewhere else. At any rate, I manually edit the url whenever it looks like this is happening. I'm sure there's some way to do it automatically with js or css. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I discovered that if I find a desired text in a book, through Google Books, and then search for the exact sentence in Google (general search), it will find the book and show me the page, whereas GBooks won't show me it. That made me laugh. We must have at least one nerd here who works or simps for Google, so that's gonna die soon now that I've mentioned it. Also it isn't convenient. But: yes, you can hack, but how much time do you want to spend on it? If it becomes impossible to use a search engine, I will just go and write 8-bit games or something. Equinox ◑ 07:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And that's not all. Sometimes when you get the "limited view" version where you can only see part of a page, you can see or you will be given OCR text that is on the adjacent "limited view" panel above or below, and then if you search for that text, you can get that panel and thereby circumvent the "limited view". --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, can't take time to look up how to ping people right now. Special:diff/77620039 is because i wanted to discuss more than just your revert on gotcha. Felt rude not to address you directly though. Didn't mean to offend. --173.67.42.107 13:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

how do you add the transliteration for the "transliteration needed"? Basedborneoan (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Basedborneoan: See the documentation for {{head}}. In this case, you would simply use the |tr= parameter. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks for telling. ill add it Basedborneoan (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

how do you delete your wiktionary page? Basedborneoan (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Basedborneoan If you want a page you created in error deleted, simple tag with {{speedy}}, if it is an existing page by some other editor that is not clear cut vandalism/rubbish, sent it to WT:RFV or WT:RFD. Svartava (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks for answering. Basedborneoan (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why this edit was rollbacked? A Westman talk stalk 18:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I've been indefinitely been banned on Wikipedia. I am currently stressed right now and don't know what to do. I only made some small edits and been mistakenly been banned for my entire lifetime. Please I'm telling you please tell someone to unban me before that person bans me here or something. So, here's the confession you want. So back then back in late December 2023, I created my first ever account, User:TheguyinterestedinstuffIG, I didn't really know how'd I name myself only on this dictionary, but, then I made some "disruptive" edits, got banned 2 times temporarily, then you know what happens, when User:Equinox commented on my talk page, I felt, emotional, I felt like I had made a complete mistake. Then, I thought I'd just abandon the account forever, it felt good to let my past disappear. On this account, I made kind of good edits, but not to the standards sometimes, I was just like "oh well, just improve next time...", then fast forward to early Jan 2024, the new year, had good times, then I decided to go on Wikipedia, see what's on there, and make like 10 edits, but some minor edits later, on this day, I went on Wikipedia, to my absolute shock, I realized, I was permanently banned, no reason, banned my IP like I'm a crazy drunk driver for 30 years, I said, this is over, I'm done, so later I cleaned my user page, and saw your comment on my citations page that I agreed that would be deleted anyways, so now, I'd really appreciate talking to the person who banned me, and all of this, just, thank you. ~ Kindly signed by User:Heyandwhoa. :) Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Oh wait, I just realized the ban reason was wrong. I'm seriously not associated with User:Kindshowman, what do I do if I get a false ban??? (BTW read my message for context above.) Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain to me how to do a mass revert? User:Cpeng2 (and User:Your future self who, it seems, is Cpeng2's student) have been editing multiple entries to change /ə(ɹ)/ or /əɹ/ in the pronunciation section to /ɚ/ even though there appears to be consensus that /ə(ɹ)/ or /əɹ/ should be used instead. I asked Cpeng2 to stop making such edits and to discuss the matter at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/February#Changes from /ə(ɹ)/ or /əɹ/ to /ɚ/" but they have continued to do so, so I have given Cpeng2 a three-day block. However, I can't figure out how to do a mass revert of their edits. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, any advice? — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just went ahead and did it myself. For future reference: AFAIK there's nothing in the admin toolkit that can do this. I just go down the contribution list and right-click to open the rollback links in separate tabs, then close the tabs. That way I can keep from going to the linked pages and having to navigate back to the contribution list to do the next one. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah... I see. Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw, Chuck Entz: By the way, there is a script for this. You can install it by adding mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); to Special:MyPage/common.js and then you will get the option of mass-reverting at the contributions page for the target user. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava: ah, thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! Why did you revert this edit? This citations page is not useful because it's not describing a word. It clearly says "It's kinda AC or DC" becasue of the slash, and the -ish means kinda. Can you give me a reason, please? Heyandwhoa (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Heyandwhoa: RFV is for the main entry page. We don't have a process for deleting Citations pages, and we rarely do. Sometimes an admin will notice that a page is inherently complete nonsense, or that the content has nothing to do with citing the entry or is vandalism. In such cases, we will delete the page. If an entry is created and ends up in RFV or RFD or if someone is asking in RFV or RFD for an entry that was deleted to be undeleted, that's when the validity of the cites will be discussed. Until such a time, it's best to leave the cites alone except for perhaps a little tidying or correction. By the way: you should learn to use the {{diff}} template, or remove the "m." from the link. I'm not on a cellphone or a tablet, so I don't want to see things in mobile view. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Heyandwhoa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

About κινούβοιλα transliteration, discussed at Beer2023 or any kind of similar situation. I am not experienced, and what I write here, may be naïf or totally inappropriate for en.wikt.
I propose a treatment of 'transliterations'.

• For some languages, translits appear in the Cat.lemmas and have pages like romaji (ja), pinyin (zh), or serbian (in Latn).
• For other languages such transliterations could have pages, but they are placed outside the Cat.lemmas (as here, for Ancient Greek, especially Koine, words which are not included in any Anc.Gr. dictionary (e.g. foreign -like hundreds of Egyptian- given names, place names and other terms).
• For weird scripts like Hit. Mycenaean (gmy) a parallel index of redirects may appear in Cat.X lemmas, because noone can read the actual lemmas.

Here, Dacian has no script, and is written in Latn or Grek. Greek should also appear as unified Latin transliteration-redirects.

1. The Ancient Greek page. (Cat:Ancient Greek transliterations is not to be included in Cat:Ancient Greek lemmas)
The links-in-quotation indicate that the words exist in dictionaries (transliterations do not).
At their lemma-pages, a quotation marking may direct here: see quotation at...

==Ancient Greek==

===Etymology===
{{translit|grc-koi|xmd|<tr:*'']''>=tr (unattested term)}} Cat:Koine Greek transliterations from Dacian

===Transliteration===
{{head|grc|noun|g=-|cat=transliterations of nouns}} {{tlb|grc|Koine|type=translit}} = Cat:Koine Greek transliterations

# {{lb|grc|herb|type=translit}} {{translit of|grc|-}} a Dacian word: a kind of ]
#: ''In Ancient Greek:'' {{l|grc|ἄμπελος λευκή|t=''Bryonia cretica''}}, {{l|grc|βρυωνία λευκή}}
#: <!-- do not hide --> {{quote-book|grc|author={{w|Pedanius Dioscorides|Diosco(u)rides (Διοσκουρίδης)}}|year=50–70 {{CE}}|original=Περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς|title=w:De Materia Medica|section=book 4, 182  <small> at Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France) vol.2 (1906), p.329 in ''Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de Materia medica libri quinque.'' Ed. Max Wellmann. Berlin:Weidmannos, 1906-1914 vols.1-3</small>
|text={{m|grc|tr=-|βρυωνία}} λευκή· οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|μάδον}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|ἄμπελος}} λευκή, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|ψίλωθρον}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|μήλωθρον}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|ὄφις|ὄφιος}}  {{m|grc|tr=-|σταφυλή}}, οἱ δὲ  {{m|grc|tr=-|ἀρχέζωστις|ἀρχέζωστιν}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|κέδρωστις|κέδρωστιν}}, Αἰγύπτιοι χαλαλαμόν, Ῥωμαῖοι νότιαμ, οἱ δὲ ἕρβα κοριάρια, οἱ δὲ κουκούρβιτα ἠρράτικα, Δάκοι '''κινούβοιλα''', Σύροι λαλλαβιάρια.
|t=white bryony; some  madon, others, white grape-vine, others 'depilatory', others 'melothron', others ophiostaphyle (sneak grape), others 'archezostis', others 'cedrostis', the Egyptians 'chalalamo?', the Romans {{m|la|notia}}, others {{m|la|herba}} {{m|la|coriaria}}, others {{m|la|cucurbita}} h?{{m|la|erraticus|erratica}}, the Dacians '''{{m|xdc|cinouboila}}''', the Syrians 'lallabiaria'<br><small>The text is different in other codices (foreign words do not appear at all). Compare to  (editio princeps: Aldus Manutius, 1499).</small>
}}

2. The Dacian department of the page in its Greek script.

==Dacian==

===Etymology===
... as is

===Noun===
{{head|xdc|noun|g=?|sc=Grek|tr=]}}

# {{lb|xdc|herb}} a kind of ]
#: ''quotation'' {{see|grc|κινόβοιλα}} or copy the last part.

===Notes===
<references group=n/>

===References===
...

===Further Reading===
...

3. The Dacian page in Latn cinoboila (unified transliterations for all) redirects to the Greek script. It will appear (in itallics) at Dacian lemmas. Because not all people can read Greek characters.
(can it direct to xdc instead of grc-koi?)

#REDIRECT ]

]

I cannot find a way to write the data with quote-book, and sorry for disturbing your Talk page with this long and probably useless note. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 16:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! There is a certain user who has recently been adding unattested Urdu transliterations of Hindi/Sanskrit learned borrowings. They're on their 3rd (or possibly 4th) account now (that I know off), as for some reason they like creating different accounts every so often, I believe. Normally, I have no issues with any user regardless if they're on an alt account or not, since I don't like to discourage people, but they're becoming more of nuisance than a contributor. I've purposefully not included their user accounts, but I'm wondering if something can be done against them, or if you've noticed them by any chance? نعم البدل (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@نعم البدل I vaguely recall seeing such an edit recently, but I don't generally revert content in languages or scripts I don't know- I did take a year of Sanskrit at UCLA 47 years ago, but it was all in Devanagari. Although I thought it was odd to see Sanskrit in Urdu script, I had no way to be sure that there wasn't a manuscript or printed edition somewhere with Sanskrit in that script that might have the term in question. As you know, Sanskrit is somewhat of a chameleon when it comes to scripts because its literature was transmitted orally among speakers of a wide variety of South Asian languages for centuries before being written down. We try to have the main entry for all of our Sanskrit terms in Devanagari, but I believe we do allow alternative-form-type entries in other scripts, as long as the terms are attested in that script.

I also have seen someone trying to remove any mention in Punjabi etymologies of direct learned borrowings from Sanskrit because they claimed that they could only have entered the language through some intermediary. I suppose they might have started adding Urdu transliterations to make a case for Urdu being such an intermediary- or they might be completely unrelated.

As for what can be done: I don't feel comfortable intervening, for the reasons I gave above. You should ask an admin who knows more about the languages in question. If you're asking me about using my checkuser tools, I can only do that if someone is trying to hide behind an account in order to get away with some violation of the rules, including to evade a block. If they're not trying to get away with something by using a different account, I can't do anything. If you don't think they should be adding Urdu-script transliterations at all, you should bring that up at the Beer Parlour, or RFV any entries that have been created. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I don't think it's related to the Punjabi/Sanskrit discussion, unless the same user was involved that discussion too. Obviously, I have no issue with Sanskrit borrowings that are genuinely attested in Urdu, but it's these learned borrowings (which I doubt are even used in Hindi commonly) that are being transliterated into Urdu, that irk me. Nevertheless, thanks for the reply – I'll take your advice! Also, just to clarify, no I wasn't asking for a usercheck or something, I mean it's pretty obvious which accounts they're using. I was just hoping for an intervention to the user's edits – lol! نعم البدل (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And you wonder why people find Wiki editors to be militant? You block every reasonable suggestion and make everyone not in your echo chambers life miserable. You know what... stuff your wiki and stuff yourself — This unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:3C81:3AD0:6958:FBA:FA3F:78A6 (talk) at 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

You editted "Sapristi" and rolled back some good content. I was trying to talk to you like a normal human being on your talk page, per wiki instructions and another editor came along and deleted my message to you on your behalf. This is rampant censorship on wiki and it needs to stop. You editors need to listen to people that don't agree with you.

Please take a look at the revision histories. Your only edit on this talk page is still here. I made a header for it, and added a template to show who posted it, and when. No one else has edited the page, though I moved all the stuff from last year to an archive page in the meanwhile. I see no missing edits on Surjection's page, either.

The only thing that might have happened is an edit conflict: if someone else edits a page while you're working on your edit and before you publish it, then the version of the page that you were editing gets replaced by the version that results from their edit. If your edit was published, that would wipe out their edit, so the system stops you to make sure you really want to replace their edit. I suppose that that Theknightwho's post might have prevented you from publishing whatever you were going to post. I'm guessing, because it wouldn't show up in the revision history or any of the page logs. It's not something that someone can do on purpose, either, because there's no way to know that someone else is composing an edit- it's only when you click "publish" that it shows up in any logs or has any interaction with anyone else's edit.

As for censorship: I can't speak for anyone else, but I only censor vandalism or illegal conduct on talk pages, and you may be angry and rude, but you're not a vandal. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, you don't support censorship at all says a man who at the first signs of any conflict at all locked down a page such that no one could edit it. No, you don't support censorship. I got it wrong. You wikipedia editors are the good people of the earth. Sorry for the confusion.

"You Wikipedia editors"? You're as much of a Wikipedia editor as I am. This is Wiktionary. I've been racking my brains trying to figure out how any of the talk-page stuff you've been complaining about has any connection whatsoever to reality- but from your discussions with Theknightwho, I gather you're talking about Wikipedia. I have no clue about any of that. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat on Wiktionary, but I'm nobody on Wikipedia. I'm sure you love hearing from people who think Canada is the 51st state in the US about as much as I love hearing about how everything at Wikipedia is my fault. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You feign ignorance yet you were the one who locked "sapristi" such that no one else can edit it. Then you're baffled as to why people get angry with wiki editors. Everything wrong with wiki IS YOUR FAULT. You ARE the problem.

Here, I found it in the log: Chuck Entz talk contribs‎ m 451 bytes 0‎ Protected "sapristi": Repeated recreation of non-usable content (... That's you, not other editors at wiki. That's you, Chuck Entz locking a file and then saying: "everyone is free to edit it, there is no bias at wiki" YOU are the problem... not other people.

You said: "I was trying to talk to you like a normal human being on your talk page, per wiki instructions and another editor came along and deleted my message to you on your behalf."

My comments were addressing that statement, and thus were only in reference to my talk page. I never said I hadn't protected sapristi. Please show where I said "everyone is free to edit it, there is no bias at wiki".

While you're at it, please explain what you were referring to when you said: "I was trying to talk to you like a normal human being on your talk page, per wiki instructions and another editor came along and deleted my message to you on your behalf." Nothing like that happened on my (1st person singular) talk page. The only way I can make your (2nd person singular possessive) statement come out as anything but a fantasy or outright lie is to assume that you (2nd person singular) were referring to some amorphous group that includes me and people elsewhere on Wiktionary and at Wikipedia when you said "you" and "your" in that sentence, which would make those 2nd person plural. Except you said "talk page" (singular), instead of "talk pages" (plural). Nothing you added to my Wiktionary talk page here has been removed. I do have a Wikipedia talk page, but there have been no edits to it since February 1, and none by you at all. What were you referring to?

You see, I may not be as open and permissive as you like- however you want to characterize that- but I make a point of not lying to anyone here at Wiktionary. If anything I have said to you wasn't the truth as I understand it, I can assure you that it was unintentional and would like the opportunity to clear it up. Mind you, my long weekend is coming to an end and I have a long day with a long commute, so I may not respond promptly, nor have as much time to compose a reply, but I'm not hiding from you. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are very clearly sapristi. Since you blocked me from editing the file... now you'll never know what sapristi means.

You can't see how people find Wikipedia editors argumentative and combative? I pointed out very clearly that you, personally, locked the sapristi page. It's in the log for the sapristi page:

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sapristi&action=history

I think I've had about enough talking with you. I've made my point that wikipedia and wiki in general is not an open platform. Your modified (correct) motto should be: "the online encyclopedia editable by leftists only" Thanks for the convo... sapristi... what does it mean? You'll never know. 2607:FEA8:3C81:3AD0:4105:C4F7:90F0:238F 11:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anon, I'll stress it again, Wiktionary is NOT Wikipedia. Also, Wiktionary is a dictionary, NOT an encyclopedia.

You seem confused on those points.

The content you were trying to add to the entry at sapristi is not content that is appropriate for a dictionary entry. This is why other editors removed that content. That removal has nothing whatsoever to do with any left-right politics.

If you are honestly interested in contributing to Wiktionary, the open dictionary, then you might benefit from reading the Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain your reversions please? My edits today were very reasonable. 212.179.254.67 08:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

For set, you're removing grammatical information that's part of the definition. It didn't help that you called it a "typo fix" when it obviously wasn't. It certainly could be formatted better, but removing information isn't the way to fix it. You may be right about the fr-IPA, though. It's getting late here, so I'm a bit tired and may have overreacted. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In "set", I removed an indication that the definition is only a past… but it isn't only a past. It's used in present also. 212.179.254.67 08:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

True. It turns out that was added by an Indonesian IP who didn't understand what they were doing. The ones they added it to were no different from all the other ones where they didn't. I've reverted myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I notice that the contributions of @A westman seem to contain a lot of unexplained removals of text, where it would have been reasonable to expect a reference to some policy; other edits they reverted themself shortly after making them. I see you have already reverted edits of theirs to orange and equinox, and have the impression that similar criticisms could apply to many other edits of theirs. Should something be done about this? I do not feel confident that I can reliably distinguish which of their contributions are reasonable, but I have an odd feeling about their work. PJTraill (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My removal of the adjective section at orange was an honest mistake cause by me being idiotic and thinking it was a copy of the noun section and I do regret it. If I do remove content, it is either because it is flat out wrong (e.g. bases tasting bitter, astronomy being equivalent to stargazing) or to avoid clutter (e.g. at great, free, honey) or to remove redundancy (e.g. at spring). I do make mistakes which I do revert upon realization. ✵ A Westman talk stalk 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I think that your reversions are wrong. If you read the references in Liddell & Scott and Beekes you will understand that you made mistake. The following links would also be useful. @archive.org, @epigraphy.packhum.org, @scaife.perseus.org, @scaife.perseus, @logeion.uchicago.eduNikos1nikos1 (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nikos1nikos1: I have no opinion on most of your content, but Latin fucus is a borrowing, not a cognate, and {{also}} is for only certain types of near-homographs- so φύκος (fýkos) would be okay, but not the other two. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz φύκι is φῦκος in modern greek. I am native Greek speaker and I know ancient Greek very well. If you have any doubt you can ask for help from another user who is spesialized in ancient Greek.Nikos1nikos1 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I am allowed... Kyrie @Nikos1nikos1. "Chuck Entz is never wrong!" The template {{also}} on top of page, as its documentation explains, is meant for homographs strictly. It is not like the wikt:el:Template:also, where we allow 'similar', 'relevant' etc. Also, cognate^+examples is very different from loanword. The relationship of cognates is parallel, while of loadwords is vertical. enWP.cognate. Excuse my butting in. Mr Nikos has been doing a fantastic job at el.wikt, especially with quotations. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 15:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nikos1nikos1: I'm not saying anything about the correctness of the words (I don't speak Greek, but I know enough Ancient Greek to create a very basic entry). This is all about the correct use of {{also}} at the top of an entry. It's supposed to link to look-alikes for people who get to the wrong page by accident, like English tap at Ancient Greek τάρ (tár). It's more obvious in other scripts, where you can have hundreds of different languages on a single page (see A, for instance). The top of the page isn't part of any language section, so {{also}} is about the letters, not the word. If you want to link to the Greek term, the best way to do that is with a "Descendants" section using {{desc}} (or {{desctree}} for descendants that have their own descendants section, such as Latin fucus, which is "descended" through borrowing). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

hii! so, i think the word "guarani" should not be written with diacritics when in english texts. the accute mark on "i" is provenient from spanish spelling and it only works in spanish spelling. can i take the "í" out and replace it with "i"? Junior Santos (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ovey 56: All of our entries and categories have to use the same spelling, and you can't just change it on your own. For one thing, it will show up in Category:Guaraní entries with incorrect language header and Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Derivation category does not match entry language, among others. There's also a bot that checks the headers against the spellings in our modules (see our List of languages) and corrects the headers, so you're just wasting your time. You would have to ask at Requests for moves, mergers and splits to have the name changed. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

the number data seem to be messed up somehow; i'm thinking it's an update error? i did add those numbers to the thingy (you can see them there) so i was planning on waiting like a day RagingPichu (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RagingPichu there are still 3 entries in CAT:E, and it's going on 5 days: either fix the data module, or remove the number box templates from the entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for helping with the Norwegian errors, but take also a look at the Norwegian IPA category and you see some bigger issue. There are more than 1000 entries with incorrect IPA language code ("no" instead of "nn"). It is creating some issues in the categories, but otherwise is not so dangerous. I go sometimes through the list, but it's gonna take loooong time before i'm done. Do you know any shorter way of doing it or there is only manual solution? Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tollef Salemann: if it is so regular you can write rules for it that a machine can follow, the best thing to do is find someone with a bot and ask them to do it. Or you can figure out a subset that's bot-able and have the bot do that and you can finish the rest. @JeffDoozan seems to currently have the best ratio of available time and generosity with it of the people I can think of off the top of my head, or you can ask for bot help at the Grease Pit.

There's also the assembly-line method of right-clicking/command-clicking on the entries in the category to open them in tabs, then clicking on Edit for all of them, then using your browser's find-and-replace keyboard shortcuts to replace "ipa|no" with "ipa|nn", and finally using a keyboard shortcut to save each one. That lets you do maybe a dozen pages at a time so you can go on to the next tab while the system is still responding on the previous one. It's very efficient, but it's still time-consuming- a few hours at minimum for 1000 entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aha! The second solution might be better, because there are both Bokmål and Nynorsk unsorted. Maybe it can also work with a bot if it does IPA code after the name of the language in the header. Thanks for advices! Tollef Salemann (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Tollef Salemann. If it's just a matter of mindlessly replacing {{IPA|no| and {{IPA|nb| with {{IPA|nn| in the ===Pronunciation=== section inside ==Norwegian Nynorsk==, the bot can do that easily. If it needs to make decisions based on conditions it gets more complicated, but if the rules and conditions are clear it should still be possible. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was just wondering if you could have a look at a template I created, "pms-verb-conj". Here is what it looks like with the verb finì:

(I haven't done the subjunctive for any verbs. This is partially because it wasn't in the reference for conjugations that I was using, but also because from what I can tell, Piedmontese doesn't really use the subjunctive , however if a native speaker wanted to add it I think I've made it in a way that it shouldn't be too difficult to add)

I was just wondering if you could check if I've done everything correctly (I mean from a Wiktionary standpoint, not necessarily from a linguistic one!). Here's the template with all of the TemplateData too: Template:pms-verb-conj. Thanks!

In case you're wondering why, I thought I'd quickly make it because there was only a template for -é verbs, and this one allows for any verb ending using #switch statements -- it just means a new conj table doesn't have to be created for every word, and I thought it might be useful for someone creating an entry to not have to think about conjugation at all!

Iambored12348 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comparing the entries in the German and English Wiktionary I found the German etymology section in better accordance with the meaning of the word. I am a native German speaker who is familiar with the common misinterpretation of Wissen-schaft as a practice “die Wissen schafft” (that creates knowledge). A surface analysis justifies this interpretation, but -schaft has a more common meaning which is “a collection of similar things”. We see this in Gesellschaft, Verwandschaft, Burschenschaft, Bauernschaft, Gesandschaft, Gemeinschaft. The old verb scaffan has a destructive meaning (to separate, to split) and a constructive meaning (to create, to sort, to order). Accordingly we find -schaft words inclined to the first or the second meaning of scaffan. Sometimes both meanings are active at the same time: Jungfernschaft e.g. means both “virginity” and “all virgins”. I understand that every act of creation includes separating the elements to use from those to be left aside. Coming back to Wissenschaft: The genuine meaning was: “something of interest, news, good-to-know”. I do not see the aspect of assembling in that meaning, rather the separation of these good-to-knows from uninteresting things. If you agree please revert the reversion. --Joachim Schnitter (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Joachim Schnitter: I didn't revert because of the etymology, but because you removed the alternative form as "invalid". We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage: if a form is or has been in use, we have an entry for it- even if it's wrong. Also, we cover the entire attested history of every language, so we have spellings that have been eliminated by spelling reforms, too. A simple search for "Wißenschaft" in Google Books turns up usage going back hundreds of years- more than enough to justify having it mentioned as an alternative form. It's clearly labeled as "nonstandard", so we're not endorsing it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed there exists at least one book that uses the alternative spelling. I regard this as an error because wissen (to know) stems from the older wizzan, and the rules for the sharp-s ligature forbid its use in words where the first s terminates a syllable (in Fraktur use round s here) and the second one begins another one (use long-s here). This is not a real double s but a coincidence of two s' belonging to different syllables. Typesetters often had a hard time getting German ligatures correct because the rules are/were really complicated. Please bear in mind that sharp-s has been raised to a true character just a few years ago. Before it was only regarded as a combination of two s characters. So by keeping Wißenschaft you combine an ancient typo with modern interpretation of the character forming the ancient error. It is the modern interpretation of sharp-s which gives rise to the misinterpretation of sharp-s as a single character in former times. --Joachim Schnitter (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

To make a long story short: Traditional German printing involved quite a number of ligatures, i.e. types with more than a single letter, combinations of e.g. fi, fl, ft, ch, ck, ſs. Some of these ligatures did only exist in certain typefaces, with Fraktur and other “broken” fonts including the most. If the same text were to be printed in Roman type many of these ligatures were to be resolved into their components. Of those ligatures only the sharp-s ligature eventually (recently) was regarded as a full character, while ſ (long-s) was replaced with s both in typefaces and handwriting. So the combination of long-s and short-s (or end-s) as a ligature has to be resolved nowadays into ss when alphabetizing words from old German books (or into ſs should this have happened a century ago). By disassembling Wißenschaft, thus one gets Wissenschaft. There is no rule that prohibits this decomposition, as there is no rule against ck → c k. Today ß is regarded as a single character. This was honoured recently by introducing an uppercase letter: ẞ. None of the books with Wißenschaft are modern enough to allow the one-character interpretation of ß. Anyway, the erroneous spelling Wißenschaft only appeared with broken, not Roman, fonts and only centuries ago. I cannot see why this should be honoured in Wiktionary. I am open for discussion in case Wiktionary changes to Fraktur fonts. --Joachim Schnitter (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Joachim Schnitter It's not clear what you mean by "broken" fonts, and being in use centuries ago is not an argument against inclusion. You are being prescriptivist. Theknightwho (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Joachim Schnitter: It's not that hard to find "Wißenschaft" in very modern-looking typefaces from more than a century ago: 1871, 1874, 1888 and 1904, so it's not simply an artefact of Fraktur. These are advanced academic works written by scholars, so I don't think this was some kind of random screw-up that slipped by because no one noticed. Besides, we're not "honouring" anything: this is an alternative form that's clearly labeled as "nonstandard". When people see this in books, they're going to look it up. When they see that it's nonstandard, they'll know not to use it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your food for thought. Broken is the meaning of the word Fraktur, from Latin frangere, to break. Schwabacher is another broken font but does not count as Fraktur. Broken fonts are those with rounded strokes replaced by straight ones. Thank you for putting me in line with Sokrates, Aristoteles, and Kant.

I had two arguments: Wißenschaft is a typo, and Wißenschaft has not been parsed according to the practice in place at that time. The evolution of the German language was influenced by a long lasting process of nation building that happened simultaneously. Before this process came to an end in 1871 there was no homogeneous, unified German language. Luther's translation of the bible had formed a synthetic basis for further unification, but it took until the first orthographic conference in 1876 that a common orthography was launched. Before Luther we cannot speak of the German language, and even today there exists a significant number of regional dialects and languages.

I understand and respect Chuck's arguments, and I realize how misleading a helpful tool like Google Books can be when being confronted with books from epochs where orthography was often superseded by aesthetics which was superseded by economic aspects. Scientific literature was and is extremely costly to produce and often should have been proofread by a scholar of the same discipline. For scientific journals peer reviews work almost perfectly, but for monographs (text books etc.) editors with limited knowledge have and had to perform this job alone. In centuries when orthography was not well defined and typesetters’ education did certainly not match modern standards, typos could hardly be avoided. How could a young man with black fingers and face get into a debate with a scholar about correct writing? The books with Wißenschaft in Roman type are almost exclusively from the middle of the 19th century when Roman type slowly came into use for German books. The orthographic conference in 1901 addressed the use of sharp-s by retaining Adelung's ruleset which was common practice in many territories in what is today Germany, Austria and Switzerland. According to Adelung Wißenschaft was an error. My Duden from 1915 (following the 1901 rules) does not have Wißenschaft. Adelung's rules were officially abandoned in 1996. Before, Adelung's orthography was a nice-to-have but not really required. See e.g. notes taken during Kant's lectures on Vernunft.

Now to my second argument about how to parse words in older texts. The lecture notes mentioned above show how people wrote at that time: Profeßor, Kenntniß, Erckentniß, Uebung, Grammatic, analisiren, obiect. All these words were excluded from the Wiktionary. BTW, Google does not list these lecture notes at all when searching for Erckentniß. I do not suggest adding these words, but I wonder what special criteria applied to Wißenschaft, and why e.g. Uebung and analisiren (both formerly very common and compliant with the then-valid rules) did not make it. So how are words being selected from the continuum of correct and incorrect, popular and limited, common and regional language practices? Which of the shapes in these written words count as characters, which are replaced, and why? I could find many books with Waßer in them. I wholeheartedly support its exclusion from the Wiktionary, but why did Wißenschaft make it?

TL;DR

The Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache lists all words since 1600 but has no Wißenschaft: although it lists lots of historical evidence. And the Grimms’ Deutsches Wörterbuch does not even discuss it. Joachim Schnitter (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if the terms you mention are "excluded" as much as us not having the forms yet. Wiktionary does not have every term, much less every form of every term, in most languages (the only exceptions being extinct languages with dedicated people). Saying that a form of a term should not be included because later standards seen it as incorrect is something that I am opposed to. This is because we should reflect how a wide variety of people from all different cultures and time periods spelt words. (In addition, I am highly skeptical that the Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache lists all words since 1600. There must be some words that are not in there, whether it be the hottest teen slang or terms only an expert chemist in the 1850s used.) CitationsFreak (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

NickySuper9 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Hello. I hope this message finds you well. My name is Nicholas Armstrong, and I've noticed some inconsistencies in your recent edits. I believe there might be some misunderstanding, and I'd like to offer some clarification to help ensure accuracy in our contributions.Reply

Phonetic approximation and transliteration are distinct concepts that are often confused. Allow me to explain the difference between them:

Phonetic Approximation: Phonetic approximation involves adapting the pronunciation of words to fit a new script or writing system. This often entails altering the pronunciation slightly or significantly to match the sounds of the original word. In essence, phonetic approximation modifies the spoken form of words to suit a different script.

Transliteration: Transliteration, on the other hand, is the process of representing a word, phrase, or text in a different script or writing system without altering its pronunciation. Unlike phonetic approximation, transliteration focuses solely on adapting the written form of words while preserving their original pronunciation. It allows readers or speakers of the new script to approximate the sounds and pronunciation of the original word accurately.

For example, consider the words "עיםדא" and "ةخيثقى سفشىيشقي شقشلاهؤ." While pronounced as "Ghost" and "Modern Standard Arabic," respectively, when read aloud, they are transliterations of the original words, faithfully representing their pronunciation in a different script.

The key aspect of transliteration is its intention to convey the original word or phrase in a different script, facilitating the transfer of meaning and pronunciation across languages or scripts.

Furthermore, transliteration maintains consistency in mapping even when the letters and characters are not directly equivalent. This allows for the creation of new transliteration systems and constructed languages (conlangs) by employing consistent mapping rules, enabling the development of unique linguistic representations.

In summary, while phonetic approximation adjusts the pronunciation of words to fit a new script, transliteration focuses solely on representing the written form without altering pronunciation. Understanding this distinction is essential for maintaining accuracy in linguistic representations across different scripts and languages.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and welcome any further discussion or questions you may have. Let's work together to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our contributions to Wiktionary.

Best regards, Nicholas Armstrong

@NickySuper9: I'm quite familiar with the difference between phonetic approximation and transliteration, but you obviously aren't. Transliteration is the letter-by-letter substitution of characters in one script with representations of those characters in another script. Although usage of the {{name translit}} template for most Chinese character entries is questionable, your edit just made a mess of a single entry out of a much larger body of such entries with the same problem. Your usage note was rather confusing since most readers don't know Cyrillic or Arabic scripts off the top of their heads. As for the second paragraph, it was simply wrong: "Прщые" would be transliterated "Prshche" or "Pršče", and "Фдшут" as "fdsht" or "fdšt". Google's algorithms seem to be messed up right now, so I can't search for those strings- I suspect a hoax. On top of that, the examples you gave above are completely wrong: "עיםדא" is spelled with the letters ayin yodh mem dalet aleph, which don't yield any of the letters in "ghost", and "ةخيثقى سفشىيشقي شقشلاهؤ" is far worse as a transliteration for "Modern Standard Arabic".

In short, most of your edit was wrong, and the issue about transliteration vs. phonetic approximation would be better addressed at the Tea room, the Beer parlour or About Chinese than in a usage note that says nothing about the usage of the term- but first get your facts straight. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed you split Appendix:English prefixes into two pages: A-L and M-Z. I know the page was quite long. But this has thrown a wrench in my workflow - I have a script I use to alphabetize everything (the rows, also the alternate forms), and it is also how I synchronize the three versions - Appendix:English prefixes by semantic category and my personal User:Intersets/Categories where I fuss with subcategories.

While I could change my script to take in multiple files of input, and output multiple files, I'd really prefer not to. The potential for (my human) error seems much larger, and it adds a lot more cognitive load for me. I'm daunted by the prospect of maintaining that. Would reverting to it being one giant page be acceptable? Thanks. Intersets (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Intersets: I would rather not. It was in CAT:E due to module timeouts, meaning that the total amount of module-execution time used by all of the templates on the page was more than 10 seconds. I just checked, and the original page is using 8 seconds, while the new page is using 4 seconds. Of course, there's overlap between templates, so it wouldn't use a full 12 seconds if they were, but it's too close. I found out about the page because it was in CAT:E, and there's nothing to keep it from ending up there in the future. This isn't just a technicality, either. When the 10-second limit is reached, all of the templates that haven't already done their thing will display an error instead of content. Go to the the revision before I split the page and scroll down. You'll see that it only gets a couple dozen lines into the M's before there's nothing but "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." interspersed with items that don't use modules, like ref tags. Now that I think about it, I probably should have split it into more pages, because 8 seconds is calling it a bit close. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay - fair reason. Mind holding off on splitting it further until I finish the semantic categorization? I hope to be done this weekend. My issue with the splitting is for synchronizing multiple versions of the appendix (between the alphabetical version and the categorized version). To me the categorized version is the version I'm more interested in - when I'm looking up lists of prefixes I'm seldom looking for an alphabetical list. Right now I'm leaning towards just shifting everything over to the categorized version so there's only one version that needs to be maintained (this version will also need to get split out). But I don't want to make that leap immediately: first I want to finish the categorization, and then I was thinking I'd bring it up on the Appendix's talk page should there be greater demand for the alphabetical version. Intersets (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've recently saw you've made some changes in the Wiktionary page about diarrhoea, where it is shown its etymology in Ancient Greek.

I've made some changes, by adding in the two rho of the word diarrhoea in Greek (διάῤῥοια) the norm that states that in Polytonic Greek, when there's a geminated Rho, it must be the first with spiritus lenis and the second with spiritus asper, just like I modified the page.

Please reset the changes I've made, because is a norm of the orthography of Ancient Greek. LAtinistFato (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LAtinistFato: The norm? Who says? I've never seen that. Ever. And I've been teaching myself Ancient Greek for half a century. Someone may follow that, but it's not in any of the standard reference works, grammars, etc. More to the point, that's not the way that Wiktionary does it, and the modules don't know what to do with it. You would have to persuade the others who work with Ancient Greek and Katharevousa modern Greek to change to that standard, and someone would have to document it, change all the relevant entries, rewrite modules, etc. Also, changing things on the page isn't enough: the page itself is at a spelling with no breathings, so it would have to be moved. likewise, any link with the breathings to a page that's not at the spelling with the breathings wouldn't work. What you're trying to do is like trying to change which side of the road people drive on by spray painting on a few traffic signs and driving on the opposite side of the road from everyone else. Even if you didn't cause an accident, you would be stopped by the first police officer you encountered.

You would have to make your case at the talk page for Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek or at the Beer parlour. Don't be surprised if that goes nowhere. I can see how it might be allowed as an alternative spelling, but only if you could show usage the meets our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you have a point. Since Wiktionary does not use the convention of writing rho as ῤῥ, there's your point. It's truth that it's not a norm, but a convention. So unlike you've said, I'm not trying to change which side of the road people drive, I'm just using the convention I'm used to. No need to be that ad ridiculum with the modifications I've done.

I don't even care if you've been learning Ancient Greek for 50 years or else, because it doesn't matter now. I know that could give you more credibility, but the pseud-norm I said it's just a convention, and no experience can determine which convention is right or wrong. According to that, I must apologize, because that's the same thing I've done, because I didn't know this was a convention, and thought it was a norm.

So, I'll leave it as you said, since it's the convention Wiktionary uses, but this doesn't not mean writing rrh as ρρ is less valid than writing it as ῤῥ. LAtinistFato (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I accidentally pushed a change to Module:languages that renamed a critical function in such a way as to introduce a direct infinite loop (the function called itself). I reverted this after about 60 seconds and keep purging CAT:E but it is still filling up with junk an hour later. Just FYI. Going to sleep now, hopefully this will stop on its own soon. Benwing2 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have it purging CAT:E in a loop, so as soon as new junk appears it should get purged. Benwing2 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

On re- for French, can I edit it for Revenir and Venir to mean back? Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

jigaboo Big Bald African Dude (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're not Bugs Bunny, and I'm not Yosemite Sam, so I'm afraid you won't get the reaction you were hoping for... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck,

Further to your revert of parabellum, may I enquire why you made the change?

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=parabellum&oldid=prev&diff=78844337

Let's work together to try and improve the Latin definition fo parabellum!

Thank you,

WC — This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs) at 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC).Reply

@WritersCramp: First of all, the Latin phrase is para bellum, and it's the sum of its parts: "para"="prepare (2nd person singular imperative)" and "bellum (accusative singular)". The fact that someone made an English term out of it by removing the space doesn't make the version without the space a Latin term. If it was Latin, it would have to have a part of speech header and a headword template. The definition starts with '"prepare for war" and is often used'. That doesn't really parse as English. Ignoring that, the phrase "Si vis pacem, para bellum" does not use "parabellum", it uses "para" and "bellum". In fact, I can't imagine how one would use "parabellum" in a Latin sentence. Does it inflect? what endings does it take? What does it mean? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, may we use para bellum like fried egg? Para Bellum does seem to mean "prepare for war" or may we create a separate latin phrase in the English Wiktionary for "Si vis pacem, para bellum" meaning "If you want peace, prepare for war." ? Do you have a suggestion on how we can enter the definition into Wiktionary? I think it is important! It is in the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Here is an interesting citation. Google provides About 1,170,000 results (0.39 seconds) hits. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• • Any comments Chuck? WritersCramp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are very fast, congratulations. Unsourced, nonsensical, wrong articles have been on the deletion list for a long time, so if we had marked them as trk-ogz, you would have deleted them immediately. I'll do that next time. BurakD53 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BurakD53: CAT:E is for emergencies and needs to be kept clear. Deleting an entry deliberately created with an invalid language code and left with a module error is a no-brainer. Deleting existing entries that potentially have alternative and inflected forms and may be linked to by other entries is more difficult and problematic. I would prefer to leave that to those who know the languages involved. It's like the difference between an abandoned car on the side of the road and one left in the middle of traffic on a busy street. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see.

There are references for my entry. Let someone who knows fix it. If the language is wrong, that person should correct the language, if the code is wrong, let him correct the code. BurakD53 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BurakD53: In this case, "that person" is you. Waiting for "someone who knows" to find the entry and figure out the correct language code could take a long time. You know infinitely more about Turkic languages than I do, and you don't know- how many people do? It's simple: if you don't know what language it is, don't create the entry. Ask at some place like the Beer parlour, or look through similar entries, then create the entry once you find out. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have already asked, no one cares. No one is helping. They say I'm right, but they don't help with the solution. BurakD53 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any more time to deal with this now. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If none of you have time, why are you guys in this position? You are incapable of even offering a positive or negative solution. BurakD53 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't understand: when I wrote that I had less than 17 minutes to clock in for my telecommute. I did my best to minimize the impact in the time I had- it would have been quicker to give you a sitewide block and delete both of the entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Please remove the block. He is clearly not a vandal, just a bit frustrated because the topic he is very interested in does not provoke huge amounts of interest, so the outcome he is hoping for is not happening.

@BurakD53 You have to wait until the code you want is there no matter how long it takes without resorting to disruptive behaviour or behaviour that can be interpreted as such. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Allahverdi Verdizade: I only blocked them to prevent more damage while I was offwiki. I've now unblocked them. I'm well aware of how long it takes to get things done: there are two Proto-West Germanic entries in CAT:E because they're from attested runic inscriptions in the right time and place to be the same language as what our modules treat as an unattested proto-language. I asked what we should do about it and it hasn't been resolved, weeks later. As a responsible admin, I can't do stunts like BurakD53 did, and I don't see the point, anyway- they don't accomplish anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, apparently you have already deleted this page twice. Why, and how is it not dictionary material? Imbricitor (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Imbricitor: Both times it was people stringing together unrelated blocks of random text. The first time, it started with "From Proto-Slavic" and went downhill from there. It also had a list of cognates that were for a different word entirely. It had no headers or templates- just the bogus etymology.

The second time was just random legalese copypasted by a Bangladeshi cellphone user from various random websites. For example: "If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law".

Neither time was there any Greek- Mycenaean, Ancient, Medieval or modern- anywhere to be found. Needless to say, neither deletion has any bearing on whether you should create an entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay then I am going to create the page. I am having trouble entering the feminine forms though, because the declension template does not support 3-ending adjj. Can you help? Imbricitor (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just enabled code to throw an error when there's no language specified to {{a}}; it seems to be tripping on four pages (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary:Tracking/accent qualifier/nolang) but I can't figure out where the error is coming from on these pages. I don't see an error anywhere on any of these pages, and I checked the pronunciation code on abstrakten (which has only three languages) and I don't see anywhere that {{a}} is being invoked without a language code. Can you help with your error sleuthing skills? Benwing2 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: invisible module errors are generally caused by the output of a module invocation being fed as a parameter into a ParserFunction. ParserFunctions like #if and #switch are designed to not fail no matter what you feed them- error messages are just text. The way to hunt the error down is to preview parts of the entry until you find one that has CAT:E at the bottom, then go through the transclusion list and look for things being fed into ParserFunctions, then try to trace back to a module invocation.

If there are only a few language sections, I just preview each section until I find one with the error, then do the same with the subsections, etc. If there are too many sections, I edit the entire entry and comment out half of it at a time in preview to see which half has the error, then comment out all but half of that, etc. to do a binary search.

The other technique I use is to look for something that has changed recently: if there's a new edit in the revision history, I look at the part of the entry that the revision changed. If there's no recent revision, I go through the revision histories of the items in the transclusion list to see which ones have been edited recently, and focus on those. Either way, the idea is exclude as much as possible before I start actually analysing things. If I don't know how to figure it out myself, I can usually figure out who to ask by looking at the revision histories of the modules involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thank you, this is very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I don't know if you got my email, but I'm concerned that Theknightwho is harassing me. And, since I sent that email, he went out and deleted seven of my redirects. Per the DUCK test, he's CLEARLY stalking my edits in an unacceptable manner Purplebackpack89 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And I'm going to send you another email. They ARE out to get me. Purplebackpack89 23:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I rewrote Module:alternative forms to use my new module Module:parameter utilities which aids in parsing the arguments of templates like {{alt}}, {{syn}}/{{ant}}, {{af}}/{{suf}}/etc., {{afex}}/etc., {{IPA}}, {{rhymes}}, {{hmp}}, etc.; basically, any template taking a list of items, each of which can have properties specified either through separate parameters or inline modifiers. In the process I tightened up the error handling a bit and now there are some errors showing up. I've cleared the ones I've seen but there may be more. Generally the culprit is blank parameters inside the label portion of {{alt}}; no longer allowed. (Formerly it was allowed but I think the ones after the blank parameter were skipped.) Some people seem to believe, based on the need to put a blank parameter before the first label, that you need to put a blank param before *every* label. Serbo-Croatian entries seem especially guilty of this. I'm going to sleep now so if too many of these pop up, just leave them and I'll get to them in 8-9 hours. Benwing2 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, it looks like a bug in one of my bot scripts from a run in Sep 2023 is responsible for these Serbo-Croatian issues :( ... Benwing2 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, fix is running. Benwing2 (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am trying to create the following WOTD but am being prevented from doing so by the abuse filter "bio":

{{WOTD|pet shop|n|A ] that ] ] ] as ] ], and ]s for ] and ] them.|comment=The English singer-songwriter ] was born on this day 70 years ago in 1954; he formed the ] duo ] with ] (born 65 years ago on 4 October 1959) and their first ], '']'', was released 40 years ago on 9 April 1984.|July|10}} — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The filter was only exempting autopatrollers because apparently @Surjection is unaware that many admins aren't in any other user groups- they can do anything that most of the other groups can do (interface administrators are an exception), so only abuse filters care about the difference. I changed the filter and made you an autopatroller again, just to be thorough. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see! I thought it was rather strange … Thanks! — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching my occasional stupid mistakes. 0DF (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

More absent-minded than stupid. You'd be surprised how frequent those are. This list gets filled up every week, and it's only the unmistakable ones. Aside from some perennial weirdness with headword templates in CJKV languages and in Franco-Provençal that I don't touch, it rarely takes a whole afternoon to fix them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your diligence in maintenance and your unjudgmental understanding. 0DF (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are redirects that I've created that have existed for days, weeks, months, even years and Theknightwho keeps speedily deleting them. Nobody else ever had a problem with them, it's always HIM. And because he's an admin, he gets to act unilaterally. It really feels like he's got some sort of vendetta against me Purplebackpack89 03:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, just letting you know that during May and June I did a major overhaul of the code behind Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header. Along with fixing the |nocat=-related issue you spotted, I also implemented checks for templates whose names are prefixed with language codes (e.g. it now picks up the use of {{am-noun}} under a Tigrinya L2 on ጫፍ). However, as you can see from the current version of the list, this brings with it some false positives, like the Punjabi and Prakrit templates. Please do feel free to edit Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header/Excluded templates to add any templates you feel should be skipped over - my script checks that page every time it runs. Or let me know if there is some way I can make the list more useful. Thanks for your work in this often overlooked but (imo) quite important area of Wiktionary. This, that and the other (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That term is just way, way way overused of late

1. The idea that there is some bright, hard-and-fast line between dictionary definition and encyclopedia entry is fantasy.
2. The term "encyclopedic" has now become a catch-all excuse for deleting or revising almost anything.
3. Wiktionarians are far too bombastic in trying to differentiate themselves from Wikipedia, almost to the point of absurdity Purplebackpack89 16:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with your input as a fact not just a matter of opinion and words of thoughts "Reality is something that we both agree on" but our reality maybe false unless other wise proven wrong, yours truly The Summum Bonum. The Summum Bonum (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mr Entz, my name is Summum Bonum and I traveled this world for 15 years from the Gulfs of persia straights of mallaca to the straights of Magellan I'm also fluent on foreign languages and a History and Business associates student at Saint Leo University and I'm here to edit

Your definition of the word colorum in Filipino meaning is incorrect Colorum is a singular form plural for of words in Filipino you simple add "mga" before the noun Philippines has more than 80 dialects and My edit was purely the most common generalized meaning of the word colorum aka Kolorum, I'm a Military veteran lived in Philippines Islands during time of Ferdinand Marcos and married to a Filipina and speaks and write 7 dialects in Philippines lived in Manila bicol region, Dumaguite, Davao and Angeles City Philippines and has relatives who are member of New People's army in Philippines and my wife was Classmate of The Great Manny Pacquiao in General Santos City sarangani. And purely qualified to define this matter, colorum is simply defined as no papers "for short". I will surely be checking all your inputs to verify your mistakes in the future in regards to Filipino dialects and words. Please re consider my edits

Mr Entz, Your definition of the word colorum in Filipino meaning is incorrect Colorum,is a singular form plural for of words in Filipino you simple add "mga" before the noun Philippines has more than 80 dialects and My edit was purely the most common generalized meaning of the word colorum aka Kolorum, I'm a. Military veterans and married to a Filipina and speaks 7 dialects in Philippines lived in Manila bicol region, Dumaguite, Davao and Angeles City Philippines and has relatives who are member of New People's army in Philippines and my wife was Classmate of The Great Manny Pacquiao in General Santos City sarangani. And purely qualified to define this matter, colorum is simply defined as no papers "for short". I will surely be checking all your inputs to verify your mistakes in the future 2600:8805:4322:4F00:8C01:55D9:C74D:7E06 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not my definition, and it needs work- but your corrections were unreadable. While I don't speak Tagalog or any other Filipino language, I've studied Tagalog a little. I'm told my Tagalog pronunciation is very good, but I wouldn't even try to write a definition in the language. This is English Wiktionary, so our definitions are in English.

If someone adds an entry for one of the Filipino languages at colorum, it should have information about the plural in that language. The entry at colorum is for an English word, and when people speak English, they use English grammar.

I reverted your addition to the Latin entry because it messed up the formating of the entry, but also because it was about the Tagalog or English, not about the Latin. If you were to hear "colorum" in a Latin mass, I'm pretty sure it would be referring to a color, not to "age of ages" or "word without end". Information about where the English or Tagalog terms came from would go in the etymology sections of the English or Tagalog entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe both of us are wrong https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Unto_the_ages_of_ages is not Latin but Greek 2600:8805:4322:4F00:6DBF:1A1C:F674:FA26 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (eis toùs aiônas tôn aiṓnōn) is Ancient Greek and in saecula saeculorum is Latin. Of course, the Latin is a translation of the Greek, but there's no way you could get "colorum" from the Ancient Greek. Here are a few of the Bible translations I have on my computer:

• Paul's Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 1, Verse 4
  • ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

    Biblical Greek- the original

  • cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum amen.

    Latin Vulgate

  • Al cual sea la gloria por siglos de siglos. Amén.

    Spanish (Reina-Valera, 1909)

  • to whom is worschip and glorie in to worldis of worldis. Amen.

    Middle English (Wycliffe translation)

  • To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

    English (King James Version)

  • Na sumakaniya ang kaluwalhatian magpakailan man. Siya nawa.

    Tagalog (Philippines Bible Society, 1905)

These are all in different languages. The first is Ancient Greek and the last is Tagalog (not Pilipino, but Tagalog- note the 1905 date). You need to keep your languages straight, or you'll be calling "magpakailan man" Biblical Greek and I'll have to explain that no one uses "magpa" in Biblical Greek. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are you editing without explaining your reasons 2600:8805:4322:4F00:8C01:55D9:C74D:7E06 12:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I explained the first time, and what I said still applied to all the edits I reverted after that. I asked you to read WT:CFI and WT:EL, and your other edits still showed a complete ignorance of the rules and guidelines in those pages. This is a dictionary with millions of entries, so formatting is important in order to keep everything consistent. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please watch and learn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7kqP1KFbNA to understand proper pluralizing of Tagalog or Filipino words 2600:8805:4322:4F00:6DBF:1A1C:F674:FA26 20:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Chuck. Would you please step in to prevent personal attacks. User:Theknightwho and User:Koavf are involved, while User:WordyAndNerdy is the original poster of derogatory comments relating to my person and reputation. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No derogatory comments were made: @Elizium23, for some unfathomable reason, kept trying to change the words "random user" and "rando" in WAN's comment to "" ( ), on the basis that these were personal attacks. Even if they were, which they aren't, it is completely inappropriate for any user to edit someone else's comments. After the second time, I warned them that I would block them if they did it again, but they decided to edit war over it anyway, so I have blocked them for a day. Theknightwho (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Turns out they've been doing this elsewhere, too: . I don't think a user with judgment this poor, who has been indefinitely blocked on enWP for disruptive behaviour, is likely to be a valuable contributor, quite frankly. Theknightwho (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What in the world are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I think that the message in question was a bit histrionic and over the top, there was nothing personal about it. What's more, the "redacted" looks more like an insult than the actual text does. I'd rather not be involved in a contest to see who can overreact the most. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Really cool being branded "ridiculous" and "histrionic" (a word with deeply gendered connotations) for discussing my fear with repeating past experiences of misogyny on Wiktionary. Every time I bring up how Wiktionary cultivates a boys' club atmosphere, someone invariably trips over themselves to prove my point. Sometimes said person is someone I never foresaw doing that. But people can surprise you in a good way too. Which is why I want to thank TKW for showing sense and restraint here. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WordyAndNerdy If you think I'm misogynistic, you're mistaken. What gender perceptions I have are colored by being surrounded all my life by highly intelligent, rational and competent women, starting with my mother and sisters. There are people here who I really respect and admire that I initially thought of as female that turned out to be male. You're a good editor, but you have a tendency in your interactions outside of mainspace to personalize things that don't seem to have been meant as personal. Not that you're always wrong, but it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is.

You linked to a post by Fay Freak. I think most of us have learned to tune out their statements on everything but the languages they're knowledgable in as bizarrely out-of-touch ramblings that say more about their complete lack of social competence than anything else (they used to edit as Palaestrator verborum). They're one of several editors who veer into objectionable territory from time to time, though probably the worst of those who haven't been blocked. They add a lot to the project in their areas of competence, so more is tolerated.

As for the term "histrionic" there are others I would describe by that label who aren't female, but I haven't had the occasion to to so. There are lots of perfectly normal words that have been used in really awful ways by biased and even bigoted people in the past. I try to avoid the worst ones, but there are so many of them... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Just as a third party perspective: the word "histrionic" does carry gendered connotations in my view and I'd generally avoid it for that reason, but I appreciate that you didn't intend it that way. Theknightwho (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, Chuck. "More is tolerated...". Just no. In saying that, you're saying that there's one set of rules for FayFreak ("bizarrely out-of-touch and objectionable ramblings"), Theknightwho (long history of being confrontational and picking fights, several questionable admin actions) and Denazz (sockpuppetry, satirical/troll edits)...and then another set of rules for people like me (two bullshit blocks in the last month and half over essentially nothing except being unlikeable and criticizing the gods). That's not fair. That's not right. This project has devolved to the point where the worst-behaved people get elected admins and admins essentially have license to do whatever and treat everybody else like utter dogshit, while peons like me get blocked over nothing. Elizium23 might not have used the best methodology, but they ARE correct that users' comments accusing other users of mental illness are inappropriate. Purplebackpack89 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Am I incorrect though, despite being inappropriate?

Chuck doesn’t even say that there are different sets of rules. More likely he says that one gets into risky territory more if one is more productive with one’s judgement, which is fair. But you don’t care what is likely, and are also unfair towards me, apart from not being right. Personal reasons for editing, including those constituted by mental disorders, are necessary and likely, given the prevalences of mental disorders, which is perfectly studied for your country in particular, the United States, now trying to untruthfully reframe its choice between being governed by a figurehead with Binswanger's disease or one with narcissistic personality disorder as not about the person, though it is exactly what should be poked more. Occam's razor indeed, and often seen before the affected person owned up to it before themselves, and tolerated for the courtesy you suggest, but never agreement, as people capitulate before social suggestion at a loss for words.

But we definitely can “attack” a person so they are less wrong. Academic writing is personal development, and I am stable in it and excite other people to enrich our content, and make fewer mistakes, that’s what admins realize, while you are just making personal attacks because of it. You totally need guidance for your attention. Fay Freak (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You ARE incorrect. I don't have mental illness.

Wiktionary is a DICTIONARY, not Joyce Brothers' office.

And Wiktionary is NOT the place to litigate the 2024 Presidential election (although Joe Biden is CLEARLY the ONLY real choice) Purplebackpack89 16:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are unconvincing. There is an argument about subjects being off-topic at one place but not the other, but inconsistent. There underlies allistic bias towards compartmentalizing relations with different categories of people, leading to the naive idea that only linguists should be let to document and discuss language material, shrinks assess and intervene in maladaptive minds, commanders in chief can throw you into special military operations, etc., this is how history happens today. Pussyfooting. We take position about language anyway, better than the professionals who just lag behind, and the shrinks don’t do anything when you haven’t scheduled an appointment, and even if you met with them then you get homework from them, and integrate what you have learnt there in your daily life, that is interaction with other people. You cannot refuse to see that editing and arguing on Wiktionary requires social competence built perhaps upon psychoeducation therefore, e contrario if it is not well received then it can be directly related to mental illness.

My parents were garbage by not imparting psychoeducation, apart from the failure of even bringing into the world someone genetically inappropriate, and while people consider it a personal attack to insult one’s parents: it is the fundamental attribution error at play again, letting people falsely presume that everything is there to depreciate, even when the theory of mind progressed enough for one to assume the opposite position and descriptively avoid the fundamental attribution error. There just isn’t a language avoiding the listener’s automating assumptions of social status-checking. You make assumptions that I make assumptions. While I am well-informed about likelihoods.

I’ve done my part to avoid these illocutionary acts, but then again you: nobody does anything to explain the psychodynamic errors (at least here at Wikimedia), in spite of it being correct, also because it is “inappropriate”, but mainly—and I even think classifying something as inappropriate is just a traditional shorthand for it—because they struggle to dodge these automatic thoughts. Nothing positive to thwart automatic negative thoughts or otherwise obsessive behaviours happens from the community below the threshold of someone announcing his immediate unaliving, am I right?

At the same time, somebody can totally be simply pissed, in both senses, and it is more appropriate to verbalize that this is suffered, but suddenly it is a personal attack if one imagines that a longer mental restriction occurs, again because in consequence of the fundamental attribution error you falsely assume that personhood cannot change, and by extension assume that man attacks the person instead of suggesting adaptation of the thoughts and behaviours around yourself. Inconsistency, I repeat it. Did you consider that people are born dumb and within limits stay dumb when lacking input? It is just arbitrary that if you are at a certain age then nobody is allowed to fix your gaps, save a licensed therapist which you don’t visit or doesn’t have success from what he can know. In professional environments therefore humans learn all the time, and teaching requires higher degrees of ToM which are possibly imperfectly communicated, due to the baggage of the working language. They just don’t do it with Joyce Brothers' office language probably because the concepts do not exist for more than a few decades, because of missing popularization and because due to neurotypical compartmentalization bias scientifically effective approaches have whooshed everyone. They cling to old social constructs because progressing from it exhausts cognitive capacities; being human is ʕaṣabīya before and after reason.

In contrast I always assume that the person should change and so I can influence it, with the original psychological motivation (if you were right about there being personal attacks, it would be a personal attack from me against myself, so playful) that I don’t have intuitive social cognition in the first place and am compelled to simulate a person’s behaviour cognitively anyway, determining the content of what they mean, but as well motivated by the consideration that we don’t repeat history, that shaped reality by the outlined mass psychology: only works if you consider that I sincerely try to avoid partisan bias. Principle of charity, for a philosopher. If I don’t try to make things different from everyone else, what I do makes no sense. Fay Freak (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is "genetically inappropriate" supposed to mean in this context, @Fay Freak? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CitationsFreak: It refers to the want of mirror neurons resulting in the triad of impairments. I have also outlined in the last paragraph—apart from probably attempting to point it out at other occasions—, that functions provided to others by such predisposition, that is intuitive social cognition, are only emulated by me in analogy to those innate to me. But education and other social systems, and derived interactional givens, only promote Joe Average in an ever more fragmented society, and foster continuous embarrassment in facing challenges posed by its increasing complexity, which we however document and describe to be consistently comprehensible across ages and origins. It is therefore fundamentally correct to work around such conventions. But people refuse to be even aware of them, which decreases communicative success.

Even actual psychotherapy manuals are superficial in furthering awareness about variance in cognitive functioning, giving preference to strategies to level it, instead of enabling to acknowledge ambiguity, to say nothing about what pedagogues or parents could have told one. Instead of repeating neurotypical separations of activity areas, I had to reassemble the human sciences up to the point of inventing my own psychotherapy, to attain all that neuroplasticity, necessary to navigate a world determined by misconception. It included lots of stimuli contrary to time preference. I just wish the elders had told me more stuff I don’t like to provoke me, to apply myself! But they fear present offence more than later destitution consequential to the image of their lounge lizardry. Fay Freak (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid people are more interested in dramas than in building a dictionary. You have time aplenty to judge people and guess their alleged ideologies from their languages, while you could have used the time to add a usage note at histrionic. I first encountered this word right here, but had I known the term before I’d have probably used it zillions of times already. Inqilābī 11:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly sure this person is simply asking questions to waste people's time (and may occasionally happen to ask something interesting). Must be the same user as the blocked 193.39.158.203 given the last edit. Exarchus (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to be sure. The blocked range geolocates to the Edinburgh council, and in the UK the councils provide the schools. Schools tend to have lots of bored kids with computers, so we get all kinds of silliness and cluelessness and end up blocking them to stop it. That's what happened here.

The other range is rather odd: half my geolocation sources say it's Aberdeen- Scotland, but definitely not Edinburgh. The other half say it's somewhere in the greater Manchester area of England. a couple of those say it's a proxy.

Proxies are services or devices that allow people from one IP range to use another IP range. We're always a bit leery of proxies because they tend to be used by spammers and vandals to hide who they are, and by people in blocked IP ranges to get around the blocks. Still, they're also used by people in tightly-controlled countries like China and Iran to get access to sites like ours that those governments try to prevent, so we can't just block all of them. The one type of proxy we always block on sight is an open proxy, which can be controlled by literally anyone from anywhere on the internet without anyone having any way to tell who it is. They're inherently incompatible with our Creative Commons license, which requires attribution. Proxies that aren't known to be open proxies are a gray area, but if we're getting spam or vandalism via one of them we may decide it's not worth giving them the benefit of the doubt and just block it for a much longer period of time to be safe.

As for the actions of these IPs: they do seem young and clueless, but I'm not so sure that they're deliberately trying to waste our time. They just seem to get a kick out of getting others to answer questions for them. If they overdo it, or show signs of just making up stuff so they can ask about it, we may want to block them. They're not at the top of things I worry about, so I'll leave it to others to decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Chuck, I've sent you some emails in the past few weeks and you never replied. Could you please reply when you get a chance? I still have feelings of being picked on, by one editor in particular, and I'd like to discuss them with you. Purplebackpack89 00:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Is there any particular way of tracking down such errors? Svartava (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found it using Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Derivation category does not match entry language, which gets updated once a week. There are a few languages that are false positives, such as the CJK languages and Franco-Provençal, but there were 44 fixable ones this week. There are also Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header and Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header (sorted by language), which are updated only every couple of weeks and which are a lot more complex and tricky. I do a lot of stuff like that, since I'm just proficient enough in a very general way with the technical side, with etymologies and with a large number of languages to be able to fix things. That way the people with a deeper level of knowledge in specific languages and specific technical subjects can concentrate on what they do best without worrying about the trivial general stuff. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that is a very useful list. In future, I'll try to check it for entries in languages I can fix. Svartava (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I can't see the history of Slovak mrznúť ‎now, but why delete it? It's just a common word. Can you revert it? Chihunglu83 (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chihunglu83: "No usable content given" is never about the term itself, but about the entry. I saw another entry with no headword template and an etymology stating that it was a Czech term inherited from Proto-Slavic like you used to do all the time, so I overreacted. I'll restore it, but please fix it. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mrznúť ‎would only be Old slovak or Slovak. Czech would be mrznout and Old Czech would be mrznúti. Chihunglu83 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was your revert any reasonable? Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

we have an active vandal if you want to check my contributions Justin the Just (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who? All I see is a bunch of hidden edits and hidden edit summaries. I do my best to drain all the fun and attention out of that sort of vandalism. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You didn't respond on my talk page, so I'm repeating here.

You reverted me when I moved Tahitian words with glottal stop to okina, which would be consistent with all other Tahitian entries, said I needed to link to a consensus for that, and accused me of appointing myself "judge, jury and executioner for other people's hard work". However, looking at the history, it's you who moved the Tahitian articles to okina in the first place. Can I restore those moves? kwami (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said before, I objected more to how you moved things than whether you moved things. Dredging up diffs from 12 years ago doesn't change that. First, you simply deleted entries with no edit summary explaining why. Every other time I've seen that it was vandalism by an IP or a throwaway new account. Then you changed it to altforms of the other spelling, so at least I could deduce what you were up to- but still no edit summaries. Then you copypasted the content to the new entries without any edit summary- which is a violation of our Creative Commons license, since there was no indication of where you got it from and thus no connection to the revision history showing who added it in the first place. In effect, you stole the credit for creating the content. The diff from 2012 shows an edit summary saying what I moved, where I moved it to, and why. As to whather it was a good idea- I don't remember why I thought an okina spelling was better. That was 12 years ago when I had only been editing for 6 months. I don't know if I would do it the same today. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I wasn't thinking of credit, but I how that's a problem. kwami (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've made minor edits on the target pages to add an edit summary of where the material was copied from, and a rationale on the source pages. kwami (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wonder why you removed the synonym -: from the Swedish entry of öre? Christoffre (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Christoffre the synonym is still there in the Swedish entry. I removed it as a synonym from the English entry- synonyms have to be the same language as the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oops, my bad! I didn’t even think about it being the English entry. -- Christoffre (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks and sorry, I'm used to substituting the unsigned template in all other Wiki projects.

That being said -- as it stands, Template:unsigned says that it "may be either substituted or transcluded." While that could be changed, most of the HTML clutter you refer to is comment tags, whose sole purpose is breaking up the source code, and categorisation, which doesn't seem all that useful at all. Perhaps it'd be better to get rid of the unnecessary bits and make the template substable. If not, at least it would make sense to include a more visible warning not to substitute it, given the practice here is different than most everywhere else. Hythonia (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious what's going on here with the changes regarding Old High German and Slavic languages. Is the problem the periodization? Perhaps we can figure out a solution. Vininn126 (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: {{bor}} and {{bor+}} are only for direct borrowings into the language of the entry. The problem with Category:Polish terms borrowed from Old High German is that modern Polish and OHG were never spoken at the same time, so direct borrowing would require that speakers of modern Polish knew an extinct language well enough to borrow words from it- learned borrowing. The more likely scenario would be that the borrowing took place when OHG was a living language, and modern Polish received the words through inheritance. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright - I'll try to get better etymologies in that category. The previous solution seemed awkward to me. Vininn126 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, they were all actually from Middle High German, someone got confused, I have changed them. There is still the issue of dating, as most if not all were actually from Old Polish, but I am working on a partial import that @Benwing2 is helping me with, once a certain document is ready I'll be able to update all inherited terms. Vininn126 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 My apologies, I have been busy with some RL stuff (I had a friend visiting from Prague in fact) and then am trying to finish up the Arabic changes, but I will get to your stuff ASAP. Benwing2 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Say ahoj for me! Vininn126 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For correcting my erroneous addition at popo today, and especially for taking the time to explain why. I hadn't thought to look under the capitalized form, since I routinely forget that German nouns are always capitalized, and Wiktionary is case-sensitive. My father used this word when I was little, and I was confused when on multiple occasions I couldn't find it on Wiktionary, except possibly as a Turkish word that my grandfather might have picked up when he was a child—but once I searched the page history and saw that there had been a German entry, which was deleted without an edit summary explaining why, my first thought was to restore it, not check under the capitalized form. Which is strange, as I noticed it should be capitalized after I had restored it, and was not sure what to do about it. Why it didn't occur to me to type it that way, I don't know. Anyway, thank you again. P Aculeius (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I regularly patrol the abuse filter that spots edits missing a headword template, which is how I knew about it. Generally, when it's obvious that someone has made a mistake because they were unaware of or forgot something, an explanation is the best way not to have to deal with the same mistake again. That is, if it's someone who otherwise knows what they're doing- a word to the wise is sufficient. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why you delete it without discussion, it's a valid word, can you just tell me what's needed to fix rather than delete it right away? Thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add it back ("no usable content given" deletions are without prejudice) , but "Pron" isn't a part of speech. and you'll need to have a headword template (see WT:EL). The definition looks like that of a verb, though I know better than to impose English grammar on a completely different language. Look through the entries in Category:Indonesian lemmas to see what other editors have done with similar terms.

Sorry I overreacted, but I've been fixing lots of entries today that were missing all kinds of important things, and I got tired. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

cheers! just wanted to know what was wrong with my edit so I can improve it. to me there isn't that is comically trout worthy so what gives? thank you in advance! Juwan (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

While you were posting this, I was posting an explanation on your talk page. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. "selen-" is not a prefix in words like selenian or selenic, or for that matter in selenograph. I don't know what the best way to format the entry would be. kwami (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I don't either, but better half right than completely wrong. If you find yourself replacing headword templates with hard-coded mockups, that's a sign that you've gone off into the weeds somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but if the difference is an internal formatting error vs. a factual error visible to our readers, isn't our duty to be accurate to our readers? I don't understand the idea that it's okay to be factually wrong as long as the formatting looks good. kwami (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It isn't just the formatting. It's that you haven't really thought things through. I'm not convinced that your part of speech made sense. There's also the possibility that this isn't a valid English morpheme at all. If that's true, you won't be able to fix the entry, and trying to come up with a duct-tape, bailing-wire and chewing-gum temporary solution will just make things worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I brought it up at the beer parlour. kwami (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Chuck, thanks for cleaning up my formatting mistakes, but in this particular case i acctually spent a lot of time trying for the adjective template to output just the female gender instead of both. After i got tired of fidgeting with it and not succeed i decided to just remove the annoying tenplate, and as you can see now it lists both genders instead of just "f". Is there any way to correct that? Cheers. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sérgio R R Santos: It never hurts to look at the documentation. If you go to Template:pt-adj you will see it has a |fonly=1 parameter. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Akh, i was allmost getting there with f=1! Thanks for the advice about reading documentation, but since i'm so lazy when i see a really long page full of details (but usually not the ones i'm looking for!) i really dont feel like reading all that! But i'm new to wiktionary and will try to improve. Thank you. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

See, just now i skimmed through that entire page and couldnt find that parameter until doing a Cntrl F. But anyway, now you have a topic in your talkpage with the title "mamalhuda", which will for sure bring a laugh to any portuguese person visiting this page for the first time (I dont know if brazilians use that word as well). Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

In 2023, you deleted the entry for the phrase "to what do I owe this honour." I decided to record a pronunciation audio for this phrase. With appropriate resources and quotations, may somebody remake this entry?

Thank you. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Flame, not lame: Mass deletions of pages created by a specific blocked user are generally without prejudice. The idea is to discourage vandals or block evaders by leaving them with nothing to show for their efforts when they shouldn't have even started to edit. There are some exceptions such as those who were blocked for creating spam, POV, SOP, or other types of entries that would be unsuitable for Wiktionary no matter what their content is. In this case, though, it was a case of serial block evasion- constantly creating new accounts every time their previous accounts were blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 02:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wonder why you reverted it. Please give a reason. Yejianfei (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I will be correcting Aragonese pages and redirecting the pages that use old and un-official orthographies to pages with the official one. You can reed about said orthography here. Therefore, refrain from reverting back those edits unless there is any technological error. Thanks!

Hello Chuck, I wish to speak about the Bengali page I was editing. The word displayed for "জুলমাত" is showcased as "Julomat". Now there are actually few ways people pronounce this word due to different dialects, but the most widely and commonly used pronounciation is "Zulmat/Zulomat", (yes the *o* sometimes appears in Bengali literature) and notice that there is no "J". If you put it4 in the google translator, then it will obviously pronounce it as "Julmat" because the standard dialect for the translator is set in the "Nadia dialect".

So "জুলমাত" should be "Zulmat" (noun). Another different form of this word is "জুলুম" (Zulum), which also means oppression (noun). And the adjective for the word is "Zalim" (জালিম) or "Zulumkari" (জুলুমকারী).

Could you help me to set the translation in that way? Thank you. The only issue with the transliteration is that the "Z" gets converted into "J". Tejoshkriyo (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see our About Bengali page, and the Bengali transliteration page it links to. Changing one page just makes it inconsistent with the rest of our Bengali coverage. Besides which, your method of "correction" was only slightly better than drawing on your screen with a marker pen... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well that was an insult an amateur editor like me didn't expect to receive from such a masterful editor such as yourself :) Tejoshkriyo (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

According to the Whitelist, some administrators believe I need to demonstrate a greater knowledge before I am eligible for an autopatroller role. What imperfections have I recently displayed, and what improvements am I expected to make?

Thank you Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 02:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I can't comment on what User:Vininn126 and User:Chuck Entz have in mind exactly, but a potential issue is that you mostly contribute just audio files. Autopatrollers should be counted on to know the formatting rules, the criteria for inclusion (i.e. what is considered dictionary material), etc., and generally that's demonstrated through having created or edited a significant number of pages that make use of this knowledge and don't require corrections or oversight. Your age should have nothing to do with it; as Chuck said, we have had admins under 18, and contrariwise I know of a certain self-described 35-year-old editor who (ahem ...) I would absolutely not trust with autopatroller status. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is a helpful explanation. I wrote a CER, and I can share it if administrators need more evidence. Commander Keane became an autopatroller for his voice work, and I make occasional contributions beyond voice work. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 03:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You hit the nail on the head. Vininn126 (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC should remember the Wikimedia Foundation has no policy prohibiting users younger than 18 from becoming autopatrollers.

In the meantime, I will continue my voice work and get help when needed. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Flame, not lame: You seem to have a good attitude and will no doubt eventually be autopatrolled if you stay with it. My comment was based more on the general level of understanding about Wiktionary displayed in your interactions than on any specific errors. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your optimism is genuinely admirable. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere @Vininn126 On Discord yesterday, PUC admitted to trolling and that he does not seriously think I am too young. Benwing knew that was inappropriate sarcasm.

Is there any reason I was removed from Wiktionary:Whitelist entirely? Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No one had approved in some time. Old nominations that are not approved are often removed from the list. Vininn126 (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Chuck Entz! Thank you very much for reverting my edits in Changzhou, where the contents had been deleted by error. Best Regards.--MiiCii (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm not objecting, but what is the reason for changing {{desc|pa|alt=TRANSLIT}} to {{desc|pa}} TRANSLIT? Both are the same outputs as far as I can see. I also see {{desc|pa}} no longer generating a term request and but in case that is restored {{desc|pa}} TRANSLIT would look bad. – Svārtava (tɕ) 05:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava: See Category:Punjabi terms in nonstandard scripts. The |alt= parameter is treated like the |head= parameter in other templates, so the template thinks the transliteration is a Punjabi display form. Besides which, it's cleaner to just give the straight text rather than manipulating the template into producing the same output. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: In that case, it looks automatable, I could get to it by AWB to save some effort.

Is there any discussion about removing the that used to get generated when the term was not entered in {{desc}}? I just want to make sure {{desc|pa}} TRANSLIT doesn't start looking like Punjabi: TRANSLIT at any point (alternatively we could write {{desc|pa|-}} TRANSLIT). – Svārtava (tɕ) 06:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I asked Benwing2 about this on Discord, since Module:etymology/templates/descendant#L-463 still has code intended to generate along with a request and it is an error that at present it is not working. See also: Special:Diff/81658290/82564046.

So, can you write {{desc|pa|-}} when doing the replacement edits so that and the term request don't show up later when the error with {{desc}} is fixed? Thanks for the help. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I spent time to tidy up words and you reverted all my work. The word "geophagism" is finishing by "-phagism" not "-phage". The meaning is different, the words in "-phage" are adjectives or refer to someone whereas "-phagism" is the general noun. If you put geophagism as geo + phage + ism then the word appears in the list of -phage while not finishing by -phage. Also if someone want to see all the words finishing by -phagism, they can't... If you prefer to write -phage + -ism then you have to find a way to erase the word from the automatic category -phage. Also you need to add the word to the category of words in -phagism to enable people to find the list of words in -phagism. Yvain.masson (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am trying to understand why you reverted my article to German and made changes in the English part of Bardilo. Bardilo became an Old High German name from it being a instrumental case of Bardilaz (referring to the axe). Bardilo was mentioned in The Teutonic Name-System Applied To The Family Names of France, England, & Germany, it was later Bardel in the modern German language. I'm glad you caught that there were a few errors, but did not expect more changes you did. Can I change some of these back, except those errors? My best, Juliusmborris (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

hi hi, may I know why is this edit was reverted? the etymology is not wrong and the etymid was changed accordingly. Juwan (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JnpoJuwan: You didn't change it, you removed it, which caused a module error in another entry which linked to it. {{etymon}} and {{etymid}} are not the same thing, and the ids they add are not used by the same templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz oh, I was not aware. that is a bit frustrating. I won't make that same mistake again. Juwan (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just implemented nested scraping specs in Icelandic, so I reverted the change you made to kóngsriddari. Now, kóngsriddari can point to riddari, which in turn points to -ari, and all just works. Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Recently I had edited the template {{R:Gaffiot}} in order for it to use some {{cite-book}} functionality which wasn't taken advantage of, instead of the dirty fix that was in place before. I noticed that you reverted my edit, but you didn't give any reason as to why. Did I do anything wrong? Could it be reverted back? Thanks for your attention. Hitsuji777 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hitsuji777: I don't remember exactly, but it would have been due to entries showing up in either CAT:E or CAT:PFE. The code in that template is rather complicated, so I didn't try to fix it myself rather than just reverting to the last working version. You may have considered it "minor formatting", but it was a substantial change to a template transcluded in over 30 thousand pages, and rearranging template code often results in weird errors that are hard to debug. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added a form that's existent in dialects AKT123456789 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AKT123456789: That was already covered by the "alternate spelling of" definition. There's no clear distinction between the two. Plus you didn't use a headword template- see WT:EL. If you want to merge your additions into the existing entry, that would be okay. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a clear distinction, tho. There's 'молодежь' that just uses е instead of ё like many Russian words do but its the same pronounciation. And there's also 'молодежь' with a dialectal stress that doesnt have ё in the word. It's a different spelling vs a different form that has its own declension. AKT123456789 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have already confirmed on English Wiktionary that none of the pages using Module:ko-etym utilize the shorthand "용가." For pages related to 용비어천가, the shorthand "yb" is used instead. Also, considering that inputting Hangul characters may be inconvenient for English Wiki editors, I believe it would be appropriate to remove the shorthand "용가". I kindly request to remove the shorthand 용가 in Module:ko-etym. Thank you very much! Sunboyallen (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sunboyallen the only way I found out about your edit was when three entries showed up in ] due to having the shorthands they used removed. Whatever method you used to confirm, you were wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you very much! Sunboyallen (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply