. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
New Persian comes from Old Persian, not Avestan. Please do not add any more Persian on the Avestan entries. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Now that I know you, Aryaman, I understand why the Persian section in the Wiktionary is so poor.
- I'm not sure I understand. I don't edit any New Persian, nor do I speak it. में सिर्फ़ हिंदी लेख बनाता हूँ। You're adding a descendants sections to Avestan with New Persian. New Persian does take words from Avestan, but I suspect all the ones you've added are from Old Persian in actuality. If you speak Persian, why don't you make the Persian entries better rather than insulting others? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 02:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
That you claim I insult others (whilst I at any point did such a thing) attests to your lack of reading comprehension and further proves my initial point.
- "Now that I know you, Aryaman, I understand why the Persian section in the Wiktionary is so poor." Good job I guess, now that you've proved your point. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Sorry for my unfriendliness. I've put the standard welcome message below so you know which templates to use and such (e.g. {{t}} is only used in translation tables):
Welcome!
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
- If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Again, welcome! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your last message and look forward to being a valuable member of the community. मैं तुम्हारे लिए बहुल आशीषें भेजता हूँ! Gfarnab
- आपकी बहुत धन्यवाद! यहां हिंदी (और फ़ारसी) बोलनेवाले की कमी है। —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please do not edit Chinese entries - many of the examples you added are completely ungrammatical. Wyang (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Wyang You are too sure for your own good, because the examples I use are extracted from recognized and long-standing sources. In any event, I have answered lengthily in the Beer Parlour so you are welcome to go back there and have a look. And have a nice day too! User:Gfarnab
- Hello. You should make a basic user page first, stating languages you know, so that people know if you're relying on your own knowledge or using dictionaries or other sources.
{{Babel}} is a popular template for this. As for Russian, it's now considered incorrect to transliterated образ (without a stress mark) as "óbraz" (with a stress mark), you should use stress marks and rely on automatic transliteration in most cases, e.g. о́браз (óbraz). User:Benwing2 is also quite active in Russian and can hopefully give you some guidance about the templates to use.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Atitarev Thank you for your message: I will pay attention to the way you transcribe things here and adapt to it. Re creating a user page with my language knowledge, I do not think is the most productive use of my time, for I rather keep bettering the Wiktionary than add badges to my page. And if users want to know whether I am "relying on your own knowledge or using dictionaries" they can google the example phrases and find out where they are from (in Russian they are never mine, but rather from ruscorpora.ru). — This unsigned comment was added by Gfarnab (talk • contribs) at 15:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC).Reply
- I fail to see how 邊防們許可過境邊界 is from any recognized or long-standing source; it's absolutely terrible. BTW, it's general courtesy to put a
{{Babel}} on your userpage as a minimum, just as a way for other users to know where your linguistic abilities stand and be able check your edits accordingly, definitely not a waste of time. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 22:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Language codes matter. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please slow down. You're making quite a few mistakes in content (I'm not too worried about formatting, that can be fixed quickly). How much do you know about Hindi grammar? मरवा is not a very common noun, and it certainly is not from मर्वति nor is it the source of मरवा डालना. It's actually just the stem of मरवाना, to get someone to kill someone else. Again, please don't guess if you aren't sure about something, just ask me or another editor so we can limit incorrect information. Thanks. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 04:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Could you place {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi, please stop editing in languages that you are unfamiliar with. You are making too many mistakes. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Yes and Persian doesn't use letter ي at all. It's ی. -Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I don't have time to teach you anything but before you do your creative editing you may take a look at the relevant Dehkhoda Dictionary entry: عریس. Have fun learning! Gfarnab
- The problem with your edits is even more serious. You just blindly copy from various sources. The Persian spelling is عریس, which looks the same as the Arabic عريس. We don't have the time to teach either. You're making substantial edits in the main space, not in your sandbox.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Also why are you adding so many senses to Hindi words (at पर्व (parv) and फलक (phalak))? Plus, the usex you took out of the Bible at पर्व (parv) was way too complicated (and unsourced). —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Note that if I (or any other administrator) sees further evidence of edits that are copied entirely from uncited sources or incorrect, this is your warning that you may be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I am happy to read that you have chosen Farnab Airlines to spend your precious time again and I wish you all the best of success Gfarnab
Gfarnab, just a note about adding a header for references. If you only put two = signs, as in ==References==, the software will treat it as a language named References. Be sure to use at least three = signs: ===References===. I have corrected this in fardo. Thanks. 11:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to you! I'll keep it in mind so that you needn't bother again. Gfarnab
You have been reminded and warned before about not editing in languages you are not familiar with, particularly Chinese. Yet, you continue to ignore the reminders, and make errors in the Chinese entries you have edited since then. They include: 孝 (47295459), 雷 (47295417), 恣 (47341521), 遷 (47323937), 託 (47324085). There are glaring factual errors in all of these edits ― which ― I'm going to assume you are unable to identify. Let me be blunt here: you have no idea what you are doing with Chinese, specifically Classical Chinese quotations. Please do not edit in Chinese any more. Wyang (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Per your warning given above, this merits a block. I can't personally assess the quality of most of Gfarnab's recent contributions, but @Wikitiki89, Atitarev, Aryamanarora should look them over for their respective languages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- It's as thought he doesn't even look at the entry sometimes. --WikiTiki89 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- The Hindi and Sanskrit are good now. Most of them were already okay. Somebody ought to check the Persian and Arabic lemmas too. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 15:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I checked the Arabic ones (and also the Persian ones, but I'm less of an expert there), and they seem fine now. But maybe someone could double-check the Persian ones. --WikiTiki89 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Russian edits are fine but it's obvious that he doesn't have a reasonable level of Russian but just uses good resources. He doesn't add stresses and doesn't add doesn't use ё when necessary. Not sure if encouraging him to use the established dictionary style will cause him to produce errors - no stress is better than wrong stress and mixing е and ё would be even worse. Etymologies are not impressive because he uses related words, rather than showing the exact etymology but etymologies is not my forte and I am less focused on it. Still, no etymology is better than poor etymology. It surprises me that unlike most beginners, he doesn't work on simple but complex things, like adding usage examples with long sentences. IMO, missing stresses and failure to use "ё" adds little value and breaks the established practice.
- In any case, serious mistakes in Chinese warrant a block, even if other languages are fine but I haven't checked all of his Russian or other edits. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Are you kidding? In his Russian edits, his etymologies were wrong, he added Vasmer links to words that aren't in Vasmer, and he doesn't pay attention to the content of the page he is adding an etymology to. --WikiTiki89 23:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I am not kidding. I may have missed something, just point it out, no need for this tone. I said I haven't checked thoroughly. My point is still the same - some good edits are cancelled out by many bad ones and the block is merited. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @ZxxZxxZ, could you please double-check the Persian ones? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
- The Persian ones look OK. --Z 13:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
You created an entry with the wrong spelling (it doesn't have a hamza), misuse of templates and insufficiently vocalised text to produce a transliteration, all of which you should have noticed. Luckily, a native speaker dropped by and fixed everything for you. As far as I can tell, you are continuing to edit in languages you don't know, and aren't even careful enough to look over your entries or do a good job of it. You can become a contributing member of the Wiktionary community, but not if you have no regard for the quality of the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Another error at 彌. Permanently blocked. Wyang (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Wyang Do you think User:خبيث could be Gfarnab? (S)he is editing Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit a lot, as well as adding Hindi usage examples, just like Gfarnab. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @AryamanA I agree. Wyang (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Wyang: Arabic خَبِيث (ḵabīṯ) means "sly, cunning" too lol —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Has that account made errors worthy of blocking on its own merits? If not, can @Chuck Entz confirm that the user is the same? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Metaknowledge: I see the typical distribution in wrong vocalizations: ج ر ب, ه ي ء, جل. I see brainless copying from Almaany, even more wrong thereafter (for example this entry جل where the “sail”, “rose” and “jasmine” meanings are from Almaany, but the Arabic header has been copied from another header with different vocalization). And the most striking thing are the grammar errors/incomprehensible quote translations which I have read from Gfarnab. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 02:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Metaknowledge: I don't see anything wrong in Hindi, it's just the usexes are really useless to learners; they seem like quotes to me. Obviously, the issues in other languages make it apparent it his him/her. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Confirmed and blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
User:कूक. @Chuck Entz Please help check. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- In case anyone's wondering: Hindi कूक (kūk, “shriek, shrill cry; sobbing”). —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Confirmed and blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would not be surprised that User:妄为我工作 created on 18:07 (GMT+1) is Gfarnab. He has a Chinese name and starts to make Arabic things, including adding Arabic terms without vocalization of course. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 17:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Palaestrator verborum: I agree. It means "I work recklessly" I think. @Chuck Entz. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Confirmed and blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- ... Or is supposed to be the Chinese translation for 'I work recklessly'... Wyang (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Wyang: Of course, I suppose the correct translation would be 我妄工作? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @AryamanA 妄 is limited in usage and cannot collocate with 工作. I can't think of a good exact translation for 'I work recklessly' for now. May need more context to know what this is supposed to mean... it could be '我(肆意)妄为' (I do/work as I want). Wyang (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Chuck Entz Special:Contributions/छद्मन् Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Palaestrator verborum: I've preemptively blocked him. छद्मन् (chadman, “disguise, deceptive dress”) if you wanted to know the meaning. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I looked it up, and even without it I was convinced after his first three edits. Too many coincidences, that random reckless behavior as we know it. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 21:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- It looks like it. They're using an anonymous proxy, but everything else is the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz I have a feeling about User:VivAra. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Yep. Anonymous proxy again. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- User:Gendannede. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Why is he so persistent? I just blocked two more that were imitating other usernames using similar looking characters. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- The same reason he got blocked in the first place: arrogant overconfidence, combined with stubbornness and a tendency to take any limitation on him as a personal affront. He doesn't seem to realize that it's the bad edits, not the username, that are giving him away. On the plus side, he's finding lots of anonymous proxies that need to be blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Because I love languages better than you love censorship.
P.S.: Chucky, I have a very special present for you: a proxy list! Do not slack: ban them all before I use them!
- 13.10.23.1-255
- 54.187.174.169
- 148.133.157.222
- 171.236.240.99
- 216.191.89.204
- 231.39.111.18
- 63.218.6.30
- 56.180.146.198
- 19.9.26.93
- 248.134.129.151
- 28.123.58.139
- 148.118.72.53
- 54.187.205.235
- 100.211.216.72
- 208.36.218.134
- 81.68.150.94
- 126.10.231.253
- 112.68.92.179
- 85.236.48.152
- 133.213.127.218
- 78.158.120.123
- 225.190.139.51
- 136.176.240.70
- 172.128.1.102
- 201.171.25.66
- 88.241.31.99
- 54.241.31.102
- 89.147.34.107
- 192.168.1.6
- 13.130.23.255
- 50.18.212.157
- 118.215.233.187
- 86.124.201.30
- 163.78.107.86
- 60.30.163.22
- 225.195.143.20
- 141.104.44.78
- 22.228.216.30
- 242.178.36.165
- 64.121.116.34
- 73.39.218.115
- 10.18.212.223
- 51.25.214.31
- 79.26.11.205
- 52.26.14.11
- 109.11.10.41
- 52.8.19.58
- 72.212.33.140
- 201.87.91.102
- 251.175.184.192
- 53.79.113.152
- 100.174.64.112
- 127.0.0.1
- 118.46.216.161
- 213.231.207.25
- 166.172.230.5
- 238.175.214.242
- 136.175.143.30
- 52.8.8.189
- 54.149.153.72
- 201.5.62.129
- 116.109.212.210
- 21.92.136.125
- 45.149.211.236
- 170.150.99.235
- 76.180.70.204
- 231.14.220.107
- 54.67.48.128
- 180.140.225.34
- 111.66.26.125
- 36.121.0.104
- 83.187.182.230
- 54.187.199.38
- 96.152.203.118
- 23.36.83.47
- 212.182.151.226
- 204.167.117.227
- 116.198.126.26
- 176.40.197.62
- 0.199.45.64
- 247.252.166.23
- 35.122.123.0
- 222.108.76.7
- 54.187.208.163
- 54.67.52.245
- 66.183.104.179
- 198.181.86.100
- 72.215.91.48
- 160.140.94.198
- 222.177.72.8
- 59.245.119.63
- 124.207.113.87
- 151.197.134.222
- 115.91.205.240
- 0.15.23.176
- 54.68.165.206
- 155.6.197.30
- 107.23.48.182
- 199.242.31.84
- 238.116.4.167
- 150.73.16.250
- 63.232.142.158
- 246.124.221.232
- 154.167.132.36
- 212.230.140.183
- 228.9.117.254
- 138.228.20.53
- 54.68.183.151
- 107.23.48.232
Merry Christmass to y’all!
- I think it's hilarious that you misspelled Christmas. How apt. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 12:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- It's not censorship if all they're trying to do is keep incorrect content out of Wiktionary. And you don't love languages if you, with zero regard for correctness, work to degrade the quality of their lemmas. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I don't love censorship, you don't love language (reckless disregard for accuracy is as bad as deliberate vandalism), and those don't seem to be anonymous proxies (not that I would waste my time testing- spot checks in online databases say they aren't). Thanks for proving my point. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Салат с нутом (talk • contribs). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: Hi. Please check Special:Contributions/185.245.191.14. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- If the nasty attitude and shoddy edits weren't enough evidence, confirmed and blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Chuck Entz: Please check User:紙板拐杖. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Yep. Oddly enough, the anonymous proxy they've been using is also being used by a spambot with a throwaway account. I was taken aback when I saw an abuse filter hit that started out with "Hi, I'm a Vietnamese female, and here's my website"- until I noticed that although it was the same IP, other details were different. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Don't the people at Meta block open proxies from time to time? —suzukaze (t・c) 03:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, but there's a difference between an anonymous proxy (which is what this is) and an open proxy (which it might also be). The former are used legitimately to get around censorship by oppressive governments, but the latter is a real problem for a wiki because you can't establish attribution for the Creative Commons license. I'm a little fuzzy on what our current policy is on these. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz Hi, here is another: Special:Contributions/217.9.91.108 Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was initially told not to edit Avestan and Old Persian by someone who, by his account, has not a grasp of said languages and claimed further that I had insulted him -re my reply wherein no insult is to be found-, signalling faulty reading comprehension . I then got an apology, which I accepted , thinking that would be the end of it, but shortly after Wyang (now an admin) claimed my Chinese edits were “completely ungrammatical” because he heeded not that the phrases I used were from Confucian texts (ie, grammatically different than today’s Standard Chinese) , and this time I got no apology when I pointed his mistake out.
I was, too, told to employ mainstream sources -and cite them properly-, which I gladly did until my entries using Strong’s Bible Concordance and the Vasmer Dictionary were deemed faulty as well without further elaboration (ie, the ones who accused me of not citing sources still accused me -without citing anything- when I used them , ). Further instances chanced wherein an admin (Wyang) wrote in my talkpage I was “making mistakes” in my edits, whereas his ulterior fixes showed no correction re mines , , , (he added -in my opinion- useful stuff in his edits but did not correct what I wrote). There were, in addition, “amusing” situations wherewith an admin called for someone to “fix” an entry I created in Catalan (ie, one of my mother tongues) , despite his inability to understand whether it needed a fix or not but, alas, I quarreled not back then and my main user (Gfarnab) was permanently banned by Wyang.
Since then -while editing with sock accounts- some of the Sanskrit translations I added were obliterated by an admin who explicitly recognizes his incapability of judging their adequacy , my aim of archiving the 2017 conversations in my talkpage was deemed “vandalism” by an admin who immediately after deleted content therefrom (not giving a reason for it) . All this, I posited, could be a tremendous misunderstanding, but shortly after one of the most active and knowledgeable contributors around (Palaestrator verborum) was banned by the same admin and wrote he had “been banned under a pretext by an administrator who no doubt wanted to ban me the first time I talked with him” , leading me to discern a pattern which I hazard will also be discernable by you.
Being healthy and young as I am I can keep editing with sockets for the next 60 years, but I know this is not the best arrangement possible for the Wiktionary (why would admins squander time fruitlessly banning throwaway IPs of mine for 60 years?). I hereby ask for my ban to be lifted immediately and, for the sake of the community, an agreement to be found between me and those who are wasting their precious time with unsourced and contradictory stings against me. I know, eg, Wyang has not shown us to be the best negotiator, but on the other hand I am more agreeable than Rua so I think we can succeed in finding a stable array which works best for everyone (and may you pardon the unpardonable length of my message: this is what happens when months of grievances go ungrieved).
Sincerely,
Gfarnab
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&oldid=47041398
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&oldid=47045096
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&oldid=47148105
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&oldid=47448393#Making_too_many_errors_in_Chinese_entries_-_again
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&oldid=47219183
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%AD%9D&type=revision&diff=47297469&oldid=47295459
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%9B%B7&type=revision&diff=48162324&oldid=47295417
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%81%B7&type=revision&diff=47450157&oldid=47323937
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%81%A3&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=47450110&oldid=47341521
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:safareig&oldid=47601964
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/January&oldid=48433392
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&diff=48417051&oldid=48417049
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfarnab&diff=48423471&oldid=48417053
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Palaestrator_verborum&oldid=48426033
- Virtually every single one of your Chinese edits had to be fixed. Just take a look at these changes of yours: diff, diff, diff. They are absolutely horrible, showing that your knowledge of Chinese is extremely poor, and your inability to recognise that and be humble about it is what led to your permanent block. Please go and learn these languages you are editing in if you would like your edits to be taken seriously. I've reduced your block to 5 years. (Btw, the average life expectancy of the world in 2015 is 71.4 years.) Wyang (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Per w:Wikipedia:Standard offer I think this user can be unblocked after six months if he promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block and don't use any user or IP to edit in six months. @Wyang you may consider restore this user's talk page and email access (which can be revoked if being misused again).--Zcreator (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Zcreator I'm hesitant even reducing it to 5 years. The insight to the problem, as shown in this post, is still incredibly poor. There is continued block evasion and sockpuppetry, and the same pattern of problematic edits and defiance persists through his sockpuppets. I don't think the talk page and email access should be restored; it was misused only very recently. As Gfarnab describes himself as being "healthy and young", I only hope that he can develop his knowledge and become more mature as time passes. Wyang (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Zcreator: He is in fact evading the block right now, and has been evading it for a while. He also emptied this talk page once while blocked already, so I don't think the standard offer is valid anymore. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 16:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Although no comment on Wyang and AryamanA's decision, but it should be noted that block evasion usually does not make standard offer invalid. It just reset the timer.--Zcreator (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Zcreator: I suppose that's fair. I still doubt Gfarnab will be able to not evade his block for 6 months. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I (am a very patient man who) can do that if @Wyang plights to unblock me by the 19th of July 2018
- Yet again, and even though “most administrators and the community accept as a common route to having a block reviewed”, Wyang fails to compromise and negotiate: you read it (not) here first. @AryamanA, @Zcreator, @Chuck_Entz, @Metaknowledge
- I wish y’all the best of success. उबाऊ शब्दावली (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- We're not Wikipedia. Also, शब्दावली means "glossary". —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I would gladly write with Gfarnab (were he not banned). I did not empty my talkpage as you claim: I tried to move the 2017 conversations to their respective archive (and found I could not do that with Gfarnab, so I tried to do it with a socket and thereat Wyang reverted it and later deleted part thereof: if you care about someone deleting content from my page write to him and not to me).
- यदि त्वम् संस्कृतम् लेखितुं शक्नोषि, संस्कृतम् लिख ॥ All the Sanskrit contributors have to devote time just to clean up your edits. Also, you called Wyang "Lenin", and now you claim you can negotiate reasonably with him? I don't mind blocking you another time. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- The use of adverbs hoping they reinforce your argument (in 2 short paragraphs we have “virtually”, “absolutely”, “extremely” and “incredibly”) shows you have not been trained in debate and that is why you feel the need to be dictatorial.
- Not tolerating (and not willing to compromise with) the variety of styles in editing or coding is what led you to clash with Rua: your “issue” with me is but a link of your manifest chain of conduct. Plus, I encourage you to remember that your original message called the Confucian quotes I added “completely ungrammatical”, and for that you have not yet apologized, nor admitted wrongdoing.
- मुह्यतमुहुः यतः लेनिनस्युः नलिलेख लल्यन्ते लेनिनिनलट्वां लोकेनलिलेख
- Re-infinitely blocked. How you can still have the courage to shamelessly defend your edits is unbelievable. Take a look at your edit. What a waste of time talking to you. Wyang (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I see no inkling of comprehension on your part of the real problem: an arrogant overconfidence in your ability to add content in languages you don't speak. It's one thing to understand a language. Speaking and writing competently is far more difficult- I'm not sure you've reached that level (at least not consistently or reliably). But you're going far beyond that: you're convinced that you're good enough to set standards for others to follow, to educate people in those languages. People who know far more than you do have been telling you you're not as good as you think you are and that you're making serious errors.
- You're rationalizing it all as other people being difficult and judgmental, but you're wrong. I've seen Wyang collaborating with just about everyone who knows the languages and is serious about doing things right, bending over backward to accommodate them and make their ideas work with his. AryamanA is young and idealistic and works hard to enable and cultivate contributors within his own area of knowledge. He's not an expert yet, but he's learning fast and he's open to suggestions and guidance from others who know more than he does. Neither of them is the petty, territorial type you seem to think they are. If your edits were actually any good, they'd be the first to say so. But they aren't.
- You strike me as someone with a natural talent for languages, which is a handicap as well as a gift: those of us without it had to learn to work within our limitations- but you haven't. Your limitations may be different from ours, but make no mistake- everyone has them. Until you learn that lesson, you'll always be at risk for a catastrophic failure you probably won't see coming. Consider yourself lucky it's just a conflict over an online dictionary, and not something that might destroy your life or career. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I gave you links to him confessing not to know Sanskrit and yet erasing my Sanskrit translations: you could have tackled that instead of telling me he “works hard to enable and cultivate contributors” (why would I be moved by you sharing your impressions when I presented proof of the contrary?). And I assume you have not read this from him, lest you willfully side with he who erst falsely accused me of insulting him (vd. supra) and then insulted me:
- कुछ नहीं आता इस बावले को, फिर भी अपने आप को ख़ुदा समझता है
- Neither have I seen you reminding Dick Laurent that “simply being "not as mean as the next editor could be" is no excuse for being uncivil”:
- 19 jan 2018 19:36 (overleg | bijdragen) heeft बावला (overleg | bijdragen) geblokkeerd voor de duur van onbepaald (aanmaken accounts uitgeschakeld, e-mail uitgeschakeld, kan eigen overlegpagina niet bewerken) (sockpuppet of famous psycho gfarnab)
- Whilst I did not insult anyone, I have been insulted.
- You also claimed “we all have limitations” (is that something you thought I didn’t know?), yet is me who is banned and not them. You wrote about my “arrogant overconfidence” (again: have you ever been convinced by adjectives?) and below you assert I am “rationalizing” and have not learnt to work within my limitations yet you offer no proof thereto and tell me, in lieu, about your cognitive limitations: quam rem, sodalis?.
- Moreover, the message above yours is Wyang again not rebutting my case but using more adverbs after I remarked that they do not further arguments, yet you aver it is me (who answered queries even though you have not addressed mines) the one having “no inkling of comprehension”.
- Thanks for all useful edits to the Wiktionary you have done throughout the years. झक्की (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I'm sorry for that, I was fed up after cleaning up dozens of your edits. I mostly got along with you before your block though, you can't have forgotten the first two convos on this talk page?
- I'm frustrated that you refuse to defer to editors who are more experienced in some of the areas you've edited. Why can't you accept that you might be wrong? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- You needn’t be sorry: I don't take insults on the internet personally.
- Re your second question: I have several times admitted wrongdoing here (see, eg, this) and learnt a lot from you. In fact, every “recoding” you make of my entries which I don’t rollback is a tacit, yet fully valid, admission that you know how to do that better than me. But maybe, judging from your question and Chuck’s comment above, you have crafted of me an opinion not congruent with all information available here.
- Re your first question: I have wis not forgotten. I was improving my editing skills until the ban, at which point, I’m sure you’ll understand, I found no incentive to improve in that department since no matter what my sockets were banned. This situation, you admit, has frustrated you and I am sorry to read that: the ban only made things worse, hence why I asked for it to be revised.
- Is up to you, Irman! झक्की (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello, please could you stop adding these translations from Globse. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Also, could you watch out for the full stop at the end of your etymology sections? Cheers. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- If you have any opinion on the wording of either 'Borrowed from...' or 'From...' please let me know. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Gfarnab cannot edit their own talk page, via the block from January 2018. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- That sure hasn't stopped him. Ever heard of sockpuppets? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I am just pointing out to Kaixinguo that he will get no "opinion" from Gfarnab user account. In my view, the most practical solution would be to unblock Gfarnab, and reblock for, say, a month, as soon as problematic behavior recurs, but do not block the talk page since posts to talk page usually do not harm the project. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- That's been done before and it didn't work. His talk page posts do harm the project (he has a tendency to make aggressive posts, borderline personality attacks), and in this "arrangement" his editing is tolerated as long as he doesn't do anything of that sort. I think it's working well so far, but I think it's too early to unblock this account. It would be a symbolic gesture anyways, it's not like he's stopped editing. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Re: "it's not like he's stopped editing": Right. And therefore, let us be nice on us (not on Gfarnab), and simplify the accounting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Gfarnab is a de facto editor of Persian, so we might as well discuss these minor formatting issues. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I think he looks at this page, anyway. But thanks for letting me know. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I couldn't ping you but if you have an opinion on this then please add it at Wiktionary_talk:About_Persian. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Kaixinguo~enwiktionary Why are you inviting a blocked user with multiple offenses?! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Atitarev I shan’t put words in his keyboard, but maybe ‘tis because he’s building community, as editors are meant to do. Do you, Anatoli, remember when you began reverting all my edits and you had to concede defeat shortly after? That was dumb. Smart is collaboration.
- Come on... that is uncalled for. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Atitarev: I left a message here because there have been either IP or new account edits in Persian for a while now that were not being addressed. User:AryamanA was sorting out the Hindi entries but these entries were just building up. I'm sure you realise this, but there's already a backlog going back a couple of years of entries by various users that need formatting, it doesn't need to be added to. GFarnab, that's not a dig at you, some of those entries are mine! Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Is fine, dude: one thing you don't have to care about here is not to offend me. Happy Easter!
- @Kaixinguo~enwiktionary I’ll answer here all topics you brought in my talkpage rather than in separate places:
- I can't stop adding Globse, nor Glosbe, translations because I never began doing such thing
- Rivers of pixels have been poured into the bor discussion and I have nothing to add thereto. The important thing is that we keep overall the same format, as we are doing, so that if in the future there is more -or just another- consensus all bor can easily be changed.
- The only capitalization I have seen in transliterations is to distinguish letters in the transliterated language (eg, pataka and paTaka to distinguish پتاکا and پٹاکا), thence the addition of other capital letters therein may cause a bit of confusion, at first, in some readers, but I deem that a fish too small for the big frying pan y’all seem to have in that regard. If more people don’t use the Persian Wiktionary is not because of our transliteration method, but because ‘tis comparably poor in lemmas: our main aim should thus be, for the nonce, to expand the lemmas and then, when we have Dehkhodalike quantity, focus on those aspects -like transliteration- wherein most users, fleeting as they are consulting the Wiktionary, will not even know that there could be a problem.
- (Tl;dr we rather not use capitalization from now on, but our time is better spent adding and improving Persian lemmas than discussing.)
- @Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: The blocked user is not entitled to any discussions, he can rant away here, since this page is unblocked and he will continue to abuse this community but please don't enable him by asking his opinion. He will only be able to edit existing entries. All new creations will be nuked, if I or other admin gets around to do it. If you think his block was unfair, bring it up in a proper place. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply