This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live. |
@Lo_Ximiendo, see answer at NOTICE. —Stephen (Talk) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
You changed Low German to German Low German. Despite the split being introduced some years ago, it can't be said that "German Low German" over "Low German" has a real consensus amongst the few editors. It's a bit of a sore spot and there's been multiple proposals to merge all back to simple Low German with no one really objecting but with nobody having a good plan on how to productively do it either. Currently, in terms of entries, 'Low German' is of roughly equal size as 'German Low German'. In the light of all of this, I'd personally prefer if you don't change language codes around, though from what I see on the grand scale, our Low German editors in total are in a sort of disarray with no one willing to make a strong effort for establishing either side over the other. Make of this info what you want. Korn (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
As a native, do you know whether this expression has a negative valoration of the result of the action (as thanks to has a positive perspective and because of is neutral). Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, please check these links. Some of these entries have crappy-presented etymologies, especially with compound word structuring that have not been fixed yet... — AWESOME meeos ! * (не нажима́йте сюда́ ) 08:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for improving my German entries. My knowledge of the language is only as a tourist. I am working my way through adjectives that are on the German Wiktionary but not on ours - some way to go. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. Your babel table could do with expanding.
Hi, I noted you converted {{l|en|...}}
to plain wikilinks in these two edits. (diff diff) It's no skin of my nose, but are there any particular reasons to prefer square brackets in those contexts? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(diff) Words with ص, ض, ع, ط, ظ, ح are almost exclusively directly from Arabic. In particular, the letter/phoneme ض (ḍ, “dhad”) is unique to Arabic, whence the nickname "the language of the dhad" (that is, it is not found in other Semitic languages). --Z 17:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Have I got this right? The definition doesn't seem to follow from the presumed etymology. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lo_Ximiendo I noticed that you have incorrectly edited the class of a number of words in German such as denken, rennen, nennen, etc. to strong. Know that strong verbs =/= irregular verbs. And these verbs are weak: their preterite have a dental stem added, and their vowel changes are caused by rückumlaut, not ablaut. Please undo these changes.
I ran across the entry アシペケッ (asipeket) while checking on some questionable anon edits. Further research suggests that this spelling is in error. Batchelor's 1905 dicitonary (https://archive.org/stream/ainuenglishjapan00batcuoft#page/n73/mode/2up/search/finger) lists a spelling of アシキペッ (ashikipet, see page 48), likely modernizing to アㇱキペッ (askipet), and indeed the Intermediate Ainu Dictionary (http://www.frpac.or.jp/teach/files/text-bihoro_tyu.pdf, Ainu-Japanese) lists アㇱケペッ (askepet) in its glossary (see page 87, left column towards the bottom; the PDF text is sadly not searchable using CTRL+F).
Do you have a source for アシペケッ? Is it possible that this is a misspelling? Or is this a valid alternative form? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant Ladon? If not, in what context did you encounter this?__Gamren (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And as for this: Dansk fremmedordbog gives the definition "det værdifuldeste kort i tarok", and it and “pagat” in Ordbog over det danske Sprog agree that it is derived from Italian pagato, past participle of pagare (“pay”), so named because "payment must always be made when the card appears". OTOH, your etym also seems plausible, though I'm not sure why < b > would become < p >. Perhaps it's a confluence?__Gamren (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
hey plz b careful with Shahmukhi spelling. for ਦੁੱਧ u put ددھ instead of correct دودھ . similarly u put لونبڑی instead of لومبڑی , the correct one for ਲੂੰਬੜੀ 61.69.208.200 08:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lo Ximiendo. Please don't remove the trailing full stop for Thai definitions. This has been discussed here, and most of the existing Thai entries are adhering to these rules of formatting to ensure a consistent manner in which content is delivered. Wyang (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello there. I saw you edited the چشم /// بی چشم و رو Persian word for eye page most recently and perhaps you could take a look at the new page I just created. Link given. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my error, I really messed up. Roybook1234 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There is in fact an image of it on Commons, but in my opinion it doesn't do a good job of demonstrating the vertical structure of the pastry, unlike many unavailable images. But feel free add that image if you want. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, this template isn't finished yet and will generate incorrect output for some words. Moreover, the written form of a word isn't always enough to predict the pronunciation, some vowels can be long or short and this isn't written. —Rua (mew) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have cleaned up the weekend about fifty entries almost exclusively by you of base stem Arabic verbs without the present vowel specified, which has wasted a whole day for me. Now I have also had to edit سِوَار (siwār). For you and the guy before have not included the plural forms of this word in it. Why do you do such things? Don’t you have any sources to get the complete information? Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 00:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You cannot claim to be unfamiliar with WT:CFI. It is unacceptable for you to defend adding a protologism with a web page when cites are not forthcoming. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You added the bird of prey definition to the first etymology, but that is incorrect. If you look at the Old High German roots, they have two different etymologies. That's why I added the second in the first place. Steapenhyll (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
On second inspection, I see that you added it before I finalized my edit. I've moved your definition down to the second etymology. Steapenhyll (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You should probably set up a page for Hokkien similar to the ones you've set up for the other lects. It's even more of a problem if you try to infer the readings because Min Nan (and other Min lects) often have multiple readings for the same family of meanings (literary vs. vernacular) and it is seldom used to read Standard Chinese, unlike Cantonese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't this just be put in 灶? 灶 is much more common nowadays, even in traditional Chinese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Those are not glosses. See {{gloss}}
and Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Variations for languages other than English. Wyang (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding Japanese terms in the Derived terms of Chinese entries. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
明心見性 does not derive from 明心 as far as I know. 〔哲〕 中國哲學術語,原為佛教禪宗的主要修養方法。意指「心」是可以轉變的(轉迷為悟),但佛「性」是永遠不變的。因此只要悟了自心本性(即佛性),就能成佛。後宋明理學家如陸九淵、王陽明用此術語,認為心、性、理都是一物,一切本來就存在於「心」中,不假外求,只要通過內省(明心)的功夫,就可以認識真理(見性)。 It seems to be 明 + 心. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi LoXi,
Just wanted to make sure you know what you're doing. Are you checking the pronunciation against Sealang or other dictionaries? Thanks if you do. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
hello LoXi, I just wanted to thank you for all the formatting help you did with these. It's a solid piece of work, much appreciated. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It contains a link to the German Wikipedia. Because this the English-language Wiktionary, it should link to the English Wikipedia. -- GreenC (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a source for these words' Hakka? I highly doubt that they're used in Hakka. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not infer readings based on the individual characters for any Chinese variety. While this may be right 90% of the time for Cantonese, I still don't think you should add them directly to entries. I've caught a few errors here and there (頭目, 裝車, 騎手). I suggest you make more of those pages like User:Lo Ximiendo/Min Dong Chinese for the other varieties that you don't already have pages for. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm seriously concerned. I don't want to be following you around, but I still see you adding Hakka to entries. If you really have valid Hakka sources for words that are less commonly used (e.g. literary terms or Buddhist terms), great; in this case, it'd be great to know what resources you're using. But it is absolutely unacceptable if you're still inferring readings for Hakka; in this case, I request that you stop adding such readings to the entries and make User:Lo Ximiendo/Cantonese Chinese, User:Lo Ximiendo/Hakka Chinese and User:Lo Ximiendo/Min Nan Chinese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)