User talk:Metaknowledge/2018

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Metaknowledge.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This page shows conversations on my talkpage from 2018.

Hello!

I got an Edit conflict. I saved my first edit too early. Now I cant save the perfectionized version as you rejected the latter in the meantime. How shall we proceed?

In God We Trrust (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)In_God_We_TrrustReply

Well, you can use the 'Preview' button to look over what you've done before you save it. I don't know which page you're referring to, but your recent edits have been very messy and of low quality. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the insult. You have to know, creating is much more difficult than destroying. Have you ever heart of the discussion page? It is meant for talking about mistakes... Never mind. It is the "penes" page. Are you willing to undo your delete, so my perfectionized version can be implemented?

In God We Trrust (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)In_God_We_TrrustIn God We Trrust (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you mean by a "perfectionized" version. You can edit that page yourself, but I'm not going to undo my revert of your messy and unhelpful additions. If you want to add something that is useful and looks okay, you're going to have to do that yourself. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes yes I know it's ugly and so on but why is it specifically worse than "an agenda" or "two stadiums"? Equinox ◑ 01:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because those are used in standard English, and this isn't. (Also, those are naturalised and this is a more recent loanword.) It's just as bad as phenomenas, which as of writing doesn't even have an entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Singular "phenomena" is pretty common, but I think people realise something is up when they try to put an s on it. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Any luck finding someone who could do the job?Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the Persian conjugation templates and their solution was to have a different one for each light verb which is... annoying. The upside is that it's not very complicated, and we could probably do that without too much trouble. A better approach would require asking somebody else for help (probably at the WT:GP, because I don't know anybody in particular with an interest in this). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good stuff. I made this list that I guess covers 95%+ of all compounded verbs. Whenever you feel for it, could you show me how to do it on the example of changing templates for the first two? And I will do the rest as the entries for terms including them show up. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I'll try to deal with it soon, but real life might get in the way. If I haven't done anything in a week, it means I forgot and you should bother me again. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Real life is good stuff as well. Plus I don't think I'm running a risk of running out of uncompounded terms to create in a week's time anyway. Unfortunately. :) Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Before the memory of this conversation has completely vanished, is there a way to make compound verbs to appear at categories by the verbal element, like in Category:Persian compound verbs by verbal element? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder. I'll work on that today. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! I also prefer to use the t= because it's explicit. Sometimes, if a blank argument is not inserted, it connects the link to the gloss... Using t= avoids all of that Leasnam (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you say, it's not necessary, but I feel it's less confusing Leasnam (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• It's not preferred, and in the case of a user who is not whitelisted, I don't want to waste my time patrolling edits where the only change is to add t=. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why the hell did you just block me for a year and undo all my edits? What the hell man? 2600:387:5:80d::95 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You know why. You've been blocked before for this: your edits are crappy, and you refuse to listen when you're told why. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, Wikitiki89, if you want to help me block him more effectively... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I refuse to listen? You said the reason was my edits on matzo prove that I'm unrealiable. What you don't realize was my edits to matzo weren't actually incorrect and in fact I've made no crappy edits whatsoever. Crappy would be making up shit or getting shit wrong. What I've done is 100% factual, and verified. You're just too much of stubborn cunts to admit that, so you continuously block me at every turn because you're so fucking convinced that you're wholly correct and I'm just the meager troll who gets kicks out of misidentifying etymologies, apparently. I'm not unreliable, you're just vindictive jerks. Well, block all ya want, protect all ya want, until I get what I want, as I've said, I'm never. Gonna. Stop.

Oh man, you get shit wrong all the time... y'know, the reason I noticed your edits this time around wasn't actually because I could tell it was you. I just saw that some of your Yiddish etymologies were flat-out wrong, and that's when I started reverting. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, really? Care to name one?

Sure, אַדורך and דאָקטער were ones I looked at that were terribly wrong. Many others were just somewhat wrong, or extremely messy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Really? The word in the German-Jewish language that sounds like “doctor” and means “doctor” doesn’t ultimately come from the word that the word “doctor” decelnsed from OR the German word for “doctor”, which might I add literally sounds the exact same? How do you figure that?

You see, this is the problem. They do share an origin, but whether that origin is after Latin is unclear to me. Now, you chose to make shit up, to use your way of speaking, namely that the Yiddish comes from Middle English. This seems exceedingly unlikely, and it is obvious why that is so if you bother to read a Wikipedia article or two. Sadly, you are too sure of yourself to recognise how little you know. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That’s why I said “ultimately” comes, because whether or not in came from German, Dutch, or whatever isn’t known, but the fact that it ultimately came from that Middle English word is true

But you're still wrong. You just don't get it; Middle English doesn't enter into the equation here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look honestly I’ll just cut all my bullshit and leave forever if you just restore my etymologies for matzo and Sodom. They are correct and verified, I promise you. I even cite Strong’s hebrew (in the case of מצה), that’s the only place I got the info from. If you still don’t believe me…please, please just look at the citation. Or better yet, google the etymologies and see if anything different comes up!

Unfortunately, this ISP is very random in their allocation of IPs, so long-term blocks are a bad idea. There are at least two regulars who have edited from the same 65-bit IPv.6 range in the past few months. I've made them IP-block exempt to be on the safe side, and you can prevent collateral damage from IPs by leaving autoblock unchecked, but that won't help random IPs. I can tell them apart from this person (confirmed as who you think they are, by the way), but not if they're blocked from editing in the first place. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I blocked the IP for a year because it was the same one he used in April 2017, displaying remarkable consistency (how does that work, if the ISP is very random?). Anyway, on an unrelated topic, while I was digging around, I saw Special:Contributions/Parsa obsessed with Bahá'i. I feel like we had someone with that obsession before (or am I conflating it with a vague memory of PaM?). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, this particular IPv.6 64-bit range (2600:387:5:80D::/64) doesn't seem to overlap, but the results I got when I checked the 2600:387:5:803::/64 range (used by the same person) showed that it's possible.

As for the Bahai edits: Pass a Method edited some of the same entries, as did BedrockPerson and יבריב. Parsa isn't the same as either of those that I can check (BedrockPerson was blocked too long ago for the checkuser tool, but I saved information from יבריב before they got too old). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Chuck Entz, hoping you can look again at all the new IPs and see if there's a more efficient way to go about this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Metaknowledge: Do you have the authority to delete an entire entry? If so, could you please delete bajoocho, which I incorrectly back-formed from the plural bajocchi. The correct singular is bajocco, where I put the correct definition. I have been unable to figure out how to delete bajoccho, however. Thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Done. In the future, you can place the {{delete}} template on such an entry, with the first parameter being where you can put an explanation of what went wrong. Cheers! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, do you want to be a bureaucrat? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, and we have no need of any more active 'crats anyway. Stop stirring up trouble. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're the boss, but I'd hardly call that "stirring up trouble." --Rerum scriptor (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Wondering why the revert on relish. Comparing our entry with the Webster 1913 one, most of it has been directly lifted. --Gente como tú (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised you actually compared it. Anyway, the solution is to rewrite it a bit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, lol. I surprised myself, too. You got the solution right, of course. I'll reinstate the tag, and hopefully someone will come along, see the tag, and rewrite it a bit...--Gente como tú (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, don't put it in the pronunciation section. It can go at the very bottom of the entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lol, thanks MK. I think this entry is on one of my cleanup lists anyway, so I may get round to cleaning it up before the year 2020 is out. --Gente como tú (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Concerning this edit , I can't see the relation between malagan and periods/tampon. My english is bad but i understant that malagan is related to death and masks. -- AvatarFR (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Shocking though it may be, multiple languages can have a word that looks the same and means different things. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A different IP has made similar edits at Abiquiú and on the rest of the site (such as Hebrew entries). Special:Contributions/47.21.27.58. IIRC this is a recurring vandal who you know well. Just letting you know in case you want to take care of it. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I usually run into him just by patrolling RC and noticing his characteristic trail of shittiness. You can feel free to revert him on sight as well, you know. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had two questions about foreign word of the day: 1. Are you all right with suggesting word pairs under general nominations and 2. do you think a pseudo-anglicism focus week would work? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. I think word pairs should be limited to focus weeks, but I could potentially be convinced otherwise.
2. We have featured pseudo-anglicisms in general "words derived from English" focus weeks before, like Dutch loverboy; I would welcome a week devoted to them alone if you can make it happen. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. Okay, I was thinking of nominating the pair aalscholver and schollevaar, which could also go into an anagram focus week.
2. I'll make a section for it right away. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

   Okay, I've added a couple, but I can't add pronunciations for them. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then, Where do I put that true phrase, that every time I put it on any side of the article you delete it--ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The definition is already in the entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

often rendered as 'WuHan'“WuHan: HYDAC”, in (Please provide the book title or journal name)‎, HYDAC, 2018 February 2 (last accessed) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's not an appropriate way to show it. You can discuss issues relating to Chinese toponyms with @Justinrleung. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: I don't think it's common to use this type of capitalization. One source doesn't make something common... — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Plus it's not even used in the web page itself. It's just used in the title. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can change the word 'often' if you think in your little corner of the internet that Wuhan is rarely if ever spelled WuHan and Chinese location words only have only one "correct" romanization, but I think this is actually a pretty common rendering of the romanization of WuHan in Wuhan. If you go to the history of the WuHan page on Wikipedia, you'll see there was someone in 2014 who said the same thing- "(Some Chinese writing in Pinyin Capitalize each syllable: "Wuhan" or "WuHan")". I see it all the time. If that page doesn't meet your standards, I'll be on the watch for more examples. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: In English, it's most often written as Wuhan, not as WuHan, because it is quite uncommon to have capitalization for each syllable. Sure, it could be somewhat common in Chinese contexts, but for English, we'll definitely need more solid evidence (see WT:ATTEST). A title on a Chinese web page won't do it. Anyhow, your edit to the entry was out of place. Information about capitalization is not quite related to the etymology. It should be under an "alternative forms" header. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Check out https://www.thefreedictionary.com/eventual to see the "archaic" (still used though, especially in AmE) meaning of eventual as contingent/possible/likely/potential. Also see https://books.google.com/books?id=ETXa4Y6HkFcC&pg=PA266&dq=eventual+potentiality+sense&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_07eRsZ3ZAhWSCOwKHb6CCjgQ6AEIKDAA

Hey. Why do you think I'm pretending to be WF? --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had a communication with him (see my talk page). What did he do to get banned? DonnanZ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

See my block summary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had already read that. Behaviour like WF? It's obviously someone who knows their way round. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it *is* WF. They were making many Spanish stubs very quickly. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think WF is impersonating me: Pas un coiffeur = PUC = Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm concerned he made a genuine request which I was quite happy to comply with, a job that needed doing. DonnanZ (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC).Reply

Seems unlikely to me, as I haven't seen him put that kind of effort into impersonating somebody for years, and I don't see why you would deserve it. But if that were true, it wouldn't change anything, because I block WF now and then for fun. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reciprocation? Anyway, osef, as we say in French. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

So... impersonating WF is more common than I thought... PseudoSkull (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you please try to contain your inner censor until an entry is at least complete. Also, please don't use reversion to attempt to impose your own personal standards on entries. DCDuring (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I cannot determine when you have finished an entry. Perhaps if you use the 'Preview' feature, you can publish the entry when it is ready for others to edit it.
If you want to include encyclopaedic descriptions, I suppose I shouldn't stop you. But I am not happy with your removal of two things I added to the entry: firstly, the common English name of the organisms in that taxon, and secondly, the direct etymon in the etymology. Can you explain why these two things, which are standard in taxonomic entries, do not belong in this one in particular? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the removals. But tabulate is hardly a common name and is a trivial derivative of the entry name. I am getting tired of an endless stream of new entries of the form id "Any member of the family idae", which don't give a clue about the type of organism or why a user might care. As to the etymology, in this particular case it is important that the sense of tabula that leads to tabulate be clear. In this case the definition is not obvious, nor was it present in the entry for tabula.

Using preview woulds be nice were it not for the fact that doing so loses content when I go to chains of links to complete the entry. You might try giving the entry twenty minutes or so, if not longer. DCDuring (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is a common name. When someone shows me one, that's the word I use. And it's hardly trivial to expect users to know that members of Tabulata are called tabulates, but members of Rugosa are called rugosans. This is obviously not predictable.
I have no idea what you mean when you're talking about losing content. You do realise that you can use multiple tabs at once, right? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I lose content from the edit window. DCDuring (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suppose what annoys me about tabulate, id, ine, etc. is that they are often the sole element in the definiens. That just seems lazy or perhaps merely neglectful of readers who would benefit from something more than a translation from one technical vocabulary (scientific Latin) to another (biology/taxonomy/paleontology-speak). A definition is not the same as a translation. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring, that should definitely not be happening. If you preview a page and right-click a link, you should be able to open it in new tab. If that doesn't make sense to you, tell me what type of computer and browser you're using and I can explain in a more detailed way. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see. I have so many open tabs (and some windows) that I've been trying to click from the preview window to other websites. THAT's where the problem arises. I'll try it some other way, such as you suggest. DCDuring (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

With most browsers, if you leave the preview page to go to a different website and then go back, what you input will still be there. But there's a limit to how I can help you if you won't tell me your computer and browser. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lately, I've been using Chrome (previously, recently Firefox) on Windows 10. Within one version of the latest.

The problem arises mostly when I follow a chain of urls. DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then you should have no problem right-clicking every time you go to a new website. You can delete your tabs when you're done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

re:"Any member of the" entries: those are from Equinox's mass creation of substub "-id" entries. As I work on categories, I convert these into stub entries with the appropriate categories and taxlink. As far as I'm concerned, those are really low on the priority list. I've been doing a lot of these lately, and I'm going to be doing a lot more, so it might be a good idea to skip these for a while to preserve your sanity (if, as a hardcore Wiktionary editor, you even have any...) Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

i am a bad man <3 Equinox ◑ 03:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I like these entries and I think you should create more. DTLHS (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Are you all right mate? Please don't be so tough on yourself. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just want to say that I was hanging around Meta's page like a punk and this made me laugh so hard. I genuinely can't tell if DTLHS was ironically telling me to stop, or actually liked my bot work. I used to mix up his name, I had to teach myself that it's LHS (left-hand side), um, I dunno what the DT part is. Metaknowlegde cannot edit my remark because you can't change other people's comments. SIC. Equinox ◑ 01:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hope you don’t mind, I tried adding etymologies to סילאן and עדי. I’m not trying to incite anything, I just don’t want to seem double-handed about it. AncientEgypt23 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't do it. Vorziblix has already saved me the trouble of reverting them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please help me in removing transliterations of Urdu, Persian & Arabic languages from Urdu Wiktionary?— Bukhari (Talk!) 06:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

No. That's why I pinged Aryaman. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

(Feel free to retitle this section) It is my earnest belief that while ‘dumb’ has a comparative, ‘dumb as a bag of hammers’ does not. Someone who is dumber than someone who is dumb as a bag of hammers is dumber than a bag of hammers, true, but you can't say someone is more X, where X is the quality of being as dumb as a bag of hammers, without convoluted circumlocutions like the previous phrase, and anyway, ‘he's dumber than a sack of hammers than John Doe’ is completely ungrammatical due to trying to compare to too many things. I think you get the point. (I may have been editing from somewhere else — my IP was 137.99.174.138 then — but the fact remains that it's the same laptop and no-one else has an account on it) 50.28.128.221 07:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. I don't use this idiom myself, but I'm now unsure of what exactly ought to be done with dumber than a bag of hammers — is an an alternative form, perfectly synonymous? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Either that, or add it to Category:English autological terms... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's nearly synonymous when used alone, but when used together they contrast; someone who is dumber than a sack of hammers is at least a little stupider than someone who is merely as dumb as one. (Former IPs: 50.28.128.221 and 137.99.174.138.) 50.28.147.85 07:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well I tried. Thanks for not letting my mediocre entry mess things up. I didnt think it was that bad though. But then again Im not formally educated as Im sure you are. I know my slang/street code terms though. Thought maybe what little knowledge i do have could be of some use. But not here i guess. EvilYve (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't good enough, no. It was misspelled, written like Urban Dictionary, and placed right in the middle of a Latin entry. The correct entry already existed at leño. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

We should have something there, word shows up in all kinds of Romanian-language articles, "brought" is what Google Translate suggests. Do you know a better translation? We shouldn't just say it's a Latin word. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are many, many words that we lack, but if you can't add even a basic entry in those languages, you shouldn't do it. Relying on Google Translate for your entries is unacceptable, and if it continues, will result in a block. Post at WT:RE:ro or ask someone like @Robbie SWE if you need Romanian entries created. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ScratchMarshall  Done. I added the request, and pinged Robbie. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Done, aduse has a Romanian section now. It is actually an adjective form. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I will make a note on my userpage to remind me about WT:RE and use that in the future. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you delete the page হোৱা? Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't looking very carefully, but you'd marked a template for deletion and it transcluded onto the page using that template, making me think you wanted that page deleted as well. I've restored it now, but you've got a couple failing templates to fix there. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

And should not be ignored.  And yet "we do not create case-forms of Korean words" explains why one out of three of the words I look up are not listed, forcing me to go to that abomination called Google Translate.  Perhaps this rule is not very helpful. — This unsigned comment was added by 伟思礼 (talk • contribs).

You can continue the discussion where I started it, on your talk page. In any case, Wyang has now created a redirect, so it takes you to the correct entry. But in general, anyone above a very basic level in learning Korean should be able to apply these rules on their own and look up words in a normal dictionary. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Starting from what date does Wiktionary consider the lect derived from Dutch spoken in southern Africa to have become Afrikaans? 1700, 1750, 1800, later still? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a thorny problem, because it isn't well-suited to having a cutoff. The English-Middle English cutoff is useful because the two languages are not mutually intelligible in their respectively best attested forms, and that Middle English had low enough prestige that it wasn't really written after its time. Such a cutoff would fail here because Afrikaans and Dutch retain a great deal of mutual intelligibility, and because Dutch was vastly more prestigious than Afrikaans. Afrikaans speakers educated enough to do so would write in Dutch far after Afrikaans began to be documented.

I would recommend that early Afrikaans be diagnosed by its characteristic loss of morphology and by a conscious attempt on the part of the writer to transcribe spoken usage. Arabic Afrikaans, which abandons Dutch orthographic norms wholesale by switching script, was the earliest example I could think of, but Wikipedia mentions texts going back to a doggerel verse from 1795, certainly a stage at which nearly all written material belongs in the (currently redlinked) Category:South African Dutch. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that morphology and orthography are the best guide to identifying written Afrikaans. But some sort of cutoff date may be useful for etymologies, if only to distinguish between inherited and borrowed terms. E.g. I recently added fiets as a borrowing, presuming that it was too late to be inherited, but that may have to be changed. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that there's even a meaningful distinction to be made there. The individual speakers in Africa got the actual bicycles, and thus the word for them, directly from the individual speakers in Europe. The word was unequivocally borrowed between lects, but whether or not those lects were separate languages is almost immaterial. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Righto. Another question, what convention to transcribe a "short a" phoneme must be used? Afrikaans phonology, to which the IPA template links, uses /a/ but it mentions alternative notations. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, although in broad transcription, it would make the most sense to use /a/ by the rule of using the simplest scheme (which we don't often follow...). I don't do Afrikaans IPA any more, ever since I realised that I pronounce some of the vowels a bit off and I don't want to insert anything incorrect in our entries. @Naudefj might be able to help you on that front. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This may help: Uitspraakwoordeboek van Afrikaans. Regards. Naudefj (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was that very useful source's use of /ɑ/ (for which we would probably use /ä/, see page ix (pdf: 9); also they use /a/ in Afrikaanse fonetiek, pages 32, 46, 50) and the contrast with Wikipedia's /a/ that made me wonder about what system to use. I'll ask Mr KEBAB about it. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is indeed sockpuppeting, but some of the newer edits can't be worse than the ones they left behind months ago (like 𒂗𒈗𒋀), can they? (Just wondering if reverting everything is a bit excessive... might as well delete the original entry itself in the cases?) —suzukaze (t・c) 04:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

They apparently have a limited capability to learn, so I see no reason that the newer edits are any better than the older ones. I meant only to leave edits that @Vorziblix had checked, but I see that entry slipped through (like many others, sadly) — it can be deleted unless someone checks it now. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You deleted the page ataxiophobia for being a "creative invention"...despite being well attested to? Mind explaining that? FourMastab (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have already explained on your talk page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Do you know why the templates {{quote-book}}, {{quote-web}} etc. don't automatically create category addition to "X-language terms with quotations" if the passage is added into |passage=}}? Is it really supposed to be that way? As it is now, tons of quotations are added to all sorts of languages without the terms being listed in the category. I think it's useful to be able to search for terms with quotations, for various purposes. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. @Sgconlaw? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The original templates that I worked on didn't have this feature either. The issue is that the templates would have to be updated to allow one to specify the language of a quotation, and I'm afraid that is probably beyond my coding capabilities as I'm not familiar with Lua. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you. I should request an update on Grease pit, then. That is, if it's not too big of a project to ask someone to do there. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my additions? Do you even check to see if a word is attested?

The word is attested:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=V5f7RBgYVjQC&pg=PA625&lpg=PA625&dq=vetustity&source=bl&ots=lPe1tABIBY&sig=o4_BpPER_VsiPGXh2TMmWFIjXDs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQt8Oi89rZAhUEL6wKHXriCiQQ6AEINDAB#v=onepage&q=vetustity&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=f79ZzLC_4JsC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=vetustity&source=bl&ots=Lcn78VFgQl&sig=B_0g2-FUHtnuhqqpsFL--s7ndCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQt8Oi89rZAhUEL6wKHXriCiQQ6AEIPjAD#v=onepage&q=vetustity&f=false

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/acp/cr/772/772490/772490en.pdf

--Tataryn (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I actually did; when I saw less than a page of Google results, only two of which were from independent books, I assumed it was a protologism. I am happy to see that one of the non-book results was this EU report which is presumably durably archived, so I have restored the entry, and given it the well-earned context label (rare). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Are you sure that the case of the clock in the picture at the entry pendlovky can be called "a glass case"? It seems to me that "glassed" is better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The word glassed is fairly uncommon in English, and it sounds less natural in this context. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. I just thought that "glassed case" suggests that the case is completely made of glass, which Google pictures seem confirming. Our entry glassed does not suggest that it is uncommon, so I thought it is OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What about "glazed"? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have changed it for "glazed", if you disagree, feel free to revert it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is even worse, I'm afraid. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

That makes it sound like a glaze has been applied to its surface. I can see your point about calling that a "glass case", but I don't think we have a a way of making this distinction in English using a single word. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a native speaker and voracious reader, I didn't even realise that "glassed" could mean "having glass on it". To me it's only a word that means having a glass smashed on you, like "he got glassed in the pub". Equinox ◑ 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

And note that plasticked isn't even a word. Equinox ◑ 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now look what you've done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is. I can only assume that the folks using "henna" as a translation must have intended both the plant and the dye, unless they say otherwise. Have you heard of talk pages as a less aggravating tool than reversion? DCDuring (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The key is that you shouldn't assume things, because that's how inaccuracies get in the dictionary. Hebrew Wikipedia confirms that a different word is used for the plant. Also, for other readers, this is in relation to the page חינה, not the page henna. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why are the overwhelming proportion of translations of polysemic words added without glosses if this is such a major issue? We make assumptions all the time and need to to make progress. We are still in the position of making draft entries, not finished ones, in case you hadn't noticed. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I should have added that gloss to begin with. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Aearthrise multam dicit salutem tibi. I see that you have made a large number of nominations; as it is my first time creating a nomination, I would like to know if I've effected the addition correctly for ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ. Gratias.

--Aearthrise ^{(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ)} 18:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure; as I haven't studied Coptic, you might well be better off asking @Vorziblix, say. For example, I don't understand the initial ̀ in the headword line, nor am I sure if this is supported as a separate entry at all, since it seems to be the definite form of ⲟⲩⲣⲟ (ouro). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The intial ̀ is a diacritic, the jinkim, that only occurs in some Bohairic-dialect texts; its original intended function is somewhat disputed, but most likely it marked syllabicity, or perhaps in some cases an epenthetic vowel. We usually have it in the headword line but not in the entry name because it doesn’t consistently appear and isn’t traditionally included in dictionary lemmata.

On the matter of definiteness, this is indeed ⲟⲩⲣⲟ (ouro) with a clitic definite article attached (at least from a synchronic perspective; from a diachronic perspective the form with ‘article’ was primary). Presumably the definite article shouldn’t be included in the entry name, so it should be merged into ⲟⲩⲣⲟ (ouro). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metaknowledge, I was looking to edit the Proto-Celtic noun and adjective templates to mirror the cases (adding locative and ablative) given on Wikipedia, but I think I may have to delegate this to someone more techy, if you knew best who to ask?

On begrebsforvirring: yes, you’re right, apologies, I read 'imprecise technology'. Gherkinmad (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Best that whatever you do be based on scholarly sources, not just Wikipedia. I would make @JohnC5 do it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Gherkinmad: Yes, if you could provide sources concerning Continental Celtic cases, I'd be prepared to look into it. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 19:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: @JohnC5: Dammit: Coccionos, who put them in the article, apparently knew which sources but didn’t specify, which is highly irritating. Gherkinmad (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey ! The first syllable vowel seems tricky in this word. The PGmc form *kiukīną would certainly make it long (as OE *ċīecen, ċīacen, ċȳcan, ċīcen); however, we find attested the nom/acc plural ċicenu, ċicceno, which for neuters can only mean that the vowel is short (< PGmc *kukkīną ?, diminutive of *kukkaz). I've expanded both entries (ċicen, ċȳcen) to accommodate both. Your thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, my first reaction is that I don't know why you've asked me in particular, as I'm no expert on Old English. But my line of thought is that the PGmc indicates that we have an inherited long vowel, and OE metrical rules operate on the plural to reduce it to a short vowel. I don't know the conventions for indicating that in the article, but the one thing I am sure we should not do is provide a declension table with an unattested (AFAIK) plural cicen as a seemingly equal alternative to the actually attested cicenu. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought that as a possibility as well, that the vowel became short over time. I brought this to you because I thought that you changed the Pronunciation and Headwords form. I see now that I was mistaken :( (sigh). My bad. Okay, I believe we're dealing with a cicen (short vowel), and the variants ciacen and cycen are unclear. They could be long or short, we don't know. I will proceed from what we can be certain of. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metaknowledge!

While I am happy to read "Wiktionary does not have any English dictionary entry for this term. This is because the term, though it may be attested, is not idiomatic or fails to meet our criteria for inclusion in another way." regarding "fringe science", I'm also hoping you can point me to "fails to meet our criteria for inclusion in another way". I was thinking of an alternative definition: the science, or sciences, of fringes. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• <butting in>We used to have a reasonable definition of "fringe science", and Wikipedia still has an entry for it. It was the subject of a "Request for Deletion" and was deleted and replaced with a "no entry" template in December last year. Not all of us approved of this change. Among the Google book search hits, none supports the definition of "science of fringes". </butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for butting in! I naively wrote into a bit of a controversy and both points of view are helpful. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Applying the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion has demonstrated why the policy usurpation of the term "fringe science" does not qualify for Wiktionary. As Joseph Armstrong, a reviewer and author put it "But the fact that some real fringes lend themselves to scientific study, albeit minor phenomena, doesn’t change the desire to expose or illustrate those things out on the real edges of science. Unfortunately, such terms do tend to get usurped." So, the scientific study of fringes, albeit minor phenomena, appears to pass for inclusion in Wiktionary. My review is here on Wikiversity. I have no desire to embroil Wiktionary in this mess. Comments and criticisms, or suggestions welcome. On the other hand, I could try to create an entry and let the deletion process do its thing. --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Do not create an entry you think will trigger the deletion process. That's a waste of everybody's time. As Semper already told you, and as you seem to acknowledge, the term is apparently not attested in that sense and does not meet our Criteria for inclusion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you both for your comments! They are much appreciated! --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Μετάknowledge. I have given you the rules for Ngazidja Comorian classes on my discussion page. I think it will be easy for you to create a template similar to the Maore Comorian template. If something is not clear or if you need more explanations, please let me know. After that, we could deal first with Maore Comorian and then with Ngazidja Comorian verbs.--Echtio (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I'm watching your page. I already did most of the work on it ({{zdj-noun}}), but I'm just too busy today to add the finishing touches. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Thank you for your quick answer.--Echtio (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Metaknowledge, am happy you are excited to help me improve the Igbo Wiktionary. Right now, it is still in incubator and am trying to bring in more editors to work with me so we can get it out of there. However, you can help me look at it in Incubator and tell me what i can do to improve on it or better still, improve the interface for me. Thank you.--Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Uzoma Ozurumba, thank you for contacting me. I'm glad to see that you're forging ahead with the Igbo Wiktionary, and it looks like a good start. There is a great deal of infrastructure (modules and templates) that you'll need in order to take advantage of how a Wiktionary like the English one functions, but that can all wait until after it leaves the incubator. I don't speak Igbo at all, so I don't know of a way I can help, but if anything comes up where you think I could be of use, please don't hesitate to ask.

On a somewhat different topic, I am always interested in improving the Igbo content here at the English Wiktionary, which is currently shamefully poor. I understand that you may well be occupied with creating the Igbo Wiktionary, but if you want to do any work here, I would certainly appreciate it, and I can help you create the infrastructure here that perhaps you can eventually modify and import for the Igbo Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Nice to still see you active on this site! I think I'm going to come back to this project again. I know that the last time I was here, I might've made some mistakes, and I did promise that I would mark for deletion any pages that I think would not meet the verification processes here on this site. I am going to go through and do this now. Razorflame 02:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You just marked one (levstango) for speedy deletion that is actually attested, though. Going overboard in the opposite direction is no more helpful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. I shall look at the ones that I have on my list a bit more carefully :). Please also forgive me as I have just come back after like 4 years away :) Razorflame 03:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. An ambitious play you made in the competition. Please add entries for rodiace and anything red in reg, olr, dua, ieb, anoo, ctwt, esex. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. A couple of the red ones have different spellings, though: ǫlr, IEB, CTWT, Esex. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. I thought esex (cybersex?) would be the one you'd create. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was having trouble finding cites for it, at least with a consistent spelling, but I think it's probably real. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd say anything appearing in Quijote automatically counts. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I always loved that scene where Quijote has esex with Sancho Panza. Classic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I still haven't read the book, something I'm pretty embarrassed about. But I could envisage an XXX version - pollón Quijote de la Mancha, por ejemplo --Cien pies 6 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does the usage of monophyletic in the definition make sense? DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No. Our entry is atrocious, so I can forgive you for not understanding how to use it. In any case, a taxon can be monophyletic, but the orchids themselves cannot. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your substitution seems wrong, as it contains an HTML comment and a category. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't actually check to see whether it could be substed... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The latest Etymology Scriptorium post, that you reverted, tried to suggest looking for a correlation. Do you take Issue with that specifically? When at least three languages have terms for certain bowl shaped objects on the one hand, that are homonymous in each respective language with simple cloth objects like scarfs or sacks, then I find that. I don't think that's objectional.

I have to concede my writing might be hard to follow, but I hope the above mentioned conclusion was obvious enough. I try to be careful not to jump to conclusions. I mostly stated facts. I found it noteworthy that at least some of these have synonyms rooted in meanings related to cutting. Trying to explain that succinctly is difficult for me.

Communication works well in dialog, but if you disrupt the discussion, that's hard to achieve. Contrary, you allege my posts were disruptive and a waste of time. I think that's hypocritical, because I'd appreciate constructive critique.

I can see how my posts might raise more red flags, clearly not here to build a dictionary, axe to grind, unprofessional (no pants no service in stackexchange parlance), own research. Did I miss anything? I must be, because none if that is disruptive.

I mean, I understand you are trying to attract professional contributors. I should probably learn a dozent languages, but in the mean time I see myself as a heavy user to give feedback. If I suggest to look for better sources and there are non, that's not my fault. I should go looking for sources, but it's not my field, I wouldn't know where to beginn with or I didn't have much luck, so, yeah I am asking for help. So, my axe may be blunt, but I'm not asking anyone to clean up a mess that I left in entries. Which seems to be the more common problem with OR. Instead, if I want to see my opiniin reflected here, that might well require a change of my opinion instead ... if I was wrong, which is up for debate. E. G. "probably from semitic" is not satisfactory either way, if Bekes actually gives Akka. , Syr., etc. source terms. I wouldn't feel comfortable to edit Akkadian. And I don't feel comfortable blindly copying sources either. Whether sound judgement about sources is OR in the sense of w:WT:NOR is besides the point, because sources in scientific literature are not ment to derive arguments from authority instead of linking a work for sake of discoverability, not merely credibility.

That's an interesting point worth discussing because for ancient languages the rules of attestation are much more difficult. And I fear this is somewhat out of scope for the project. But certainly not in the Etymology scriptorium. The general idea here seems to encourage learning from experienced users. So my posts are to be understood as that, even if try to speak with authority. So, I'm sorry if am now directing this at you directly, but you are drawing attention and I hope you were not acting in jest or out of spite. Rhyminreason (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea, I'll ask native speakers to review the entries. And instead of clicking the Random Page link on other Wiktionaries, next time I'll look up words in online dictionaries (particularly ones that look official and reliable).

Also, I have a question about a different topic: what kinds of colloquial English terms are allowed to be added? I've seen/heard some of them used to a high extent, but they don't have their own pages on Wiktionary. Do they need to be accepted by widely-known reputable dictionaries before they can be added to Wiktionary?

- Sir Beluga (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sir Beluga: Please see WT:ATTEST. To summarise, an English word has to be used (not mentioned) at least three times by three different people spanning over a year in durably archived media, like Google Books, Usenet, or anything that's printed. (Also, it's customary here to respond at the same place a message was left in the first place.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that with certain languages (like Spanish), entries I have seen include a simple es-IPA tag to generate an IPA pronunciation for the word, since Spanish pronunciation nearly matches the spellings. How accurate would you say these tags are, and should I add them to Spanish entries that already exist? (I decided to reply to you here because I'm not sure if you would have seen my reply if I replied to you on my page.) - Sir Beluga (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't add automatic pronunciation templates unless you understand the pronunciation of the target language, and how that is represented in IPA. They aren't perfect and their output has to be verified. DTLHS (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, being it's a natural language. What about adding that type of tag to an entry for a constructed language, like Esperanto? In that language, every letter makes the sound of only one phoneme, and words must be pronounced exactly as they are spelled. - Sir Beluga (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mostly that's true, except for compound words such as vesperstelo where the module will not syllabify it correctly. DTLHS (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sir Beluga, importing words from dictionaries, however "official" they are, and then asking native speakers to review them will not do. You have to be familiar with the language, otherwise you will make mistakes all the time (as you did in կազմակերպում (kazmakerpum)). Native speakers have better things to do. --Vahag (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey again. Can you point to the words that should be played in our penultimate round of WT:FUN. GGEV, LNAI, eaur, śnią, oel all look valid but I'd like no red links before the final letters are placed on the board. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are we nearing the end? I can probably do it today, but I'm a little short on time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, just 5 tiles left in my green bag. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done, and fixed the links in your comment above to the entries I created. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cool. For the last round, you can add yourself to the page. I shan't be using email. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• So, apparently you have now won this game twice in a row. It'd be fun to take you on one-on-one some day (maybe in real life?). Also, perhaps you can organise the next Wiktionary game. Keep up the excellent work, MK. --Genecioso (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Genecioso (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  The only reason I won is because Gloves isn't around any more. I'd love to play you, but I don't expect I'll be in Europe any time in the near future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Aah, Gloves, RIP. --Genecioso (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am registering a long-term pattern of your rude behavior toward me. I wish you to stop. A last instance is diff, where you write: "Here is a warning that I am more accustomed to giving newcomers, but apparently you need to hear it: ...". What is the purpose of that statement other than inflamming any subsequent communication? Why would "Please do not create entries in languages you do not know and have not studied" not be enough to start a conversation? You might also write "I do not think it a good idea to create entries in languages you do not know and have not studied"; that would be much more friendly and invite a discussion rather than mere obedience. As for the matter itself, I disagree with you, on my talk page. Here, my point is simply, please don't go out of your way to be rude and write things that inflame while contribute nothing to the substance of the communication. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is interesting; I've long perceived you as the most consistently and thoroughly rude of our major editors. I wonder if it's mostly cultural differences. — Zack. — 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Qehath: This is interesting; I've long perceived you as the most consistently and thoroughly rude of our major editors. I wonder if it's mostly cultural differences. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: That could be; it's not as if we are a homogeneous people like the Japanese. I think it's more likely that it's because I do not initiate conversations and most of the people who talk to me are doing so because they're upset with something I've done, meaning they're not likely to be sweet, meaning neither am I.

Also, I am not a major editor by any stretch of the imagination. — Zack. — 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

So do multiple other editors in the failed admin vote so there must be something to it. But what is the explanation? Is what I wrote above wrong? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course, it is a bit harder to take something like that seriously from someone who writes "Most importantly, anything is possible if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" and "If you bite, (or if you're just a tool, or if I'm just in a foul mood,) I might bite back" on their talk page; and I have seen much worse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a matter of perspective, so I wouldn't say right or wrong. From my perspective it seems overly sensitive. Like yes, I also would have found MK's wording irritating; but also if I had to tell a long-time major editor not to edit stuff they're not familiar with, I probably would have been way less diplomatic.

(I recognize that I am among the "rude" editors. But you'll also notice that I am significantly less likely to interact with other editors than you are. I work on entries and mostly leave people alone. When they come at me with stupidity, that's when I react poorly. I also don't need to defend my talk page; the first part is a reaction to people here who think their ignorance is as valuable as my research. The other is a warning that if you're rude to me I'm going to be rude back. Seems reasonable to me.) — Zack. — 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• You're both not very polite, in my opinion, but it doesn't bother me. As for Dan's analysis of my message, the first statement was, as Dick notes, an expression of disappointment that I have to leave this kind of a message for somebody who should know better. The second statement could not be reworded in the more indirect way you would have preferred, because I wasn't trying to "invite a discussion"; I was giving you a warning. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Since this is about long-term pattern, even if you are right on this item (which I do not admit to be the case), another recent example is in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Unifying on Inflection heading, where you wrote "The issue here is your ignorance of Irish", although my knowledge of Irish is not the matter of the vote at all. Let me just ask you: when an occassion arises when you feel you need to mention me or talk about me, please consider whether omitting any mention of me would not be more civil or less inflammatory, especially when that mention is not key to the matter discussed, given your long-term aversion toward me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have come to enjoy Meta's well-intention nagging edit summaries. "Don't format Greek like that, and stop leaving your clothes on the floor!" Equinox ◑ 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: He tells it like it is, not worrying about dispensing with pleasantries. I find Metaknowledge's bluntness rather enjoyable. Aearthrise (𓂀) 07:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Two distinct meanings are present:

• “in spite of the fact that” means “bien que” or “quoique”, yes, and other words could even be added;
  
• “but” does not mean “bien que” or “quoique”, but at least “mais”.
  

I can leave you some links about all this if you wish.

→ Revisions I would like you rollback:

• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=although&oldid=49509315
  
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mais&oldid=49509316
  

--77.141.95.102 15:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That seems right, but I was rather suspicious of someone replacing translations on a basic word. I'll restore to your version, but I'd like if @Per utramque cavernam could confirm. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm OK with these edits. The translation will often depend on context though. --Per utramque cavernam 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand, I will create an account to minimize this kind of problems. Thank you! --77.141.95.102 17:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

سلام ربات ها در wiktionary چه کار میکنند و از آنها چه استفاده ای میشود

Your continued requests for people to use bots is very disruptive to editors who are actually working on building the dictionary. If you do not stop, I will have to block you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Meta, were there edits beyond the one in their contribution log which prompted the block? Thanks - TheDaveRoss 20:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any, but it was five years ago, so I have no memory of the events. GalaicoWarrior is clearly committed to their pseudoscientific hypotheses (as you must have seen in the ticket), so I remain confident that this user is only going to waste our time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is probably the case, but an permanent block for a single, probably good-faith edit with not other communication is extremely bad policy. Can we try communication instead? I am willing to explain that we avoid original research, even from scholars, and that any additions should be supported by published research. - TheDaveRoss 11:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's bad policy, I have to agree. I'm giving past me the benefit of the doubt (that is, that I had seen something else from this editor), because present me sees that it is abundantly clear from off-wiki evidence that GalaicoWarrior is not going to be a productive contributor. You can, of course, do whatever you like with your own time, as long as you promise to clean up the mess if you unblock him (rather than leave the mess to those who specialise in the field and don't want to deal with it). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also suspect that you had further evidence to support your decision. I'm going to respond to the guys email and see if there is any change in attitude from the previous two, if so perhaps give him another shot, if not stick with your younger-self's judgment. I'll clean up after him if necessary, although I won't necessarily know that it is necessary without being told. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@TheDaveRoss: I think I found the evidence I had used when I blocked him: w:Special:Contributions/GalaicoWarrior. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 12:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That certainly does add weight. I'm sold. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

On my talk page, you explained about creating new Categories on Wiktionary. Below, in a subsection titled "Three new categories", i proposed three new categories. Comments? Btw, i also propose categories "en:Urine and urination" (or should it be titled "en:Urine" or "en:Urination"?) and "en:Creationism".--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Solomonfromfinland: The second category seems unnecessary; the first and third are potentially good ideas, but I'm not sure what others would think. @Chuck Entz, not to foist this on you, but as somebody who's perhaps a bit better at our categorisation structure, what do you think? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 12:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you added an etymology for inkomo. I was wondering what the source is for that etymology? Smashhoof2 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Smashhoof2: I'm sorry, I am incredibly lazy when it comes to citing my sources. I got that from {{R:Ehret 2008}}, which I can send to you if you lack journal access. I'll add the reference into the entry.

On a related note, I am trying to support any editors working on African languages (in particular Bantu) on Wiktionary, and if you have any questions or concerns, I would be happy to help. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The source does mention the word and per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion a mention in any permanently recorded media is adequate (even if the word is completely made-up). I think we should consider the quality of source seriously. Wiktionary does include some made-up words and they currently meet CFI (Za pô nê).--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was rather annoyed in my message because I thought that I wouldn't be able to find the word in a reputable source (which yours was not); luckily, I did locate a dictionary with it. As for the Rade word you mention, it's really up to Rade editors (which may well just be Fumiko Take) as to whether they wish to include neologisms from dictionaries. With other LDLs like Irish, editors have chosen to exclude dictionaries known to coin protologisms that never see actual spoken use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Aren't definitions 1 and 3 identical? Even the example sentence is the same. The only real difference is that 1 uses the label "reflexive", which I think can be used together with "transitive" and/or "intransitive" in a single definition to indicate that the verb can be used in all those ways. - Alumnum (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Normally we'd want to go through WT:RFD, but I think an exception can be made for a perfect copy like this. In the future, use the edit summary to explain it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain the reason why you think the two categories don't need to be added? --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The entry already categorised into Galway Irish using a template, so your addition was pointless. Cois Fharraige is in County Galway, so that category was redundant. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You just reverted my changes on potamo-, but here's why I changed the etyl template to langname. If you go to the Template:etyl page, it clearly states that:

This template is going to be deleted. Template:etyl is deprecated or has failed Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. Please do not use this template, and remove it from pages that use it.

Cheers Kibi78704 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kibi78704, {{langname}} is much, much worse. You replaced a deprecated template with one that doesn't even perform the same function. In this case, {{der}} is the best template to use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fine. I am not getting into an argument, and I am not getting into an edit war with you. I've run into too many bombastic, angry people like you on Wiki who must be right, and must own their pages, more than they are interested in doing the right thing, being polite, or teaching people in a gentle manner. Kibi78704 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kibi78704, you're right that I did respond with an angry tone. I'm sorry about that; it really wasn't merited for the matter of a single template. If you want, I can explain how to use the etymology templates. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but no thank you. I have a very low threshold for stress. Kibi78704 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is it feasible at some point in the future that archival sites like archive.org or archive.is might approach Google in terms of being considered adequately reliable?

Physical form is interesting... I think there could exist a group of media for which online archival might actually be more reliable than physical format. After all, books do degrade over time, or get burnt or lost. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are very few books indeed that have existed since Wiktionary was first created, but both a) no longer exist, all copies having been destroyed and b) were never digitised. As a result, books have been reliably durable for our purposes. I am definitely interested in expanding what we consider to be durably archived; my understanding is that archive.org will take down some websites if the website owner requests it, which would make it a poor candidate. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind looking at my most recent changes to Artocarpus? I cleaned up the etymology I had added earlier, and included a reference.

• I'm not sure about the {{lb|la|New Latin}} and the Latin language codes {{compound|mul|arto-|-carpo|lang1=la|lang2=la|t1=press close together|t2=fruit}}. I cannot find a language code for New Latin, so I kludged this together.
• Should I have put a reference tag in the Etymology section and added a references tag in the references section rather than simply adding the {{R:Merriam-Webster Online}} to the references section?

Thanks in advance.
BTW - I am systematically touching each entry I've modified in the past week to apply your lessons. Kibi78704 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kibi78704: The code for New Latin is NL.. Most language codes can be found at Wiktionary:List of languages (they follow ISO 639-3 where possible). Exceptional language codes, like this one (which can only be used in etymology sections) are listed at Wiktionary:List of languages/special.

A reference tag is helpful, but not necessary. I generally don't do it myself.

Finally, and by far most importantly, the etymology was wrong. If you are unsure of content you are adding, it is critical that you do not add it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have added other made-up etymologies, like at Ceratophyllum. This is extremely problematic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm going back into each entry for which I added an etymology previously and verifying that I have a credible source for it. In this particular instance, I used Merriam-Webster Online "Origin and Etymology of artocarpus New Latin, from arto- + -carpus". You must scroll down to see the etymology.

Previously, I added the Greek etymology, for which I can no longer find the reference.

Am I not allowed to use Merriam-Webster Online as an etymological reference? Are you saying that the unreferenced etymologies I added a few days ago are better than the ones for which I have solid references today? I am very confused.

BTW - I also got the Ceratophyllum etymology from Miriam-Webster. Kibi78704 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstood the Merriam-Webster etymology. Firstly, they list all such etymologies as New Latin, because they consider taxonomic names to be New Latin, and they are documenting English borrowings from taxonomy. We are putting an etymology in a Translingual section, so we give the actual origin, which in this case is Ancient Greek (Latinized, as is customary). But I looked at the M-W etymology, and it wasn't made up. It was you who claimed that Ceratophyllum was named after wax or that Artocarpus was above being packed in close, neither of which make any sense. These claims are not true, and it is unacceptable to put them in the dictionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK - I will yank all my etymology entries because I have been going to the translations for each element and including them in the templates. I have already yanked the ones for which I can no longer find the reference. I should have yanked all of them shortly. Kibi78704 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now I am extremely confused. I know I used my knowledge of Greek to derive the etymology for this based on the description of the taxon. The description of the taxon says it has no jaws, so I extrapolated to reverse engineer the etymology. You said you don't want made up etymologies, but you put it back after I yanked it. What am I missing here? Kibi78704 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This one was right. Other ones you added were wrong. The key is not to make things up, because then you won't just get lucky and be right only part of the time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course you are wrong, so I konw why ohter language Wikipedians unlike to edit Wiktionary, just because nobody likes a smart arse, please read this article in Japanese Wikipedia , it proved you are wrong. So I will never join to edit Wiktionary again. Farewell, an ignorant Wiktionary.—Fayhoo (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I liked the version of this message before you edited it, because you managed to misspell "Wiktionary" in two different ways. You still have "Jananese" in the title, in fact. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you suppressed the article d'am, which I understand. But you seem to refer to the French vote, which I did not know could apply here. If you don't admit contractions, whatever the reason, you will have to suppress others. If French rule applies here, I can't see how it can apply to Breton d'am an not to english I'm, between others. If it only applies to Breton you will have to suppress Breton d'o as well, and keep Portuguese d'o of course. Regards. Bianchi-Bihan (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The French vote does not apply here. I read the discussion, and decided that I agreed with their result. If you wish to contest this, you can do so at WT:RFDN. Different languages have different lexical standards, so I see no problem with this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see no problem, and I dont want to contest anything. I'm trying to understand the different standards according to the different languages. Bianchi-Bihan (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi why did you revert the definition? The citations I provided clearly explains the definition of -ing adjectives. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage. Not everything that's theoretically possible is actually in use- especially something like this, which is so contrived and unnatural that it's almost impossible to come up with a sentence using it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The crime FW now has seven nominations ready for use. You might want to check whether the Scots citation is valid though, it's from an English novel. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Very nice. Do you want to set it for sometime next month? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me, as I don't know any particularly fitting week. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The terms from Dutch focus week is also ready now. If you set it for the week of September 19th, you can use the Spanish term for Talk Like A Pirate Day. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thank you again; I've set it and taken your suggestion. I haven't gotten around to it, but I intend to set the crime week in August. This really helps a great deal, and you can see from my recent pings that the main missing piece is that I prefer the quotes to be translated when we have the capability to do so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand, and I really should have translated some of them before notifying you; though I also think I normally shouldn't add translations quite beyond my ability. Also I'll ease down on the {{etystub}}'s for Afrikaans. ;) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. And I hope I haven't been sounding too critical, because you've been doing good work. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, and if you could translate/ping translators for the crime focus week, I would much appreciate that as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Could you translate the quote at butronero by the way? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, sorry for the false alarm, but I think the focus week for false cognates is now good to go. For instance:

• Hindi संत and Catalan sant,
• Biao sɔk⁹ and English suck,
• Portuguese mais and Gothic 𐌼𐌰𐌹𐍃,
• Russian дремать and West Frisian dream,
• Ancient Greek στῦλος and Latin stilus,
• Swedish korp and Romanian corb,
• Aramaic רגז‎ (r'gaz) and French rage,

would be a varied selection, but there are also a few other possibilities. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added my own content... can I get this page restore please thanks. --Prisencolin (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The templates were throwing errors because they were being used as if this was Wikipedia; it's clear that both times, you were just copying text from there. Not only is this technically a copyright violation (because you did not credit the source), it's also not at all what about pages are intended for. See WT:About Chinese for how they should actually look and what purpose they serve. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

damn, these are some of the worst fucking edits i've seen from this person. Usually they're just ignorant. (not sure why I needed to say this but eh) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if we're conflating more than one ignorant Thai editor, and that's why they sometimes seem worse? It may be difficult to tell from the IPs, because the older edit from this IP makes me think this is a public or school computer. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It might be hard to say for sure, but there is an IP address I saw a while back that is attached to bad Teochew edits from 2017 and -th edits from this month. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, messing with French conjugation is a pretty distinctive mark of their edits IMO. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the difference today is that they were working on English grammar, which made their errors glaringly obvious to us. As for French conjugation: they go through phases. They're just as likely to do Spanish as French, and they were doing Vulgar Latin this last week. Their editing style is quite distinctive: they seem to approach Wiktionary as a kind of abstract game to play, or their own private conlang- they like editing so much that they won't let ignorance or incompetence stop them. There are some edits to other South Asian languages that aren't them, but it looks like pretty much all of the Romance and English edits are. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The rollbacks you did for the words ruthless and Hitler were mistakes because I used ruthless appropriately in a sentence and the term Hitler has become a synonym for racist beings.Extrapolaris (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Vahe DemirjianReply

Your usage examples have been a bit strange, to say the least. Entries do not need usage examples at all, especially when their usage is straightforward from the definition. I would recommend that you find a use for your time other than trying to write usage examples. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Meta, just check in with you after the meetup. I've been doing some of the easy work. I think I'm ready to start adding somme new words. I'll send you my first edit for some tips when I commit them. TTYS ~Ivan, Ismenelik (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)ismenelikReply

@Ismenelik Hey Ivan, good to see you here! Take a look at bolsa to copy the formatting there, and I'll help you out. Also, is there a good dictionary that you want to put as a reference in the entries? If so, tell me what the dictionary is called and I can make a template for it that you can use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge I'm using this dictionary as a reference: Gonçalves, M. (2015). Capeverdean Creole-English dictionary. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/940965828

@Ismenelik, I created {{R:kea:Gonçalves}} for you. I added it to bolsa so you can see how to use it. You can also optionally add the page number, although that might be more trouble than it's worth. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

this might not be the best place to ask for help for another wiktionary but I don't really know where it should be done, so I'm writing it here. I am the single active user on Lithuanian Wiktionary and I try to keep it more or less clean by reverting occasional vandalisms and keeping things in order. Recently, a really annoying anonymous user showed up and now they flood the wiktionary with useless new articles every single day. When I revert their edits, they restore them back and spam more useless articles. I'm not an admin/bureaucrat on the Lithuanian Wiktionary and I have no way of stopping or blocking that user. The admins are rarely (if ever) seen on the Lithuanian wiktionary.

Whom should I contact about this issue?

Thanks! Rokas00 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Rokas00: These kinds of problems should be reported at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. It also sounds like you should get admin rights, if you're the only active editor there, but you'll have to make sure that the other users at lt.wikt approve first. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's probably hard to get a vote and an approval, if there are no users. Can someone give Rokas00 the admin rights from outside, considering the situation? The pesky user's edits could be nuked or mass-reverted then. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say a vote. No matter the wiki, it's necessary to make a post at the very least to ensure that the community doesn't object. If nobody objects (or responds) in a week, Rokas00 can request admin rights at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the advice. I'll report the issue at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Rokas00 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Great block on this guy! We have to keep the number of Finnish entries down, so that Spanish can overtake them. --New WT User Girl (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

So you thought I was on your side, did you? I'm secretly rooting for Portuguese. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where was the finishing line again? First language to be 95% covered? --New WT User Girl (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, it's whichever language has more entries when the Earth is destroyed and the final edition of Wiktionary is downloaded onto the spaceships ferrying the few survivors to the Mars colony. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, so where should such discussions be archived to? Should they just be deleted? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Lots of RFC discussions really only serve to get someone's attention, and should end up in the memory hole. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK! — SGconlaw (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just click save in words example https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=babesioosit&action=edit&redlink=1&editintro=User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js/intro&accel_lang=fi&accel_langname=Finnish&accel_lemma=babesioosi&accel1=pos-noun%20plural-nominative-form-of — This unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs).

@Amirh123, I know what you're doing. Please stop doing it, because you do not know enough about Finnish to know when you are adding something wrong. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

do I can creating English verb forms

Based on that exhibition of your understanding of English verbs, no. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I inserted a neutral image. Black Americans are a minority, they're the majority in Africa. America is more associated with white people. Plus, the President is better than average person.--Libracarol (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're a troll, and not a very good one either. If you replace the image again, I'll block you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Stop calling me names. I'm an editor in the English Wikipedia. I'll report you if you threaten me again.--Libracarol (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to do so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The choice of an image is entirely arbitrary- who's a minority and who's a majority shouldn't enter into it, nor who's "better". Besides, Donald Trump is anything but neutral, and replacing a perfectly good image with his does nothing but add a political point of view that shouldn't be there. The fact that you used such loaded language in describing your actions confirms that you are, indeed a troll here- whatever your role at Wikipedia. I concur with the block. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reason that I haven't put any effort into Tibetan is simply that I am no good at the tech side of things and manually retyping thousands of words is no fun at all. I have about 20 fully digitized Tibetan dictionary at my fingertips, including one that I wrote. I also have quite a few Sino Tibetan comparative lists. If you, or someone else, is happy to handle the tech side of things, I would very gladly share this material. --Tibetologist (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tibetologist: The tech side of things isn't too hard to overcome, but the main way that I (and most other people) enter words is by manually typing them in. Unless your dictionary is very structured (e.g. a spreadsheet or a CSV file), we can't just port it into Wiktionary, which has a great deal of structure of its own. And after all, you'd still want to look the entries over by hand to expand etymologies, convert pronunciation, add categories and inflection, and more. We do have {{bo-new}}, which makes the adding of new Tibetan entries require much less typing than usual. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have some tsv files, which I am happy to share. My dictionary is in xml. I am afraid that entering lexical items by hand is a language one knows well is too boring to be of interest. --Tibetologist (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean, but it's still true that, for example, our Chinese content is so good is primarily because of native speakers' efforts! But that's neither here nor there. I see a Tibetan-English TSV in that Dropbox folder, but it would require a lot of human attention, because the data are only slightly structured and has obvious problems for Wiktionary (like lack of capitalisation of proper nouns in definitions). Also, we can only port in dictionaries to which we have the rights (yours would be easiest, since you can record your willingness to release the dictionary). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, nevermind then. I had thought under US copyright at least dictionaries were very hard to copyright since information such as rta : 'horse' clearly belongs to no one. But it also makes sense to me that Wiktionary would you be quite cautious in this respect. --Tibetologist (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually US copyright is the worst regarding threshold of originality (x = horse is of course not copyrighted anywhere). But it seems that the TSV has apparently only so short lines that none is copyrighted even under US law. But if you are the author or write some things that could be copyrighted in your own words then copyright is no problem anyhow. However your data needs to have parts of speech specified, otherwise scripts can’t make satisfactory Wiktionary pages. “Capitalisation of proper nouns in definitions” could be automatical if an entry is specified as proper noun. Fay Freak (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

:@Fay Freak: Unfortunately no Tibetan dictionary gives a part of speech information as a matter of course. In fact, even how to analyze a part of speech intervention is underresearched. I for one do not think that's Tibetan has anything that can meaningfully be called an adjective (we have stated verbs and they can be nominalized). But, one thing that certainly isn't under copyright is a long list of lexical items with a part of speech analysis and no definition. See here--https://zenodo.org/record/574876 maybe this will be helpful for someone. --Tibetologist (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, IANAL, but I think you're right that that POS assignment isn't copyrightable. The definitions in a lexicon definitely are, because there's a particular way of phrasing them for all but the most basic equivalences. But again, the question remains whether you would be willing to release your dictionary into a Wiktionary-compatible copyright. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The question is if the “particular way of phrasing” is original of course, or if another person would have applicated that phrasing, “particular” is a bit too little, there must be something personal about it so there is no clash when two people do the same and to distinguish from ancillary copyright (German law explicitly requires a “personal intellectual creation”, but as I said in the US the courts more generously ascribe copyright). But what is an even harder question: The applicable law for the constitution of rights and claims of violation under the collision law of each legal system. Maybe only Bhutanese law is constitutive for the copyrights on those works? But anyway, it is all solved if we can pour out a dictionary that is from your hand, then one can pass over the other dictionaries and questions. Fay Freak (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here the question isn't whether an individual definition can be copyrighted (probably not), but whether copying a significant quantity of them violates the copyright of the work as a whole. As I understand it, there are editorial decisions involved in choice of terms and overall format of entries that go beyond the mere facts presented and can thus be copyrighted. Since Wiktionary's content consists almost entirely of voluntarily-licensed contributions, we try to be more careful than we have to be about copyright. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Those editorial decisions are commercial decisions regularly (like, and particularly: this word is too obscure as for us to waste paper for it), also frequently by distinct persons so that, if neither contribution runs above the threshold of originality, nobody can attain copyright. If those choices in formatting are chiefly handiwork by those in copyediting etc. (in German dogmatics “handwerksmäßige Leistung”) it isn’t protected, as for example it mostly isn’t copyright infringement if one uploads a photo of some restaurant food (most food does not reach the threshold of originality). In this case though there was like no formatting, only lemma-definition-newline. So one can only check if there are some definitions that seem creative (if one really needs to, which one doesn’t if one gets a license). Mostly people gloss words in an obvious way as there are not many possibilities. If one takes a pile of dictionaries for a language and calculates what occurs in only one the share of unique text will be very low, and even then not each occurrence of uniqueness original. Fay Freak (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

In any event, those Tibetan NLP related things on Zenodo are explicitly creative commons license. I am also happy to give permission for my verb dictionary. If I were a good programmer, what I would otherwise do is take two digital Tibetan dictionaries and compare their contents automatically, extracting any time that there was a shared phrase under the same headword. Then you could be know that if you were violating copyright, it was only because one or both of them were. Actually, most Tibetan dictionaries derive pretty directly from Jaeshcke, which is now very definitely out of copyright (but alas, also not available electronically to my knowledge). --Tibetologist (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

hey, hey, looks like I found on my computer just now an etext version of the 1902 dictionary by Sarat Chandra Das. There we go, a full electronic dictionary, out of copyright --Tibetologist (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, just because other dictionaries might be violating copyright still doesn't mean that we can. It's critical that we be even more careful than many professional lexicographers, because of how visible the Wikimedia Foundation is. As for Jäschke and Das, they are in the public domain but not (as far as I know) converted to a structured, digitised format. Finally, with respect to your dictionary, if you want to release it, the best thing to do would be to follow the instructions at w:Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and email them the requisite form; then we can post it (perhaps at Wikibooks) and figure out how to port it into Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, here is the copy of Das that I found. It is pretty clean.

As I discussed before, it needs to be a lot more structured (and a lot cleaner) if you hope to port it to Wiktionary without substantial investment of time from a knowledgeable human. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've just noticed Sarri.greek (talk • contribs) appears in the list of rollbackers. Not that I mind her being one, but I find that a bit strange; is this an error? Maybe someone misclicked and granted her the right at the same time as her autopatroller status? Per utramque cavernam 11:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam: I'm not sure why you're asking me. You can see for yourself that SB did it in January. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whoops. @SemperBlotto? Per utramque cavernam 17:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam Are you complaining? Shouldn’t Sarri.greek have it? I don’t know what you want after more than half a year. Fay Freak (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think there's a case to be made for recreating the deleted Old Persian entry 𐎴𐎳𐎫 as a reconstruction page, which I've outlined on the talk page. I'm not an administrator so I can't see the deleted content, so (if you think I make sense) I was wondering if you could help with that. Thanks! ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

We should reconstruct terms because we truly believe them to have been used based on the comparative method, not just because they can be reconstructed even when the origins are unclear. This is a case that I do not feel competent to judge, but I encourage @Vahagn Petrosyan, Victar, Fay Freak to weigh in at Talk:𐎴𐎳𐎫#Reconstruction citations. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you know what this means? Because I don't. Per utramque cavernam 13:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I think you'd do better asking Donnanz than me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wonder why the edits made in shah(‎Etymology 1) by me ( user 2405:205:6382:5588:C1B2:E8F4:13E0:725A) on 10 September 2018 were unwrought. I only furthered the linguistics and history behind the word (which Wiktionary had but a smattering of knowledge)- and you cut the edits without knowing their worth, making again the Etymology bare. Kindly do bring back those words. As such knowledge must never be hindered and edits are not to be undone if nothing be foul in them.

The edits were messy, a bit questionable (why Median?), and wholly unnecessary in an English entry. The deeper etymology of the word belongs in the Old Persian entry, where it is already explained in detail. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Although I do not regularly use Latin, it seemed to me that bonumque was similar to a compound word, like rainbow, or maybe more like a contraction, like wouldn't or even wouldn't've. It is certainly hasty to delete a page without discussion or appeal. Makes me feel oppressed, that you use your Sysop privileges indiscriminately. Schyler (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not a compound word, because rain and bow can both stand alone, but -que cannot. It's not a contraction, because nothing is contracted. I did not delete the page without discussion (see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#bonumque) nor without possibility of appeal, which is exactly what you are doing now. Finally, this was not indiscriminate but a result of my specific judgement as a veteran editor and Latin speaker; you should not feel oppressed merely because I have overruled your judgement in a language with which I am much more familiar. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I was not aware of the discussion. Thanks for the link. If not compound or contracted, then what kind of word is it? It has a suffix, which is like "subtly." The word subtle and the suffix -ly both have their own pages in addition to the word subtly, so why not bonum, -que, and bonumque? Schyler (talk)

It is not a derivational suffix like -ly, but a clitic, so we exclude it for the same reason that we exclude president's. Please read w:Clitic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Dutch word (etymology 1) is supposed to come from Yiddish באָלעס, plural of באָלע, but I couldn't find it in the few dictionaries available to me. Do you know whether it is attested? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the word, I can't find it in a dictionary, and I certainly don't see why a Yiddish word in the Netherlands would be from Spanish. Unfortunately, I have no answers for you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

From the Jews who fled Iberia to the Netherlands – and mixed with Yiddish speakers. I see the possibility. Fay Freak (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are hundreds of years separating the Sephardic influx and the Ashkenazic influx. You'd want good evidence, and this isn't it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

w:History of the Jews in the Netherlands § Sepharadim. Not so much though. And after the influx the Sephardim stayed, so the date of influx itself does not count, the timespans of abode must overlap. And clearly around 1700 the Sephardic Jews were renown in the printing business for all the Hebrew-written things, and Christians like Johann Andreas Eisenmenger went to to the Netherlands to learn all about the Hebrews. So we read for instance about Joseph Athias: “Born in Spain published a Yiddish translation of the Bible.” Yea, no evidence, I mean just how it is not unreasonable. Fay Freak (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it seems the theory is that the word moved from Ladino to Yiddish in the Netherlands, but it looks fairly conjectural. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most of the Sephardim in the Northern Netherlands came from Portugal, so Portuguese bolo (pronounced /ˈbolu/) seems a more plausible source. Starting from the 19th century, the traditional separation between Sephardim and Ashkenazim slowly dissipated, socially as well as culturally. It is therefore quite plausible that originally non-Yiddish words specific to the Sephardi group entered the common Yiddish of the amalgamated Dutch Jews.  --Lambiam 20:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is not the way to hold a discussion. Please revert my request for deletion edit back and join the discussion here. Thank you. --Brutal Russian (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

My second rollback was indeed in error; I mistook your {{rfd}} tag for a reinstatement of the speedy delete tag. You might do well to avoid starting in with personal attacks (hilariously, aimed at a bot rather than a human in this case, and thus no harm done) if you're going to lecture me on how to hold a discussion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice, I usually do go ahead and undo any vandalism I see, with the exception of pages that are in a state of "quasi-vandal-flux"; i.e. multiple vandals engaging. I wasn't sure if I should regarding advertising however, as I didn't want to risk it being covered up or at-a-glance-deemed to be already fixed. Anyway, just wanted to clarify and say thanks for the info. Will do in the future. Ozelot911 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It can be hard to fight vandalism as a non-admin without getting in the admins' way. I appreciate your efforts, though, and while it's best to get an admin to delete the diffs if promotional content is posted, it isn't absolutely necessary. In the future, if you see that I'm online, feel free to ping me in an edit summary to get me to delete a diff, etc. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about covering things up: those of us who patrol Recent Changes still see those as unpatrolled edits and check them out. Dictionary users and search engines don't usually look at the edit histories, and the longer the vandalism and advertising is visible to them, the more benefit the vandals and the spammers get out of it. 90% of fighting vandalism and spamming is reverting it immediately. I like to go after the other 10%, too, but I'd rather clean up after someone else's undo than have abuse go unchallenged half a day until I get to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for introducing me to the term goropism. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know that Kinyarwanda and Kirundi are merged. The IPA transcription of umuganga that I put does have tone; it's all low tone. But it's conventional to leave low tones unmarked in phonemic transcription. Smashhoof2 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't sure if it was marked, but I should have asked. I enclosed it in the {{IPA}} template, as all IPA transcriptions should be. By the way, Rwanda-Rundi needs some basic work in terms of figuring out what kind of transcriptions we want (e.g. should the prenasalised consonant be indicated as such?) and it would be best to make a template for it that generates IPA from tone-marked orthography. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This IP, 180.190.185.125 (talk), editing Tagalog entries, has been giving me problems because it frequently attacks me ad hominem, calling me names like "ignorant", "dilawan" (Liberal), "kapal ng fez" (or "kapal ng mukha", which means arrogant), and seeing some of my entries as completely made up. I see that the IP has a good intention in improving Tagalog word coverage here, but it is also bad to attack other contributors personally out of simple mistakes or political views. And I see also problems with Tagalog entries it creates, such as using diacritics (which are only used for pronunciation in dictionaries) and creating Tagalog entries that are misspellings, like kabaganbagan (which is rather kabagabagan). And it also seems to be not a native speaker of Tagalog (per WHOIS info, which states it comes from Cebu City). Can a block be suggested for this IP if its personal attacks or any other disruptive activity continue?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts: These are personal attacks, and not especially bad ones, but still comments that don't belong on Wiktionary. Your warning about personal attacks and explanation on how to improve problematic edits was appropriate, and a good response to the problem. As an aside, WHOIS data are not always accurate and Tagalog native speakers can and do move to places like Cebu City, so I wouldn't assume too much about the IP's background. In any case, if any of the behaviour continues, just leave me a message with the diff in question and I will issue a block. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

See this diff. The user has just thrown a tantrum against me in my talk page, calling me again "kapal my fez", and using Tagalog again. Consider giving the IP final warnings, or block it. The IP is obviously not a native speaker, just copying from the online Tagalog Pinoy Dictionary. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for a month. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The IP just pinged both of us, asking why he/she is blocked in his talk page. But as long as I know, I can still see the IP just copied several definitions from the Tagalog Pinoy Dictionary. The IP seems like he/she will look at an entry in TPD, then edit its corresponding WT entry, or create a new entry with the definition copied from TPD. I already replied to a message in the IP's talk. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No reply. Since after the IP attacked me and other Tagalog editors in its talk page (see User talk:180.190.185.125#Your definitions), can we suggest a longer block if he returns on editing and insults me again? The message is extremely a display of inappropriate wiki behavior, to name a lot of editors (including me) and insult them because he/she doesn't agree with their or my definition. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of what they said on that talk page, if they return and engage in the same behaviour again, the resulting block with be for a longer duration. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about the formatting error on siwara. I've updated my template list to reflect the separate ===Etymology=== section. Let me know if you happen across any inconsistencies in the future! -Sumiaz (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries, and thanks for updating your list. More detail on formatting can be found at WT:EL. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You reverted the edit to the etymology of apothegm with the following comment:
Irrelevant to the etymology,

It was entirely relevant to the etymology as the entry was made. The entry as it now stands is confusing to anyone not familiar with the spelling conventions. It should not be incumbent on the user to have to do as I did and go fossicking around to see why there was a mistake in the quoted spelling. In a rational system of transliteration there would be no difficulty, but the current system confuses pronunciation with etymology.

You also said: "and not really appropriate in general"

That is handwaving and irrational to boot. If it helps the user it is really, really appropriate in particular, which is what should count. What does "inappropriate in general" mean anyway? And what is inappropriate about it anyway? JonRichfield (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The distinction of how a double gamma is pronounced is not relevant to the etymology, because it doesn't turn up in the pronunciation of the English word apothegm. Secondly, we provide romanisation as a service to readers who are unable to read Greek script, but it is not appropriate to explain exactly how that romanisation works each time it is used. I expect there are relatively few readers who, like you, can read the letters but are ignorant of how to pronounce the script, but for such readers, you need only go one click further to the Ancient Greek entry, wherein you will see the IPA that tells you exactly how the word is pronounced. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 11:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Thank you for only blocking me for one week: if it were in my power to do so, I would have blocked myself, when I realised how I started the edit. However, as I stated to Chuck Entz, the present (his last) edit is the best it has been for a long time. If anyone had no excuse; it was I, because practically all my etymology edits for which you blocked me were flouting at least one of the stringent etymology guidelines presented on (my) user page. So, for this matter, please accept my due apologies for the trouble it caused. Andrew H. Gray 17:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Andrew (talk)

Are you contending that users do not have a right to remove comments from their own talk pages? Also, for what it's worth, being an admin does not give you extra say in this matter. Purplebackpack89 22:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I won't go so far as to make a statement about rights. It's about making sure the dictionary runs as smoothly as possible, and part of that is another admin being able to know upon inspection that I have already warned this editor about their behaviour. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

My own opinion: it depends. If it's being done to deceive people by removing evidence that they've been warned because of improper behavior, I would say that sometimes they don't. Otherwise, they do. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I undid your revision, as the two words have similar, but different meanings. I assume you have some knowledge of biology.

Ichthyosaurs are a group of related extinct reptiles - an order in taxonomy that covers many families and species, while the ichthyosaurus refers to one specific species of them. For example, the aegirosaurus and the californosaurus are ichthyosaurs, but they are not the same as an ichthyosaurus, which is another type of ichthyosaur that gave its name to the whole order. 108.160.125.102 07:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do have a background in biology, as it so happens. Your edit summary was in error — the genus should be covered by a Translingual entry with a capitalised title. The English word ichthyosaurus dates back to a time before such taxonomic niceties were codified, so you could make an argument that it covers either all ichthyosaurs or merely those in that genus, but that is a somewhat pointless distinction. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

We define words according to their nomenclature, not incorrect common usage. I could also make a point for stegosaurs vs. stegosaurus (one is a suborder and the other is genus within, so the words should be defined differently), etc. Дрейгорич (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment on https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#ichthyosaur_vs._ichthyosaurus,_and_other_terms_like_these. Дрейгорич (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anyways, I've added an entry for the genus Ichthyosaurus with apparently was lowercased back in 2007 and referred to the genus in the definition. I've also cleaned up the stegosaurus entry accordingly (by referencing the format for the tyrannosaurus entry), and I hope that we can get some sort of consensus. Дрейгорич (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Settled, apparently Lfellet (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is not the first creole/pidgin to have an ancestor listed. See CAT:Bislama language, CAT:Louisiana Creole French language, CAT:Betawi language, just to name a few. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for informing me. The last discussion we had on this topic (about Haitian Creole, to be exact) was WT:Grease pit/2018/April#Haitian Creole ancestors, where the consensus seemed to be toward the position I favour, namely not marking the lexifier as the ancestor. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I removed that weak translation because w:en:Wissenschaft is not the same as w:en:Science. In English, it is nonsensical to have a "scientific" understanding of a poem. It is, however, perfectly fine to have a Wissenschaftliches understanding of a poem (and a highly desirable thing to do, if you happen to be a Professor Doktor Doktor holding a university chair for your work on Goethe).

The broad notion of "science" as encompassing nearly all scholarly knowledge is archaic in English, but the broad notion of Wissenschaft has remained current in modern German. Therefore, the two words cannot be treated as equal, or English-speaking scientists will think that the German poets are claiming to be running controlled experiments about how the universe behaves. Clearer and non-confusing translations of Wissenschaft include "academic" or "scholarly".

(Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: I understand your point, but your edit made the entry significantly worse. Firstly (and most importantly), we should provide translations as our definitions, a single word or words that could be substituted in place of the German word to convey the same idea. It is clear that "science" is the right word to use a translation in many, but not all, contexts. Secondly, your attempts at glosses were so vague that they did not explain to a reader without background knowledge what was meant. A dictionary must balance the need for exactness in mapping of words that cover different semantic spaces with usability, and I have reworded the definitions (now split into three) in an attempt to do so. I'm sure that what I've done can be improved upon, but it is a step in the direction of making a clearer entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, it's clear to me that science can only be properly substituted in a few contexts. In other contexts, it would accidentally be a sensible statement, but it would not have the same meaning. It is a bit like translating "the four-door car" as "the large car": statistically, there's a significant chance that any given four-door car is also going to be large, and once upon a time all four-door cars were large, but those are not actually interchangeable words.

The German Wiktionary's definition (and they should know, right?) does not mention the scientific method at all. It does not have a single word that prioritizes or even acknowledges this positivist, Popperian notion of knowledge of the universe and its workings. They define it as "a field or discipline of systematic, theory-based knowledge", and secondly as "everything a person knows" (this would be the equivalent of "To the best of my knowledge, this is the first paper published on this subject" – hardly a phrase we would use "science" in ). The claim that Wissenschaft is equivalent to knowledge generated through the scientific method just not true. This can be verified in discussions on translators' forums (example), academic journals (example). Wissenschaft is scientia+ology, not (modern English) "science". We need to remove this claim and get it back to a proper, accurate definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I'm sure that my work can be improved, but that the way you left the entry was so vague that other editors were confused by it. If you want to discuss this further, you should do so with an experienced editor who is a native or near-native speaker of German, like @-sche or @Mahagaja. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me who these unnamed "other editors" are, who were confused? Perhaps I should ask them what they found so confusing. That would save us both the trouble of guessing whether and how they were confused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

See WT:Tea room/2018/October#Wissenschaft Definition. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added the removed senses back in as a single line, but added "scholarship" to cover the humanities and liberal arts. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In chacra. I demand an explanation with your own words. ---Genoskill (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

We don't punctuate our entries like that. Look at any others and you will see the consistent presentation we strive for. On definition lines, we use periods only when the definition begins with a capitalised letter. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. By the way, somehow I did not get notified by your reply. ---Genoskill (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notifications only occur if a comment links to your user page or uses a template like {{ping}} that does so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And why don't you do that, then? ---Genoskill (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does the Yiddish translation at Afrikaner belong there? The Yiddish entry only has "African". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a very interesting question, because one would presume that despite the ambiguity, it would have been used, but I pored through several pages on Google Books and found no unambiguous uses. What I did find a lot of was בור (bur, “Boer”), so despite the subtle differences between the two words, I think it would serve as the better translation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

But if your banker sits you down and tells you the conditions of the card, that isn't a "Schumer box". Can't we say "printed or written"? (One would have to be very anal to say that a Web site doesn't fall under those two, IMO.) "Textual"? Equinox ◑ 05:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fun fact: Amy Schumer and the Schumer after whom the box is named are first cousins. I like "textual". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is a fun fact! And I was thinking "box" as in "sports underwear" but I'm disgusting even before I start thinking about cousins. Those German-ish (sometimes Yiddish?) names like Schumer and Zimmerman that are so common in the States are barely seen here. Equinox ◑ 05:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Schumer is actually quite an uncommon surname. And yes, the UK is cursed with a relative dearth of Jews. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wanna get married? We can increase it by 1. Equinox ◑ 05:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I considered moving, but Brexit quite honestly scared me away. I'll wait to see how you all handle it first. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

New Zealand is always an option! Beware of hobbity tourists. Equinox ◑ 06:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Possibly; I've got a rather restrictive career in some ways. (For more detail than that, you'll have to switch to email.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, the expected equivalent esperantolog doesn't seem to exist in Romanian. The closest is esperantist (see the second sense in MDA2 (2010)). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You'd have to look at the cites in Google Books to try to parse out the difference. There's always the possibility that Romanian simply doesn't have the word because the concept isn't discussed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have parsed out the difference. However, as I mentioned previously, the second sense of Romanian esperantist is "(Persoană) care se ocupă cu studiul limbii esperanto" ("person who occupies himself/herself with the studies of Esperanto"). The degree of studies is not specified, so I'm not sure if it's on an academic level. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Based on the definition care se ocupa, etc, it would appear to include the academic level by default. — Zack. — 13:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

DEX is helpful but by no means the final answer. If we didn't have an intelligent native speaker here, I'd say we might as well just follow that. But seeing as we do have you, Robbie, the best course would be for you to look through Google Books and see whether you can find esperantist in use to describe academics publishing about the language rather than just enthusiasts at a world congress. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree Metaknowledge. I'll take a look this weekend to see if I can find usage examples. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind if I add a subsection for pairs of foreign languages to the false friend focus week? This Interlingua/Italian false friend ("yeast", "intellect") is quite nice. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Go for it. I really do appreciate you helping out with the focus weeks, but I simply haven't had the will to deal with setting them yet. (If you want to set them, that would be even better, but I don't want to put more work on you.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to try setting a FWOTD some time, but I don't know what pages apart from the entries themselves should be edited.

And aalstreep now has two cites, though the literal meaning might as well be "eel-like stripe". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thank you for aalstreep. As for FWOTDs, it's pretty simple: the entry itself, assuming it is already in top-top condition, should have {{was fwotd}} added to it with the date and langcode (it's placed immediately under the L2 header, above anything else in the entry). The actual FWOTD is set from, say, Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2019/January (this is probably a good month for you to set a focus week). You click the links for each day on that page, and then fill in the parameters of the {{FWOTD}} template. For a focus week, you want to add the optional parameter focus=Focus week: Blahblahblah for each one, and if the entry has an audio file or is written in a script with poor font support like Gothic (and therefore needs an image, which Jberkel kindly produces), you should use the optional parameters audio= and image=. When choosing your week, just work around any FWOTDs that are already set and any other holidays that we might have an entry to commemorate (I don't think there are any in January save New Year's Day). If anything is unclear, just ask me or look at old FWOTDs. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

(Per your user page:) Bone. Me intencas havor semano fokusala pri fiktiva animali de la kinesma til la dek-e-unesma di januaro, se la artikli esas preta ante nov-yaro. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't respond in kind, but it's fun to get a message in Ido. Thank you for handling it! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Me jus asignis sis vorti a la semano fokusala. Me ne ja asignis la lasta dio; se la Japoniana vorto esos preta, me uzos to, altrakaze la Germaniana. Quo esez la maxim tarda dato por asignar ol (naturale ante la 12ma, ma ka la 11ma esus problemo)? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Sorry, I missed this message and then proceeded to archive. I generally set them just a day before, which is not exactly ideal but perfectly functional, so you need not worry about waiting a bit longer for the entries to be ready. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Where do I go to discuss this change so that it will not be reverted: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Module:anagrams&diff=next&oldid=51048372 ?

FWI, I was not edit warring I just wanted a reason for that edit.

What looks silly? Alphagrams? --User123o987name (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

A general place to suggest that change could be the Beer parlour. If you wanted a reason, you could ask for it instead of undoing it. And yes, the alphagrams look silly displayed that way. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

here.
The abbreviations match, WT definitions is in a line in WP (and my WP edit has yet to be reverted)DMBFFF (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, it's not wrong, it's just a link to the English Wikipedia with no English section to put it in. I guess I'll deal with it today or tomorrow. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Take your time. Thanks for your reply.   :)   DMBFFF (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's possible, I have a feeling there are going to be more than you care to fix by hand. I can look tomorrow. DTLHS (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I assume they can probably be fixed by bot without anything going wrong. But though they should be fixed eventually, the only pressing ones are those that link to appendix-only languages like Lojban, where the link was in fact broken as a result, and that should be a relatively small number of links. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why was this deleted? I can't find the discussion. Ƿidsiþ 15:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Widsith: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English § im Vorübergehen Per utramque cavernam 15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ta – found it. Ƿidsiþ 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Widsith, in general, it's good for you to know that we usually wait a week or so after deletion to archive a discussion, precisely for this reason. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have a question about Tibetan color articles you created. I don't know about Tibetan lanuage, but I saw some uses for that color names on Tibetan Wikipedia, like w:bo:ལ་སྟོད་དམར་པོ་ and w:bo:ཁབ་གོང་གི་ལྷ་ཁང་དམར་པོ་. So, I think Abugida ་ at the end is needed, like wikt:zh:དམར་པོ་ and wikt:zh:དཀར་པོ་. How do you think about this?

For same reason I call @Ming on Polish Wiktionary. Thanks.--Garam (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

We don't use the tsheg at the end of entry titles. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean that ་ of དམར་པོ་ is tsheg, not abugida? I don't understand why you think ་ is tsheg. If possible, could you explain more to me about it in detail? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

If your English is not good enough to understand those entries, I won't be able to explain any better. Just avoid editing Tibetan entries so you don't make a mess. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is regrettable for your wording. I think, there was a misunderstanding. Anyway, there are largely two things of my point. First, where is the rule you said on en.wikt, if it is tsheg? Second, so then why are tsheg being used in articles on other wikiprojects, if it is wrong? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not just right and wrong. There are often multiple ways of being right, but it's usually better to choose one and stick with it in order to be consistent. That may be a matter of consistent practice within our community of editors rather than of a written rule, but it's still not a good idea to change it without discussion. That said, I'm not familiar with the details in this case, so I may be a little off the mark. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for your answer. My reason for this questions is, I felt the need to interwiki it with the articles on other Wiktionarys, because of a few days ago new user created some articles lettered tsheg (e.g. ko:དམར་པོ་) on Korean Wiktionary, like Chinese Wiktionary and unlike English Wiktionary etc. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:About Tibetan. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply