User talk:PlanetStar

Maybe just add -orse as a suffix instead of filling the page with every "orsed" adjective? Equinox ◑ 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You mean "orst", not "orsed" as it is not a past tense, but meaning least in quality or quantity (e.g. saforst meaning least safe). PlanetStar (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe just add -orse as a suffix instead of filling the page with every "orst" adjective? Equinox ◑ 06:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might be interested in WT:CFI#Attestation as a number of your entries may not meet it. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're still creating entries that aren't attestable, as far as I can tell. For example, google books:"uranolatry" only turns up one use. Please stop creating these. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There was "uranolatry" included in -latry entry that was red-linked, which meant it is an existing word. I didn't add to that list in the first place. I saw it in google that there is couple of dictionary sites that define "uranolatry". PlanetStar (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter where it's linked — if it's not attestable, you shouldn't create it. The onus is on you alone. And as you should know, dictionaries don't count, only actual uses. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

e.g. Monight, Tuesnight. I have added "rare, nonstandard". We shouldn't present these to learners like everyday normal words. Equinox ◑ 19:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

These are nouns, not proper nouns. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are actually two reasons I reverted you:

The first one is that there was no evidence for actual Latin usage of the term that I could find. As Equinox mentioned when he reverted you, Google Translate is notoriously bad: being an automated system, it has no idea what words mean, it just uses statistics based on huge databases of texts and translations. It can be useful to come up with s rough guess, but it should never, ever be used as a reference for dictionary purposes.

Just for laughs, I used Google Translate to get a Latin translation for the paragraph above, then I used Google translate to translate that translation back to English:

The first thing is not to use the word of the message could not be found. Google Translate notoriously bad, not with the automated system, it does not have an idea that is because just uses the statistics based on the huge databases of text translations. It may be useful to come with it's rough suspicion, he may 'I have never, ever been' for reference purposes Dictionary.

As you can see, it's not completely wrong, but it's still pretty awful.

The second reason is that you used {{head|pl|noun form}}. In case you were unaware, "pl" is the language code for Polish. Because of your edit, the entry was added to Category:Polish non-lemma forms and Category:Polish noun forms. After almost two years, 457 edits and 86 entry creations, you should have known better. Please pay attention to what you're doing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

In addition to Google translate, I also found elit as the Latin word for movie in indifferentlanguages.com, where I just realize there is 'edit' link there. I didn't realize that pl in head template is the language code for Polish, I was thinking plural code. That's because I copy-pasted templates and headers from Polish section and edited over. PlanetStar (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add stuff like YouTube channel names. (I assume that was you!) They aren't English words, and anybody can make up anything as a channel name. The same goes for company and brand names unless they are really famous ones. Equinox ◑ 14:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply