User talk:Qehath

Be warned. I probably don't care at all about anything you might wish to discuss. (Unless you're nice to me, then I'm a total sucker.)

If you bite, (or if you're just a tool, or if I'm just in a foul mood,) I might bite back.

Most importantly, anything is possible if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Archive 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013-4 | 2015-6

I have a question: How would the term "foreskin restoration" be translated into (Modern Standard) Arabic and Maltese? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

And Hebrew as well, I almost forgot. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I know everybody knows I love penises, but that's definitely not something I would be able to figure out. Muslims and Jews I feel like generally aren't interested in getting our prepuces back, so uh... I dunno where I'd even start besides just guessing on google.

Although for Maltese I'd assume they'd be extremely likely to just borrow the Italian and nativize the spelling. — Z. b"A. — 04:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Judging from the Qur'an, the whole Qur'an and nothing but the Qur'an, Qur'anists (or, maybe, (neo-)Naẓẓāmis) could view foreskin removal as haram. For the Jews, there's what's called the brit shalom. Besides, there are the Hebrew, Persian and Turkish versions of the article at Wikipedia (the French, German and Korean versions are available as well; may the Koreamen of the Southern Half benefit from foreskin restoration).

As for other languages, I wish the Africans could learn about foreskin restoration, including but not limited the speakers of Hausa (and other Chadic languages), Swahili and Zulu. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, then I'd say probably the Hebrew is שחזור עורלה (shikhzur orla). — Z. b"A. — 04:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Give an explanation or don't revert. Ligata (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

False. I would never ask someone to leave a message on my discussion page. — Z. b"A. — 01:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ligata, Dick is correct, the message If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page is automatically generated. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see you consider yourself some sort of superstar who is entitled to take actions without explanation and reply sarcastically when confronted about them. Again I am telling you to stop reverting articles without providing explanations for doing so. When you do this, you are being destructive to Wiktionary and toxic to its goals of transparency and accountability. Ligata (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dick, Please be kinder to newbies. Not everyone gets your sarcasm. --WikiTiki89 19:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm finding it quite shocking that anyone thinks my prior message in this section was sarcastic. Like. I'm going to copypaste here what is literally at the very top of this page right now (and has been for probably at least 2 years if not more)

Be warned. I probably don't care at all about anything you might wish to discuss.

If you bite, (or if you're just a tool, or if I'm just in a foul mood,) I bite back.

Anything is possible if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The pictures that those links actually go to?

I don't really know what more I can add without my brain hurting at all this irony. — Z. b"A. — 01:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is queer a slur? I thought a lot of people self-identify as "queer" now; and besides, it's the Q in LGBTQ. Then the next question would be does גאה share the same denotations and connotations? --WikiTiki89 19:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'll preface the "my opinion" part of my response by saying I feel like this is a "no-POV" issue.

That as our background, I know a lot of people are comfortable with "queer" as a self-identification. Some of those individuals are rather dear to me. I guess I'm not as woke as them, because I still find it to be one of the most offensive things to be called. I'd rather be called a faggot than a queer. Like, much rather.

So in terms of present-day sociopolitics, to some people גאה might be a little saucy, but it's hard to imagine it being taken the way I personally take "queer." — Z. b"A. — 01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I feel like that's a personal problem? "Queer" is clearly being used in the context I referenced it in, in the citation, as a translation of גאה. Considering the other definitions it's obviously not referring to a slur. And on a side note, as a member of the queer community I am happy not to call you queer, but I'd much rather be called it than gay. Ligata (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Adding to this: bisexual and transgender people, as well as many lesbians, find the term "the gay community" to be highly offensive. This is because we are sensitive to the fact that gay men take precedence over the entire rest of the "alphabet soup" and that many politicians nowadays claim to be pro-LGBT when they are only pro-gay. We are constantly fighting against the tendency to equate LGBT with gay because it translates into fewer resources for us and higher rates of poverty, as well as a lack of protection against discrimination in many cases. So that's why we prefer the term "queer" because unlike gay, it refers to people who show any form of non-conformity with heteronormativity. And we find the term "the gay community" offensive because it is a form of homonormativity. Ligata (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Finally, in locking the page you were assuming bad faith when you should have at least understood that queer is a more nuanced term than you were making it out to be. All I did was add a term to the translation that is widely used and that I self-identify with, and that, furthermore, was translated that way in the name of an organization, which I cited as an example. You reverted without explanation, and all I asked for was an explanation. Instead of reverting without explanation and then locking, you should have discussed the matter with me. I did absolutely nothing wrong and the way you are acting is not reflective of Wiktionary's stated values. Ligata (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is not a platform for you to push your particular view of what words should mean. You are complaining that I removed "queer" preferring "gay" as a definition of the Hebrew word that would not have this meaning if it were not for the English word "gay."

I understand that queer is a more nuanced term. That's why I removed it from the neutral-word entry. Wiktionary is not based on your self-identification. And in this very particular matter, your opinion is vastly irrelevant because you don't actually speak Hebrew, so you have no idea what sort of nuances the word גאה might carry for people like myself who actually do speak Hebrew.

Lastly, you did not ask for an explanation. You demanded one. You might not have done anything wrong, but neither did you do much anything right. The way you are acting is obviously reflective of some extremely self-centered values. The smarter you are, the more likely you will be to just let this go.

Good day. — Z. b"A. — 12:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

First of all: I didn't at first demand an example; I first reverted your revert and gave a reason for mine, that you gave no reason for yours. That wasn't demanding, that was requesting an example. Secondly, I don't see a huge problem with demanding that on a collaborative dictionary project, you justify reversions of anything other than obvious vandalism. And even with obvious vandalism it's easy enough to just say "rv vandalism" and if it's not vandalism we can discuss that too. Why is that so much to ask? What would happen if someone without moderating priviliges acted the way that you are acting?

I cited a specific example of Hebrew speakers - in fact, Israeli citizens - using it to mean the thing that you are asserting it not to mean. As a non-Hebrew speaker, this is the only scenario in which I ever add definitions to Hebrew words. Look right here for the organization name that I was specifically citing. Note that in the name, the Hebrew word is גאות, the English word is queers, and the Arabic word is a direct borrowing of "queer" pluralized. So the word is translated twice as queer, into two different languages, in the specific example that I cited in my very first edit. I didn't just add it out of nowhere; why would I ever do such a thing? Does my edit history suggest that I just go around making up definitions for words? Why on Earth would you just assume I was making this up out of nowhere instead of googling the name of the organization I was citing as an example? Ligata (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

And funny enough, you say "Wiktionary is not a place to impose your personal views," and yet you are asserting a definition of גאה that is contradicted by one of the examples already attested on the page before I ever edited it and that is still on the page right now. If one of the examples refers to an LGBT film festival, aren't you the one imposing your personal views and using your privilege as a fluent speaker as leverage to shut me up? Ligata (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ligata: A couple things to point out here: Names of organizations are not a good source of accurate translations. The translation of the name of an organization is meant to describe the essence of the organization in roughly the same way, but not necessarily have the same exact literal meaning. The second thing is that גאה clearly is also applied to women in this sense, which means that it cannot be restricted to "gay men". So out of the four letters in LGBT, it must at the very least refer to the L and G, but it's up to actual speakers of Hebrew familiar with this area of terminology to decide whether it also refers to the B and the T (and whatever else). --WikiTiki89 15:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've found a few pages (User:DTLHS/Lithuanian headwords) where the headword doesn't match the page name even after removing diacritics. Usually there's an extra "i". I don't know if the correct solution is to move the page or to change the headword, but I'm willing to fix them if I know how. DTLHS (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The -iose ones have the correct pagetitle, but an extra i in the headword. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you create noun declension templates for Assamese like Bengali? -- Sagir (talk) 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ric isn't likely to want to deal with this. You'd be better off asking Aryaman. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. What do you think of heterosexuals, and of my entry cum receptacle? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:1D0A:BECC:8CAD:7152 19:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some of my best friends are heterosexuals! I usually don't care who's gay and who's straight cuz...at the end of the day they're both gross.

As for cum receptacle, I find the combination of words utterly amusing. As far as I can tell, the entry looks to be formatted correctly (ooohh isbn numbers, fuck yeah) but to be honest, I'm kind of slow at keeping up with all our little formatting quirks. — Z. b"A. — 02:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was curious about this, as the w:Fallen angel article has a section discussing fallen angels in Judaism. However, that article is a bit confusing to me. Is it that fallen angels were an historical aspect of Second-Temple Judaism, but now they are not part of modern Judaic thought? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Use of the term in Japanese and any even vaguely mainstream concept of fallen angels in Judaism do not overlap in the slightest. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The concept described in our entry fallen angel (an "angel" that has "rebelled" against its creator) — from the viewpoint of basic, traditional Jewish theology — is utterly, bafflingly ludicrous. "Angels" are things that G-d creates to serve a designated purpose. They have no free will to rebel. If an angel were to "rebel" against G-d, it would be because that's what it was created to do. I wouldn't call that "falling". Haréi, I expect that your average Muslim would have similar reactions to the term, but I'm actually not well-versed enough in Islamic cosmology to state it as fact. And I'm too lazy to read the Wikipedia article.

Anyway. Judaism is not Christianity minus Jesus. — Z. b"A. — 19:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for your replies. Re: Judaism ⊄ Christianity, fully understood. I'm not that up on either subject, and thought it more appropriate to ask here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm going through related entries to make the same change. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I got all the ones that link to/from fallen angel, but I'm sure there are unrelated entries with similar inaccuracies. I'll explode about them when I find them. — Z. b"A. — 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello nice to meet you. I have a doubt about this Hebrew term I create: אורפה (Ewropa) Is אורפה correct?? Gioielli (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Gioielli: No it's not correct. Please stop creating words in languages you don't know. --WikiTiki89 13:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wait a second, I ve created a new Hebrew word for the city Frosinon: "פרוסנון" Is it possible? @WikiTiki89 Gioielli (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Gioielli: Yes you did, and I deleted it, because it was wrong. Please stop creating words in languages you don't know. --WikiTiki89 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uff ok. And how is Frosinon written in Hebrew if you can tell me please? Gioielli (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

פְרוֹזִינוֹנֶה (frozinóne). But please don't create an entry for it yourself. --WikiTiki89 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks. Therefore insert you it please! Gioielli (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to, because I can only find one use of this word in Google Books. --WikiTiki89 14:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok. I don't understand.. Is this word not written on the books of Google? Gioielli (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

See WT:CFI#Attestation. --WikiTiki89 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You sure about the IPA? I would guess that this is one of those cases where the only people who use the word also know to use /h/. But I'll admit that I've never heard a native speaker say it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You've got some t͡ʃʊt͡spə talking to me like that

I'm pretty sure people (at least Jews) include /h/ in intervocal context, but. I would be surprised if anybody included it by default. — Zack. — 08:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lysdexia (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

97% of the entries you added to the Abrahamism categories, which you did not go on to create with the devastatingly easy {{autocat}}, did not belong in Abrahamism categories, they belonged in Christianity categories. If you aren't going to take the time to add appropriately specific categories, I'm not going to take the time to check every single one. Reverting your lazy edits adding red-linked categories isn't vandalism. — Zack. — 01:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

A semicolon belongs there. Your Christianity and Gnosticism reverts weren't justified, nor was your Lucifer revert. On the Catholicism and Anglicanism reverts those better belong in Papism and Petrism categories but most readers involved shall find those deprecative. So I'll ask you what makes a religion "Christian" or fit under that category? Does Messianic Judaism go under Christianity? Does a parody, misinterpretation, or opposition of the NT? My edits weren't lazy but the opposite of yours; you'd need to know the material first to deem ascriptions to each sect. Lysdexia (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm noticing other problems, but I'm not going to take the time to explain if it doesn't seem like you're interested in what you did wrong. — Zack. — 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This one is easy enough: diff You vandalized this entry by changing the category from an appropriate, specific one, to a vague useless one. — Zack. — 01:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, that was overspecific and inconsistent with the term's entries. However if you want terms to link to their own categories, unlike that one, I already left those on many that already had them. Nothing justifies your tool use. Lysdexia (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then you could have removed the word "Roman" and it would have been fine. It was one example of something you did in other entries. Another thing you did was add categories to forms-of, when they should always be at the lemma. On "many" that had them is utterly irrelevant. You overwrote more specific ones with less specific ones at least as often as you left the originals. Regardless, if an entry is in the category "Christianity" it does not need to also be in "Abrahamism." Entries don't belong in every parent of every cat they're in. It's nobody's job to clean up after your carelessness. Leave me alone or I'm going to give you a short block for disruptiveness. — Zack. — 02:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I know how categories work. I almost removed the Christianity categories but that may offend feler folk. However Christianity doesn't belong there as those sects follow another person in the NT. Lysdexia (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lysdexia: Your Abrahamism are controversial. Bring them to WT:TR or something. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed your psychotic rant about how Mormonism isn't Christian, blahblahblah, you and Pastor Jeffries can feel free to discuss that somewhere I don't have to hear you. Wiktionary is not the grounds for your linguistic religious war and most people don't have a problem with calling a religion that's into Jesus "Christian." — Zack. — 03:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You mean my rational rant. "most people"? Where is your poll? When some folk say Christian they mean nonMormon; others mean nonCatholic. I mean nonsectarian nonapostolic. The Shakers and Pentecostals are more Kristian than Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodoxes; any more Jesuist and they'd chop their bollocks off and nearly die or die of poisoning or provoked homicide. Lysdexia (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lysdexia What does 'feler' mean? 'Offend feler folk'...what does it mean? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: It must be "fellow". @Lysdexia: Your activity with Christianity categories may warrant a temporary block. Too many changes without any apparent consensus. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

No, feler is the comparative of fele. I categorized lots of noncontroversial pages that were reverted without a reason, and pasted the WLC's translation of Lucifer that was reverted without a reason. If ye don't mind I'll move denominations into their respective sects and delete the religion category on them if I find one.

I don't think Lysdexia cares about consensus. E seems to think e knows better than everyone else. It appears to have always been the case, going back at least 8 years to butting heads with encyclopetey. — Zack. — 11:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The third-person singular definite common pronoun is who, not e. Can I find the pronoun e on Wiktionary? Nope. I do want consensus; if you didn't already notice I heed BRD. But to be specific I want to convince the world it's wrong, not necessarily from original research but by betokenan the world's internal dissonant contradictions. Do you want consensus? It can't exclude a good argument. Lysdexia (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Take the next two weeks to enjoy a nice, soothing hobby. — Zack. — 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You like Lithuanian, you like dick. Any idea what the story is with the etymology here? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Блядёшка. — Zack. — 03:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I’m a fairly new user, so I’m a bit confused as to why you reverted some of my edits. I’m assume that you have a valid reason for reverting the pages, and I don’t want to waste your time, so I want to avoid making unhelpful edits in the future. I figured that it would be helpful to link the words in examples, but I can see why that is not pertinent to the subject of the entry. But why did you remove the English translations that I added to the page תחת? Hk5183 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I reverted it back to your version. Looks fine to me, although linking to individual words like that is probably overkill. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The linking to random individual words was basically my problem with it. — Zack. — 15:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kindness is weakness and you will agree on that, but Trump supporters like you need to burn to ashes. Smoke more cigarettes and drink tons of alcohol, you bipedal human scum. Trump supporters must die (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I love my hatemail. Especially when it says I have to die because of my political views or religion. (This person also said, "People who adhere to Judaism must burn in hell. We definitely need another holocaust.") This must be that famous left-wing tolerance I keep hearing about. — Zack. — 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it is a wing-thing. I think that it is an intolerance thing. Some people, wherever they are on the political spectrum, just do not want to tolerate people who think differently than they do and/or believe different things than they do. It's quite sad. But I'm a moderate independent politically, so what do I know? That's just my view. Tharthan (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

it's a vandal lmao —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was going to say "I suspect that myself, but I assume good faith (in a sort of odd manner in this instance) in terms of a person not being a vandal", but since that user is listed as having made eighteen edits, and yet they are also listed as having no contributions, I have now come to the same conclusion that Suzukaze-c came to. Tharthan (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Tharthan I didn't think this needed to be stated, since the left is always attacking the right specifically for being "intolerant" or "bigoted." So when people say things like this to me, I bask in the irony of people who claim to be supporters of tolerance indulging in wild bigotry. — Zack. — 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm fairly new and I noticed that you changed my user rights to 'autopatroller', what exactly does it mean and why was I chosen for it? thanks btw. AuroraeLux (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

New users' edits are marked with little buttons that experienced editors click to signal that someone has looked at the edits and made sure they're not vandalism or garbage editing. When new editors look like they know what they're doing, they get upgraded to autopatrollers so those little buttons don't show up. It looks like you know what you're doing, so I think you deserve it. — Zack. — 21:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wow, now I get it, thanks again! AuroraeLux (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@AuroraeLux It's no problem. Just keep up the good work lol. On another note, you should consider starting your user page (User:AuroraeLux). It's considered good wiktionary etiquette to include a {{Babel}}box on there, or some indication of languages and coding you can handle. — Zack. — 10:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

...for creating the Maltese lemmas. Note that I've created new conjugation templates for ita/a-a, ita/a-i and eng. When you want to use these with a verb with two initial consonants you can switch to ita2/a-a, ita2/a-i and eng2. (That's how I called them...) You'll get the same thing but it adds ni-, ti-, ji- in the imperfect instead of n-, t-, j-. 2.202.159.91 16:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@2.202.159.91 I haven't worked on Maltese in a year or two, but the last time I was working on it, I was trying to expand the conjugation templates to include negative forms and direct object pronouns for those that use them. If you want to look at them, I still have them in subpages:

• User:Qehath/why (the table-template for the table)
• User:Qehath/why-d (the table-template with direct objects)
• User:Qehath/why/kiteb jikteb (conj table for kiteb/jikteb type conjugation)
• User:Qehath/why/kiteb jikteb/d (conj template for the above type, with direct objects)

I can't remember exactly how to use them, but it should be relatively easy for me to figure it out again if you need pointers. — Zack. — 21:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think negative forms would definitely be a great thing. So let's try those, yeah. ---- With objects it gets messy, of course. I mean if we have direct objects, why not also indirect objects, and then direct and indirect combined. Those are more than 1,000 forms; I don't even know how many exactly... Maybe there could be a reduced approach. If I'm not mistaken (I might be), the 1st and 2nd persons of the perfect simply add the endings; there are no changes in the stem. So they're not necessary. And in the imperfect, all singular forms and all plural forms behave the same way respectively. So what might make sense is to have only 5 exemplary forms with direct suffixes: the three 3rd persons of the perfect, and one singular and one plural form of the imperfect (3rd m. and 3rd pl.). That would be 32 forms without suffixes + 70 forms with suffixes. But for now I'd prefer to just do the x-forms. 2.202.159.91 03:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for helping. We can really use additional contributors. (We also have a very tiny Wiktionary project at incubator:Wt/lad, if you're interested.)

Happens that I noticed #halájico above. I'd guess an American Ashkenazi Jew who has learned Spanish might pronounce the leading /h/. I doubt a Sephardi(t) would. You'll notice on ladwiki that an awful lot of pages which have leading /h/ (or even medial /h/) from Hebrew lose it there: "Avraam Avinu", "Bet Amikdash". It even happens in the real world: The local Sephardic synagogue where I live is called "עץ החיים", but is rendered in English as "Etz Ahaim". I fully grant that Judeo-Spanish and modern Spanish aren't the same in phonology, but I have no doubt that leaving it out was correct.

Again, thanks for coming to work with us at ladwiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's my pleasure, Ladino is enchanting and merits preservation. I've also noticed a lot of nonexistent H, it's one of my biggest pet peeves. English Wikipedia's entry for Kuando en rey Nimrod contains that and a lot of other irritants that drive me insane. לשנה טובה :) — Zack. — 20:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

לשנה טובה תכתב ותחתם! StevenJ81 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The stress doesn't shift, but it would look weird to include the accent marks in the declension templates even when the stress is penultimate, e.g.: batámt, batámter instead of batámt, batamter. I would find this inconsistent and so confusing for learners, but I guess it's not as big of a deal as I thought, the more I write about it. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I like the way you think; as a serial learner of incredibly diverse languages, I always appreciate stress marks in dictionaries and other learning tools. If I'm reading a book or something that's different, but anywhere in a dictionary if there's not stress marks I panic and cry on the floor </exaggeration> — Zack. — 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've just created this, assuming it's the equivalent of French un trou c’est un trou (literally "a hole is a hole", meaning "any woman/person is good to fuck, no matter how they look"). But could it also be a reference to anal sex seen as a valid sexual practice? What do you think? PUC – 13:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh shit, how did I miss this. A hole is a hole and any hole's a goal definitely hit my gay ear as treating anal sex as valid and desirable — Zack. — 18:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You've been adding French usexes for the past few weeks, which I'm assuming you're writing yourself.

I'm sorry to say this, but they are all too often unnatural and/or ungrammatical: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. The problem is that correcting them is time-consuming, time which I'd rather spend on creating more entries.

So could I ask you to stop doing that, or at least run them by a linguistically-minded native speaker before adding them here?

Thanks! PUC – 23:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to run them by native speakers but they get tired of all my constant questions and start avoiding me. :'( — Zack. — 03:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can ask me questions - not too many - if you want. But then expect me to ask a few English-related questions en échange! PUC – 22:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to control myself (against my basic nature) but don't worry about asking me too many, I live for language. Luckily I use the CNRTL a lot so I'm getting better about grammar and distinctions between quasi-synonyms, but as you've seen I'm still far from natural. But I do learn from the corrections you make, so I thank you for that.

I had forgotten until today how much I enjoy using Google Books to find uses of words. Not as much as I enjoy making up silly or dramatic example sentences, but enough. — Zack. — 00:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you have reverted the translations I offered for the quotes on the pages for Isolation and Pour que. My translations were accurate and illustrative of the phrases and as such, I am wondering why you felt it necessary to delete them. — This unsigned comment was added by Gbjerkec (talk • contribs).

Because they were improperly formatted and I'm not in the mood to clean up after people. — Zack. — 20:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Let me clean up after myself? Why is this your job? You are already going out of your way and making the pages harder to understand.

I was merely offering my services as a French/Norwegian speaker. You have decided that this nebulous formatting is important enough to warrant a ban but unimportant enough to warrant not fixing it and not explaining the issue in greater detail. Since you are so set on making it more difficult for me to contribute, I see no reason to engage with you further. If you want to reverse my edits, go for it. I won't stand in your way or attempt to reverse these counterproductive measures. But I would then ask you to delete messages asking for English translations of various phrases as this clearly is not a priority for you. You can do what you like of course, I would just see that a means of avoiding this sort of thing in the future. — This unsigned comment was added by Gbjerkec (talk • contribs).

Your ignorance is impressive. — Zack. — 04:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

My ignorance? How am I ignorant? Please tell me. I am genuinely curious. — This unsigned comment was added by Gbjerkec (talk • contribs).

I blocked you from editing for a day, including the message that you should take some of that time to familiarize yourself with Wiktionary formatting. The edits you've made since that block expired seem to indicate that you did not do that.

Our formatting is in NO way "nebulous"; indeed it is quite the opposite. Our formatting is highly organized and structured so that readers can see information in clear and consistent form, and so that editors can easily find entries with particular features. Editing with disregard for format makes the dictionary look lazy, amateur, unworthy of trust. It takes time to learn how to properly use templates, how we format things, but it's essential for building a meritworthy dictionary.

For example, you suggested that I remove the request for English translations of example sentences. The only way to do that is to include a translation within the template. What you were doing, putting translations after the template, does not remove the translation request. The template doesn't recognize what's put outside it.

I'll leave it at that for now. I'll end by saying I'll try to keep an eye on your edits and be patient enough to fix the formatting, but we'll need you to take note of the corrections I make so that it won't be necessary for someone to clean up after you.

Also, you should sign your messages on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your messages. — Zack. — 21:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's nebulous when it's near-impossible to figure out how it's meant to be done. The 'improper' formatting I used in those pages still exists in other pages that have not been touched by you or by anyone else. What perplexes me is that you decided that this formatting is important enough to warrant reversing edits up to a one-day ban but not important enough to warrant an explanation beyond improper formatting. If you had told me the way that you wanted it formatted, then I would not be responding in this manner because that shows that you actually care to take the necessary time in solving the issue. But as it stands, I have no choice but to see your logic as incoherent and your standards as nebulous. Especially because the information was very clear even in the 'improper' way that I formatted it, I must admit that I do not follow your perspective even slightly and that I am beginning to wonder if there is any point in discussing anything with you at all given your arrogance and your inability to explain yourself with any rational clarity. This is hardly the tone one expects from a site administrator. It's not worth fighting you about, I just think that you should know that you are actively making this thing harder to edit. If upholding some useless standard that does not noticeably impact clarity and that you can't even be bothered to explain―as an administrator no less is more important than the input of information, then that is frankly not my problem. There are many things that you would have done if updating information was your priority but you did none of them. Do with that what you will―it's a mere piece of honest feedback―but I am nonetheless finished with this conversation. Now I could sign this, but I don't see the point. You can keep track of the two people in this conversation. — This unsigned comment was added by Gbjerkec (talk • contribs).

Your arrogance, the projection of which is thoroughly amusing, is very nearly as astonishing as your ignorance. I am not the only person here who values standardization of format. Your disdain for the community standards rather disgusts me. Je ne saurais trop vous conseiller de foutre le camp. If you're too good to give a damn about such simple things as where to put brackets, you must certainly have better things to do than write translations of our lowly use examples. — Zack. — 21:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m trying to make the orthography for Westrobothnian more consistent and so I moved all of the contents of aigg to egg and deleted most of the stuff on the aigg page and just wrote that it is an alternative spelling of egg. Is this not a good way to clean it up? Rubbedibubb (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

You had it marked for speedy deletion, which we only use for vandalism and obvious errors like capitalization mistakes. It might not have been necessary for me to revert completely, but it wasn't clear to me until later that the information had been moved elsewhere. Anyway, the entry should be kept as an alternative spelling entry. — Zack. — 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

For future reference, you need to nominate users for autopatroller status at Wiktionary:Whitelist. I'd say it's fine to let Lafemmefrancaise keep it though. Ultimateria (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do not value bureaucracy. Que vous aillez bien. — Zack. — 22:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

More idiomatically: porte-toi bien / portez-vous bien. PUC – 16:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just dropping this here: if you ever get congratulated by someone you'd like to get freaky with, you can remind him that "félicitations rime avec fellation". PUC – 16:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

T'es un trésor. J'espère que tu le sais. — Zack. — 19:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

About the incorrect usage of moi aussi instead of non plus I was just pointing the fact that it's a common mistake in common french which grown ups constantly bring up to the ones who commit it. I don't think the the confusion is such a thing in english as I never encountered it. Tim31330 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I saw the comment you left in the wikitext way back. Fifteen years later, it is done. —Biolongvistul (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply