User talk:Robbie SWE

Archives:

2009-2011

2012-2014

2015-2017

2018

N.B.

If you want an answer from me, please add new messages at the bottom of this page.

diff Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

According to me and the Romanian community, it is something to be concerned about. I'll go through his translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you asked me to come here so I have :) I've corrected my edit – the additional meaning is in Hebrew. Is cross-lingual "see also" not customary? If it is, please re-revert your edits on старина and old chap; if it's not, I'll remove the reference to the quivalent English and Russian words from קשישא. Also, this form has no feminine counterpart, even though the template seems to demand one... I don't know how to fix that. Could you help? Thank you.

User:PalkiaX50, I invite you to this talk page as well. — This unsigned comment was added by 185.175.33.144 (talk).

I think the main problem is that you removed the Aramaic adjective section when you added the Hebrew section. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This was by accident; I meant to state that the word is only noun in Hebrew.

Well, Robbie SWE and User:PalkiaX50, you revert my edits but then I open a discussion and you don't reply? That's not very constructive..— This unsigned comment was added by 185.175.33.144 (talk).

I haven't had the time to respond because of my responsibilities in the real world. To answer your question – no, to the best of my knowledge, cross-lingual "See also" sections are not customary, and yours especially because they had nothing to do with the main lemma entry. I considered them translations and those do not belong under "See also". Chuck Entz also pointed out that you removed a valid section which is a big no-no. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

... and I replied it was simply done by accident. I understand, please see if it's all right now. Thanks.— This unsigned comment was added by 185.175.33.144 (talk).

Checked and corrected. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Why is the "Translations" section not used in non-English entries? And wouldn't be recommendable to note at least the English equivalents to the word? — This unsigned comment was added by 185.175.33.144 (talk).

This is an English-language dictionary, so given that it is impractical for translations to be on all pages, they are kept on English pages. All foreign-language words have English "equivalents" given as their definition. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Μετάknowledge. This indeed sounds reasonable in general, but look at the case in point (קשישא): the mere definition – "Affectionate term of address for a man" – does not fully convey the meaning of the word, not like a reference to the quivalent English terms old boy or old chap.

For improving russata — This unsigned comment was added by 172.56.23.187 (talk).

Any time, but please look at my changes and try to do the same. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. -- Not logged in (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2019 (Eastern time)

Is my talk supposed to be red because it's not. -- Not logged in (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2019 (Eastern time)

It is as long as you haven't created a user profile. Take a look at our help pages and familiarise yourself with our templates. Have fun editing! --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I just noticed that you reverted my edits from yesterday with respect to bleedin' obvious. Would be interested in hearing what your reasoning was? In my view, the contraction should be an alternative spelling of 'bleeding obvious', as I indicated in my edit. On that basis I moved the content to bleeding obvious, which you also deleted. Thanks in advance. --130.149.212.121 10:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

PS: On a sidenote, I'd appreciate it if you'd include the 'why' of edits in the 'Edit summary' instead of asking people to come here and ask you. If you're applying a particular Wiktionary guideline then that would be a great place to mention that, so that I can look it up myself instead of having to spend unnecessary time writing here and you spend unnecessary time answering. Cheers.

Thank you for contacting me! The rollback function does not permit us to include "why" we reverted an edit – it's a fast and efficient tool used by admins to go through the hundreds of edits done on a daily basis. If commenting were enabled, I would've explained it.

When it comes to bleedin' obvious, it had an actual quote from Fawlty Towers. You can't alter a quote to make it fit what might be a "more correct" form of a set phrase – that's the reason why I reverted your edit and also why I deleted the other form. On the other hand, I have no opposition to you recreating bleeding obvious as long as you add real quotes and mention the alternative form bleedin' obvious. As an alternative, you can also follow the example set by for cryin' out loud. Let me know if you need additional guidance. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer. The spelling in the quote is not authoritative (only a primary source for the script would be). Here, the same quote is spelled without a contraction, for example. Google has almost 30 million results for the standard spelling, and 245,000 for the nonstandard spelling (less than 1% in comparison). When searching specifically for the Fawlty Towers quote, the standard spelling returns 22,200 results, the nonstandard spelling 13,700. See also from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious. Seeing as it's taken from a TV programme in which the expression was spoken, not written, the spelling of the expression in the entry here should reflect the standard spelling, in my opinion, in the same way that the example you cited (for cryin' out loud) is not the main entry for for crying out loud. Since I had created bleeding obvious with the main-entry content in the same way that for crying out loud has the main-entry content, and used a template in the entry for the nonstandard spelling to link the main entry, I fail to see how this is any different from for cryin' out loud. I've recreated the new entry and moved the content there in addition to providing an additional quote. --130.149.213.16 20:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nicely done! Thank you for readding the information and for following our guidelines. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting the IPA formatting on Middle English "seen!"

VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any time ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your rollback to this entry is in error, and so is the definition you restored. What should I do? 73.71.251.64 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely nothing, because quotes confirm the current definition. If you have an additional definition – with supporting sources and quotes – you are more than welcome to also add it too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't intend to do "absolutely nothing." I intend to restore the changes, for the following reasons.

• Of the quotations previously included, no clear definition follows from the Berdahl quote, and the definition provided did not specifically follow from the Meyers quote either.
• OED gives 1843 as the earliest recorded use. In that year I found this source, in the sense of the first definition that I added. It's not easily quoted, but that does not invalidate the definition.
• Berdahl's use of the term derives from Konrad, and Konrad made his meaning clear.

73.71.251.64 23:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't oppose those definitions, but I have no reason to question the first definition which was added by the original creator of the article and a trusted contributor. I'll let @Equinox chime in so hopefully we'll be able to find some common ground. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Challenging a cited definition requires RFV. Robbie, you should preferably have restored the deleted sense or created an RFV on behalf of this rude IP address. For now I'm going to restore it as not properly challenged. Whether his/her new senses are remotely okay I don't know either, but I have other things to do. Thanks for the heads up. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did restore it only to have the anon revert my changes. Needless to say, I was mildly annoyed but I'll keep an eye on this entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This one. Sorry it took so long for me to notice, I haven't usually edited while logged out until recently. 68.193.209.173 22:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia, the clavichord was developed in the early 14th century, almost four centuries before the piano. The restored statement that the harpsichord and the clavichord predate the piano is therefore correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're right, but that's not why I removed the clavichord. Like the piano, but unlike the harpsichord, the clavichord is capable of making gradual changes in dynamics, even if only within a small range due to its overall quietness. 68.193.209.173 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. However, I feel that we're nitpicking and we are after all a dictionary. If you still feel strongly about it, I encourage you to delete it again and I promise not to revert it this time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't particularly obvious, but all of the edits by this IP were deliberate hoaxes. They basically took random characters and random languages, and mixed and matched them. For instance, at the Thai letter ฦ, they said it was obsolete in Thai, but still used by Chewa. As far as I know, it's still used in Thai, and Chewa is an African language. Then there was "ധ⃪", which is the Malayalam letter ധ with some diacritic that I don't recognize- probably from another script. That entry first had a Konkani header, which is plausible- Malayalam is one of the scripts it uses. Then it was changed to Lingala, a Bantu language from Africa, and finally they settled on Pileni, which is a Polynesian language. The part about it being transliterated as s' is wrong- it's d̪ʱ. Then there's ʺ, which is used in transliteration of Cyrillic. First they added a translingual sense for 'A ʺpaoī, ʺ, used in several Polynesian languages.' I haven't been able to find any reference to paoī, but I don't think it means anything, and I've never heard of a Polynesian language that uses anything of the sort. Then they added a section for Saho, which is another African language, and used the language code sah, which is the code for Yakut, which is a Northern Turkic language.

The last one is the only one that you might have been expected to spot: the language categories at the bottom didn't match the language header at all, as you can see here. Not that I'm complaining, since you catch just as much vandalism as I do (probably more). The only reason I caught it was because they hard-coded their "Pileni letters" category instead of using {{auto cat}} and I was going to fix it for them- that, and I was wondering why I had never heard of a Pileni script.

I just thought I'd share this with you so you'd have a better chance of catching them if they try it again. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz; Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not at all familiar with those languages, so I felt that I wasn't in the position to question the validity of the edits. But now I know and will keep an eye on it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've taken these variant forms from the Romanian page. I myself have met the word 'păsulă' in my studies. Michael D. Lawrence (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You didn't use proper formatting and you also deleted the qualifier "rare" for fasolă. If these forms are attested, readd them but please use correct formatting the second time around. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Robbie, you made the last revert on that page, so I contact you. The given form "să cumpăre" for the subjunctive, 3rd person, is in conflict with "să cumpere" on the romanian wiktionary. A search on that wiktionary (and elsewhere) seems to indicate, that "să cumpere" is the right form. I don't know it. Can you resolve the problem? Best regards, --Griot (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 Done, I fixed the subjunctive and I double-checked the form on DEX. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Robbie. I had the sense of the definition on this page that you "rolled back" from Merriam Webster, which gives for illustrious: "notably or brilliantly outstanding because of dignity or achievements or actions". I feel that the sense of being exceptional or outstanding is more inherent, and therefore more basic than that of being admired, distinguished, or respected. Additionally, the first sense seems to be a prerequisite to the other, which is an action of an observer to the subject's being exceptional or outstanding. Indeed, this is why I placed this definition before the one currently existing on the page. Additionally, i thing it important to retain the sense of brilliance or splendor in the definition, as it carries forward the meaning of the root lustrō forward through the etymology. Would you not say that the subject which is characterized as being illustrious is one which evokes an image or feeling of brilliance or brightness in the mind's eye of an observer? What do you think? — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

I disagree – your changes only complicated a comprehensive definition which already conveys a similar meaning. To be completely honest with you, I rolled it back because you were trying to make it fit your changes at insignis. Please don't drag other lemmas into your work with insignis. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

While it is true that I was brought to this page by my trying to refine the insignis page as per the recommendations of "surjection", my effort here was based on what I conceive to be a shortcoming in the existing definition, rather than upon on attempt to make this definition "fit" with that page. Again, the sense that I wanted to convey is from Merriam Webster, and is readily available online, and I have difficulty in understanding how you can deny the logic I have related above. I will bow to your authority, however, as you are much more invested in Wiktionary than I am...

Sorry if I have caused you any anguish. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

I haven't lost any sleep over it, I assure you. I dislike superfluity and even if you have backup in the form of Merriam Webster, the extra definition was unnecessary and served no other purpose than to align it with the definitions at insignis. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'm glad that you haven't lost sleep...but the aggressive tenor of your responses seem to indicate that a certain amount of anguish may have been caused you. Please be assured that I am not attempting to attack either your intelligence or your judgement, or to be some kind of disruptive 'smart-ass', so you needn't adopt a defensive posture with respect to me. Avoiding the development of feelings of defensiveness is certainly required if one is to "participate in the spirit of collegiality" that you have spoken of elsewhere. My purpose here was precisely to recognize and delineate the difference between the senses of the words distinctive and distinguished, both of which I believe to be encompassed by the meaning of both the English illustrious and the Latin insignis as well. The first sense is, of course, causative of the second; a thing can only become distinguished by its first being distinctive. That is why I think that the sense of distinctive is the more basic (or, "fundamental", as I have said on the insignis page) sense of both of these lemmas. The existing definition of illustrious only includes the sense rendered by distinguished, as a quick check of the Wiktionary definitions of illustrious and distinguished will clearly show. By including the other definition, I was attempting to include the causative and more fundamental sense of distinctive as well, as the Merriam Webster definition does, that's all. Do you follow my reasoning? By that reasoning, I deny having introduced superfluity into the article, but as I say, this is your project and I must abide by your wishes.

Dude/Dudette, in all honesty if you think that is aggressive, you haven't seen me when I'm really angry. I was trying to be to the point – I apologise if it came off as anguished or aggressive, it wasn't my intention at all. Nonetheless, I'm still not seeing eye to eye with you on this one – as I said before, the definition is fine as it is and the sense you want to add only seems like overkill to me. If you want a second opinion, you can try to start a discussion about this in the Tea Room or the entry's discussion page. PS: please sign your posts using the signature button. On another note, why do you keep using different IPs? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "dude" is correct...I am a fellow from Massachusetts in the U.S. Thanks for the apology and clarification. You are certainly right in noting that the instant definition is fine as it is; I only diverge from you in my thinking that it is incomplete, and so might benefit from the addition. The effort of a discussion, while perhaps being warranted, exceeds the attention that I myself am willing to devote to this point. I will leave the matter to you; should you change your mind upon reflection, then tweak my intended addition as you see fit and undo your rollback. Should you not, then that's fine too. The reason for the varying IPs is that I am in "building services", and I use different computers, depending upon which office of my company I am working in at a given time or on a given day. Thanks. If you would like to give me your opinion and suggestions regarding insignis, even if only to say "man, that's crap", then I would appreciate the input. Thanks more.

Hello. I would like to know the reason for this roll back: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=wear_and_tear&oldid=prev&diff=53321863 .

Thanks in advance. ——Chanc20190325 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have several reasons: 1) bad formatting, 2) the wording was somewhat off – it wasn't as precise as it could be and would potentially confuse users less well-versed in the English language, 3) "wear and tear" is mainly a state not so much a process, 4) the sense is pretty much already covered in the existing definition, and 5) your contributions are starting to reek of a biased POV (thinking of this) – you seem to have an agenda in reference, to among other things, "aging". Please respect Wiktionary guidelines and maintain a NPOV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explaination. But the bad formatting can be fixed (see: W:WP:IMPROVEIT), and if one definition confuses users, they can refer to the other, existing definition. Maybe, I should have placed that edit on “to wear out” (the process equivalent). And circumcision on either gender being genital mutilation is a fact, not a biassed, subjective opinion. But thanks for the reply. ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You referenced a biased source – you should be grateful that you weren't blocked on sight. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

But I have not done any harm and I have not promoted any company or organisation. If I have promoted anything, it is health and physical integrity. And I have referenced 3 sources. Alright, Foreskin.Life is maybe a bit biassed (realized it now), but ForeskinFunctions.org has their own scientific reference section at the bottom of the page. They include sources such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ . ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter which sources you provide if your sole purpose is to deviate from the current quite technical description, to a more subjective definition of a medical procedure. I hope you are aware that in some cases, strictly for men, circumcision is a medical necessity. They can't lead a healthy life without it. You put yourself on my radar and I'll keep a close eye on your edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with one of the original points: rephrasing a definition in different terminology doesn't make it a different definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

“I'll keep a close eye on your edits.” – Thank you for your attention.

“in some cases, strictly for men, circumcision is a medical necessity. They can't lead a healthy life without it.” – Didn't expect to hear that from a scandinavian.  
Circumcision is purely evil. It is medieval sexual mass-slavery. And in USA, big pharma and cosmetics massively profit from it. There are nearly always better alternatives compared to irreversibly slicing off 90% of the errogenous tissue and >20000 nerve endings off unconsenting infants. But these ways are unknown to the general public because many doctors don't speak about it, as much as they don't speak about possible complications, because of how massively profitable this knowledge gap caused by taboo-topics is. If an adult man consentfully wishes to get circumcised, it is absolutely fine (although it is extremely rare. Rare for good reasons.). But not for defenseless children. ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

**Stunned** if I see any of this tinfoil hat crap on my talk page or on Wiktionary ever again, it will be deleted and you will most likely be blocked either by me or a fellow admin. You are pushing an agenda which is not permitted on Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You reverted the edit on mahatofoka where it had been changed from noun to adjective. The translation, "disgusting", is surely an adjective and not a noun? In the Malagasy Wiktionary, which on the other hand is maintained mainly by bots, it is listed as an adjective (mpamaritra). 93.106.59.73 20:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you type in "mahatofoka" to the search bar on this site: http://tenymalagasy.org/bins/teny2 it will say "Sokajin-teny mpamaritra" and "Famaritana anglisy disgusting, distasteful ". This also suggests that it's probably an adjective. 93.106.59.73 20:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's more to changing the part of speech than just changing the header. You would need to change the headword template as well- the way you did it left it in Category:Malagasy nouns. You also have to realize that there are vandals who go around randomly changing headers just to cause trouble, so he may have mistaken your edit for something like that, since it left the entry broken. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now I changed both. Is it now OK and if not, why? 93.106.59.73 07:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Chuck summed it up pretty well. The diff only showed the templates in m browser, not the sense itself so I didn't realise that there was a discrepancy. I apologise for the rollback. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you think voracious, -vore (as in herbivore), and -vorous (as in carnivorous) are not descendants of the Latin voro, then you need to correct several other pages, including the pages for voracious, vorus, and various other declensions of voro, most of which reference the Latin oro as the origin of -vore, -vorous, and/or voracious. You also need to have a very good explanation for doing so, since my explanation for making the edits is rather obvious.

Secondly, there is not a single English descendant of voro listed on the voro page, so I suggest you think up some examples of descendants and add them rather than removing the only examples and not having a good reason to do so, since there obviously are examples, and I already listed a few.

While you might argue that -vore comes from a different declension, like vorus, the reality is that voro is the root, and vorus comes from voro.--174.126.168.126 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You need to differentiate between descendants of the verb and descendants of the suffix. Voracious is the descendant of vorāx (from vorō) – not the suffix -vorus. The same goes for your other contributions – the suffixes -vore and -vorous belong at -vorus, no at vorāx or vorō. I know that all roads lead to Rome, or in this case vorō, but if we don't apply some rigour around here we would have chaotic descendants sections. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The fact remains that Voro is the root of all three, and the proper response for an editor who is knowledgeable in such matters is to correct the edit, not remove it. Voracious, -vore and -vorous all come from voro, whether or not there is another declension of voro in between. I would appreciate it if you would make the necessary changes, not roll them back. Perhaps I and others might learn something from you that way, rather than you making it more difficult for people to learn the origins of these words. A person would look at the edits you made, and if they did not know better, would assume that there isn't a word in the English language that is descended from voro, which is obviously incorrect.

It would be much more helpful to have something like this: Voracious - Etymology - From Latin vorāx, from vorō (“I devour”). as there is in the entry for voracious, but in reverse, i.e. Voro - descendants - English - Voracious, from Latin Vorax so and so declension of Voro

Ask yourself, "It might be easiest to roll it back, but is it right, and is it best?--174.126.168.126 18:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please spare me the lecture dear anon – as an administrator we rarely have time to explain our reasoning behind every little revert. Your suggestion is not how things work around here and as far as I know, we don't have a direct English descendant of Latin vorō. Saying that there is would be misleading at best. However, I'll take a look at the entries when I have more time on my hands to see if there's anything I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

To understand why that's not practical, you have to do some math: Special:RecentChanges has over a thousand edits every day that need patrolling. Robbie was active today (my timezone) for less than 2 hours. That comes out to maybe 6 seconds to spend on each edit, on average (you learn quickly which ones to concentrate on). Out of those thousand edits, 10 required action. If he only had those 10 edits to work on, that would come out to about 10 minutes per edit- but there's the matter of those other thousand edits.

Mind you, these edits aren't all English. Yours was Latin. Robbie is highly fluent in at least 3 languages, and pretty good at several others, but none of us can spot even basic errors in all of them. We do the best we can, but it takes time, and we have to make lots of judgment calls. It would be nice to be able to spend the time needed to properly fix everything instead of reverting, but we're all volunteers and we have lots of other demands on our time. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Defining civil as naturally good is opinionated. Your revert of my change restore that previous position. If I would define anything else as "naturally good", it would be found to be opinionated. We cannot make moral judgment when defining. Please explain your action. NinjaAccountant (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not opinionated as long as it belongs to a specific domain, in this case theology. If people use it in that strict sense and it is labelled that way, you can't just delete it. I will revert you changes, again. If you feel strongly about it, take it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Based on the absence from other dictionaries of this definition, I will appeal to the tea room. NinjaAccountant (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

On worthy you've reverted my addition regarding "also worthly". This is in error though; I've re-added the "also" section. 78.21.171.227

Not how the template works - only words that are almost identical are added, e.g. som. Your change will be reverted again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

you need to support your point of view instead just accusing people of pushing theirs

do you have any argument or evidence?

do you have an explanation of why this definition is not the most accurate and concise? maybe stick to your own language and stop trying to brainwash people.

it seems you have a real problem with that — This unsigned comment was added by 73.94.200.188 (talk).

Buddy, the only problem here is you and I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so. You don't care about our guidelines and you spread your biased vitriol like there's no tomorrow. I'm gonna give you a break cause the heatwave hitting the East Coast right now might be getting you all wound up for nothing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie, I was wondering why you undid my edit and deleted two portmanteaux from the list? I didn't see any explanation for this in the page's history description. Now that I see you're an admin I figure there's got to be a reason, so clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You reverted another fellow admin's edits without providing any reason. That's pretty much why I reverted your changes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, reasonable. Chuck hadn't provided a reason for the initial deletion (and I also hadn't realized they were an admin), so I undid the edit then wrote on their talk page asking why they did so. Although, I suppose from the article's perspective I now realize I did basically the exact same thing. Would it be alright to undo your edit and provide a brief description that it had been deleted without explanation then? Thanks! 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Did you mean to rollback all my edits? Chuck only deleted two portmanteaux, but it appears that you also rolled back my addition of another entry to the list and my edit fixing the alphabetical order. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay! I have no problem with your reverts, but if Chuck thinks otherwise, better talk to him about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not following up on this: I haven't had the time or energy to really think this through. My original problem was with using links to Wikipedia to get around adding entries that probably would be unsuitable for Wiktionary entries. After looking at the body of material already there, however, it seems like this is a more widespread issue with lack of clarity in the philosophy behind the appendix as a whole. I'll try to figure out the best way to bring this up at the Beer parlour. Until that discussion takes place, I'm not going to revert anything there except obvious vandalism. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Robbie. Will you please give what might have been the rationale for the recent rollbacks of the definitions which I added to these terms (I assume here that the rollback was performed by a bot)? The extant definitions appear to be quite specific and narrow, and I wanted to provide a definition with a broader meaning. I am trying to develop a sense for what Wiktionary is looking for. Thanks in advance. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

We're back here again – your additions were pleonasms and you also placed them before every other meaning. IMO, it gave Wiktionary no added value. I'm seriously growing tired of this kind of edits and you're really pushing it with your other contributions too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

They strike me as more vague analyses of the other definitions than actual definitions in their own right. I don't really see the need for meta-analysis in a descriptive dictionary- it's basically a step toward putting a definition in every entry that says "(more broadly) some sort of meaning." Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry if what I provided seemed vague or overly wordy. I came to this page not intending to edit. Rather, in searching for what I felt the problem was with the opinion of an interviewee on an NPR radio program, I finally realized that said opinion smacked of fetishism. Upon checking the definitions here on Wiktionary, though, I felt that those provided were all rather specific aspects of the meaning of the word. For instance: with (1) fetishism does not necessarily ascribe magical powers (though it certainly can) to its object; (2) describes a particular type of fetishism (sexual fetishism); and (3), while getting more to the core of what fetishism is, erringly leads one to believe that it must involve an obsession, which it must not. Rather than being always an obsession, fetishism appears always to be more of a veneration (I believe that I used the word reverence, but I think veneration better), marked particularly by irrationality and extravagance in the truest sense of the word: a wandering beyond what is reasonable. These are the characteristics of fetishism in every case: whether it is sexual, non-sexual, obsessive, non-obsessive, or otherwise. That is what I wanted to convey in the definition that I wrote. As such, my defense of my added definition would be that it was, indeed, substantially different and more elemental than those extant on the page. As for why I placed it first: though I in no way claim to be a lexicographer, I think it axiomatic that the broadest and most "elemental" definitions for a particular term should have primacy of position, with the more specific definitions following. Do you not agree? I agree that I need not have written "most broadly", but only did so in an attempt to convey the reason for my edit. Please, Robbie, do not be harsh with me. I mean no harm, and am only trying to help improve Wiktionary, which I find a very useful tool, as I can... I will try to restrain myself in future should I find fault with the offerings here, though it is hard to do so when the "Edit" button is so easy to click on with the mouse!

FYI, our inclusion policy is WT:CFI. Just for your reference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Thrilling read (not the first time I've come across it, though) – still don't think that the entry I nominated for deletion should be on here and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Respectfully Dan, unless you want to come across as a bully – give it a rest. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I cannot compel you to make RFD nomination that make sense and pertain to WT:CFI. It is up to you to up your game. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I and several other contributors think it is a good idea to discuss issues that are controversial or at least question the policies we have enforced. Last I checked Wiktionary is a community where we have the freedom to discuss issues that are perceived as problematic. To restrict that freedom is in my book unacceptable and surely against the very policies you so fervidly uphold. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The nomination you made was not terms in CFI, and did not even suggest that it is a proposal for CFI override. If your say that something is "against the very policies you so fervidly uphold", you should reference the specific policy. CFI overrides are an option, and I have been supporting a range of CFI overrides, e.g. translation hubs years before they became a tentative policy.

I would not write to your talk page because of the single nomination. Rather, I see a pattern of bad nominations.

For reference, the nomination said "I don't even know where to start. Clipping?" Where is there a rationale for CFI override? If you do not know where to start, you probably should not be starting anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I provided a more comprehensive rational the second day and apologised for not doing so in the first place. You are not judge, jury and executioner and I will not indulge this conversation any further. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Baicanism (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

Chuck Entz (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I've taken it to Meta. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I seem to be running in to an edit filter that is stopping me from updating redirects; is there anything you can do to help? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit filter is designed to stop new accounts from doing too many edits at once. Vandals create new accounts and try to do as much as they can before they're blocked, so this is very effective at limiting the damage. Most legitimate new editors take longer to do each edit, so the collateral damage is relatively low- but obviously not zero.

It's not the type of edits that's causing the problem, but the fact that you're doing them too close together. If you intersperse them with more time-consuming edits, you should be fine. Before long you'll reach the point where the filter won't consider you a new account any more, and it will leave you alone. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Don't most Wiktionary reconstruction entries start with the language the page is in, if said language appears? I'm not trying to be mad or anything, i'm just noticing a trend in reconstruction entries. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was always under the impression that we were going after alphabetical order. That some entries aren't following that rule is probably because editors were sloppy. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Huh. I never noticed. I'll keep it in mind. Starbeam2 (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Starbeam2, Robbie SWE The right order is found at WT:AGEM. Why it is that way, I am not entirely certain, but that is the standard order. It is not alphabetical per se. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why did you block the page Transnistria by rolling back constructive edits without discussion? 217.19.208.105 17:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cause the edit was overly long for a dictionary, counter-productive and biased. Labelling it as the Romanian name for the autonomous territory was just ridiculous. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you a great specialist in English terminology used for the geographical, historical and political contexts of Eastern Europe? Then I ask you to explain what is ridiculous in this when it is an obvious fact. Politically biased is an attempt to mix the terms Pridnestrovie (the state and region that exists today) and Transnistria (the historical WWII term, today it is not officially used anywhere). Long? Correct, and do not engage in an unconstructive war of edits by abusing moderator functions. 217.19.208.105 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Look, two admins irrespective of each other thought the edit was nonconstructive. You don't have to be an expert to make an edit, but you have to understand that this is a dictionary which documents actual usage – it's not proscriptive and definitely not here to right perceived wrongs of history. If Transnistria is used in a specific way, it is our duty to document it. And that's all I'm going to comment in the matter. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, if there is a dictatorship of irresponsible and biased moderators who do not consider it necessary to enter into a dialogue and justify their actions, then I simply have nothing to do here. You can block my subnet forever. 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand why you don't like a name from your colonial past derived from the idea of being across the river from someplace else. I'm sure the lack of support from the rest of the world for your region's sovereignty is galling to you. I get that. However, Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, and "Transnistria" is widely used and has been used for decades in English. That may change, but until then, we have to use that name in our entries. Also Wiktionary does not and cannot have an opinion. I'm sure our definitions in these entries could use some tinkering to make them more neutral, but that's not what you were trying to do.

Your intentions were crystal clear from the fact that you removed all mention of "Transnistria" from every entry you edited except Transnistria itself, and by the fact that you labeled my rollback as vandalism. My experience is that labeling edits in content disputes as vandalism is a sure sign of a battleground mentality, an attempt to gain the upper hand by discrediting your opponents. Robbie was reluctant to discuss this because his Romanian background gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't have that problem. I haven't really formed an opinion because I was mostly unaware of the conflict until this came up.

I reverted your edit because it was an obvious attempt to slant the entry toward one side in a dispute, and the wording was rather poor, too. I can't speak to usage in Romanian, but in English it's not colloquial, and no one cares enough about the region to be abusive when discussing it.

You're in the center of the conflict, so for you its an important issue and you're surrounded by people with strong opinions. English-speaking countries, however, are far removed and mostly unaware. The main problem your side in the conflict has isn't bias and hostility, but apathy: for most of the world, your region (whatever it's called) is a tiny spot on the map that's too far away to do anything about. The sooner you accept that, the better you'll be in advocating for your cause (not that you should be advocating anything here). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please undo your reversions of my edits to mater, frater and Pisces. They are legitimate doublets, as pater is with father. 69.120.69.252 00:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to do that because they are not doublets. Look through Appendix:Romance doublets - these are doublets, the ones you added aren't. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's right; frater and brother derive from the same Indo-European word, so frater as a loanword becomes a doublet of brother in English. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If we start going back to reconstructed languages then our entries will be completely packed with doublets. We have to draw a line somewhere and I find it only logical to draw the line at attested languages, such as Latin, Greek, German etc. If it's worth discussing, we might just want to open a discussion at the Beer Parlour. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, there will not be very many more doublets that way at all: my understanding (which may be faulty - IANALinguist) is that a doublet is an exact etymological match (inherited from the exact same word, with no non-phonological changes like affixation along the way) of a 'native' word in a given language which is borrowed into that same language, as with the English borrowed term frater (non-native exact cognate) and English brother (native), or host (non-native exact cognate) and guest (native). That's pretty unusual actually: obviously exact cognates are common, but an exact cognate of a term in a given language being borrowed into that language is relatively rare - and in fact especially rare in the case of PIE-doublets. After all, inheritances that were unchanged (excepting sound changes) all the way from PIE are hard to find to begin with; finding the same PIE word unchanged in two languages and one then being borrowed into the other is particularly rare. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know I've never come across any entry where the doublet was inherited from a proto-language, and that makes sense to me. I also understand your point of view but I still think that a community discussion is worth having before we apply this standard to doublets. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I agree with Mnemosientje; see Appendix:English doublets § Proto-Indo-European. Canonicalization (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well I'll be damned – it's the first time I've seen any of these. Do we usually add the doublets in the etymology sections of each term or are they only added in this appendix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I hope you’re having a great day. believe your rollback was in error. Please bring my improvement to the thicc page and protect it. Thanks. Gardensk (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not gonna do that because the meaning you wanted to add already exists at the main entry which is thick. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe you should bother to actually understand the sense I'm trying to add? The term "literary language" can either refer to a specific variety of a language that happens to be used in writing, or to a language that has a literary tradition. I'm not gonna discuss this, I have better things to do, but it would be nice if you could reconsider this definition.

Same goes for "standard language". The term can either mean "language that has a standardised form" or "a standard variety of language". So English is a standard language because it has multiple standard varieties, for example: Standard American English, Standard British English etc. You can just open the Wikipedia entry for "standard language" or whatever. 83.23.249.78 11:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussing problematic issues is what you're encouraged to do – your changes seem like rewordings and I strongly suspect that no one who looks up the definitions will understand them any better thanks to your edits. Reduplicating existing translations into new sections doesn't help your case either. I encouraged you to go through the proper channels if you thought that I was wrong and you chose to undo my comment on your talk page. Needless to say, you're not doing yourself any favours by doing that. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay. But please remove those Polish translations. They're not correct for the sense you're trying to put them in. 83.8.107.15 16:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not clear why you chose to single handedly "remove" this update to the kime page without any justification aside from "talk to me". It's better to research topics and use the Talk:kime page instead of bluntly removing and then asking for comments. Please be more considerate and thanks for your wiktionary editorial service. 141.213.169.209 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

My reason for reverting was explained pretty well by SemperBlotto. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I believe that your editing is disadvantageous to users' comprehension of the terms. Why are you insisting on deleting sourced additions of distinct senses? Please kindly explain this to me. Is there some aspect that should be explained to you, if the definitions are perhaps not clear enough? No one else has objected to these edits. 37.47.199.108 19:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your definitions are perfectly clear, but they provide in my opinion no added value to the existing senses. Around here we seek community input in such problematic situations, that is, if we're serious about our participation. Get with the program or leave it be. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

What exactly do you mean by saying 'no added value"? Do you mean that Wiktionary shouldn't include less common senses of specialized terms, or is it just that you don't understand these senses, can't see how they're distinct? If that's the case, perhaps the definitions arent clear enough. Please clarify. 37.47.199.108 19:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It has nothing to do with how common a sense is - if it's very easy to conflate the one with the other, then it's not worth separating. A dictionary's purpose is to be concise and to the point. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how these senses can be confused. The distinction seems to be clear, but you prefer to police the article and remove things that seem "unclear" to you. In fact, the existing two senses of "standard language" largely overlap with each other, perhaps those should be cleaned up? 83.23.192.222 11:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm growing increasingly annoyed with your tone – let a discussion run its course and stop trying to hurry the process by incessantly badgering me to react. I've already told you that I find your contributions to be superfluous – it has nothing to do with my comprehension of what you were adding. On another note, your claim that I deleted "sourced additions of distinct senses" is preposterous – I found the quote in Arnold Barrett McMillin's The Vocabulary of the Byelorussian Literary Language in the Nineteenth Century and it does in no shape or form corroborate your so called "distinct definition". I'm starting to suspect that you're trying to make senses that might exist in Polish fit their English counterparts. With that said, I believe we've come to an impasse – I'm not going to discuss this any further here. As I said before, if there's an interest, people will indulge this discussion in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Jag undrar om du skulle vilja hjälpa med att översatta till svenska på ord som redan har en översättning på norska eller danska?

Ofta är det lätt att bara kopiera och anpassa en översättning från ett av dem andra språk eller skippa ord man inte snabbt kommer på.

Jag har skrivit två verktyg för att underlätta och tagit fram en lista över ord.

Är du intresserad?--So9q (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hej @So9q! Tack för att du tänkte på mig och grattis till ett häftigt verktyg. Skulle jättegärna vilja hjälpa till, men jag känner att jag inte kan göra det på heltid. Dock skulle jag kunna bidra sporadiskt – funkar det eller är du ute efter en "pålitligare" användare? I vilket fall som, bra jobbat hitintills! --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why you undid my revision on the step-aunt page? My description of 'wife of someone's mother or father's stepbrother' is much more concise than the previous 'the wife of someone's mother's or father's brother from second or later marriage.' First of all, whose second or later marriage? This is not clear. Secondly, if the second or later marriage is that of the mother or father's parent, then the brother from a second or later marriage would be a half-brother, not a stepbrother, and thus his wife would be the person's half-aunt or simply aunt, not step-aunt. I have edited the page again. Please do not undo it. — This unsigned comment was added by 2a00:23c7:7600:2300:710e:e345:dd64:db2 (talk).

Wow, you sure are gifted at making something pretty clear completely incomprehensible. Don't confuse how things are done in your family with how the rest of the world works. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to be rude. I was perfectly civil to you so I expect the same in return. I wasn't citing my own family here. In English, a brother from a parent's second or later marriage is a half-brother, not a stepbrother. A stepbrother is a person you have no blood relation to. That is a fact. In no part of the world is a half-uncle's wife a stepaunt.212.250.82.211 14:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dude give it a rest. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

- the wording was indirectly suggesting that the long vowel is preferable to the short vowel. If the Greek example is used, another may as well be used that spells it with a short vowel, and the whole evidence suggests nothing (as it does), so I removed it altogether. Looking at authorities, cūstōs can only be found in dictionaries over 100 years old, whereas newer ones withdraw judgment. I had also updated the etymology section. 2003:F0:AF2B:6595:B4A9:52BE:73FB:3F7F 10:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see a couple of problems with your edit: firstly, you removed a rather comprehensive – and I stress this – possible etymology and replaced it with nothing. Secondly, you quoted De Vaan (2008) without actually providing a reference (the reference section was left unaltered). The original etymology didn't in any way say that the origins of cū̆stōs were determined, but provided a plausible theory. Wiktionary is not an authority – however, we are inclined to provide users with possible theories where they make sense and are backed up by linguists. Regarding vowel length, it was discussed by two other users here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know that, but I thought thus we should provide the stress, and in Italian and Romanian it should be stripped in links, because what’s the difference as compared to Bulgarian or Russian – or in Hebrew it is also marked in the transcription and one should not rely on the IPA? I don’t get any reason so far. Fay Freak (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

It causes unnecessary confusion – unlike Romanian, Italian does have accents as natural parts of its orthography. As far as I know, you're the only one who has added stresses in Romanian. By the way, isn't it a bit overkill considering that stress is provided in IPA pronunciations? I can't comment on why stress is marked in Bulgarian, Russian or Hebrew transcriptions – I just know that traditionally, it isn't done for Romanian lemmas. By the way where have you seen stress in Italian entries around here which aren't compulsory such as abbordabilità, felicità, è? In all honesty, I haven't noticed and I really don't think we should add them because they can make spelling – especially for beginners – a nightmare. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unlike in Spanish, Catalan or Portuguese, in Italian the stress cannot be seen automatically in every written word. This page and this page I quickly found and are not without reason on top of search results give explanation and examples; it has been also then and now mentioned in Wiktionary discussions but the Italian words have mostly been added without any marks or IPA (hence being occasionally ambiguous). I link two examples on Wiktionary where it matters: nocciolo, ancora.

I have been of the view that it should not be necessary to look into the IPA for orthographies that are regular (unlike English or French): in the best case one does not need to look into the pronunciation section. Well okay, I do get the notion that learners could be confused by those additional marks, since Romanian uses diacritics in its orthography, formerly even more than there are now, while Cyrillic generally does not use as much diacritics as does Roman script. Also those diacritics make it harder to copy & paste terms. It would be better to mark the stressed syllable by color change (so one does not have to look into the IPA and the saved script is not cluttered) as it is used in many dictionaries, but that would require new templates, and I just mention it since I do not plan to really add Romanian entries nor will be able to make technical inventions. Fay Freak (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the articles! I remember how frustrated I was when I studied Italian in high school and the online dictionaries providing stress did not mention that it wasn't a part of the actual spelling – needless to say, my essays in Italian were for some time covered with my teacher's notes and corrections. I think that marking the stressed syllable by colour change is a good idea. Hope someone creates that template (on second thought, what about all the colour-blind people out there?). --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are only some specific types of colorblindness, genetical causes with homogenous result, so one has to avoid certain combinations only. I mean it’s not that people see black and white only, but they have specific weaknesses (barring the rare condition of achromatopsia or whatever, but we already have to discriminate, as -sche explains here). For web-designers there are also certain tools to check if the content looks wrong under the supposition of (any frequent) colorblindness. But I am not going to disgress into medical conditions of the eye nor web coding. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

47.18.30.82 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC) I have seen that you have reverted my edits for "occult" saying that it is cognate with hell many times. Maybe you should think about the religious and more importantly etymological ramifications of leaving that out are?Reply

It doesn't matter if it's true or not - it serves no purpose to go back that far and ignore all the linguitic turns the term took before it ended up in its present form. It's not even worth adding as a curiosity. If you have a problem with this, take it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are implying that this pair is basicly coincidence, and thatvthe Latin term was a perfectly natural synchronic derivation. This is as much soeculation, IMHO as suggesting a closer relationship between thesevwords, only maintainable in the former case underbthe assumption that Germanic developed in *another, darker plane of existence.* This is pretty *damning*. I thought that's ironic enough to be notable, but people complain about excessive etymology sections pushing tbe defs below the fold anyhow. 109.41.1.116 22:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure, it's related. So are helm, hall, Calypso (the nymph, not the music), cell, cellar, cilium and Eucalyptus, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit to https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tradwife? The application of the 'white supremacist' tag was clearly biased. 77.66.23.105 10:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

And why did you protect the page? The 'white supremacist' tag is clearly wrong since plenty of people who are not white supremacists use the word 77.66.23.105 10:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter if a handful of non-white supremacists use the word – the term has its origins in those circles and is mostly used by like-minded people. Trying to wash the negative connotations of this word is like saying "you know what, the n-word is just depicting a colour and also, a lot of African-Americans use it too, so it can't actually be a slur". --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is is a fairly common and obvious word production phenomenon in English - claiming that it is connected to white supremacists is a conspiracy theory. A quick internet search will show you lots of people who use the word in its literal meaning without any ideological connotations. But hey, good luck with your ideological activism. 77.66.23.105 12:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ditto! Some holiday reading for you: this, this and most of all, this. Enjoy! --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I say "partly" because I'm unsure about the wording of "This order predates the post-Disney buyout movies" and because that definition was incomplete. However, the order you rolled it back to is incorrect, at least regarding the original source. In particular, that source clarifies that Solo and Rogue One do not come before Episode IV. 2606:A000:4503:8400:19:B453:4D3A:EA78 03:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. However, we can't refer to something as being "post-Disney buyout movies". I simply removed the second text – it gave too much superfluous information and was prone to vandalism. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with that. My main concern is that putting Solo and Rogue One at the start of the order is incorrect. 2606:A000:4503:8400:E832:C918:ED0F:6BFB 01:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No probs. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

hi, I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the Romanian entries:

1) are there other words like "afli" where final i is pronounced and not just palatalizing the consonant?

2) is it necessary to add a separate entry when there is a conjugated verb form that is the same as the infinitive form (like duce or dormi)?

3) in DEX there are many forms listed that aren't here (for example for minți: eu mint / eu minț), should we be adding those as well? LICA98 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @LICA98! Let me start off by thanking you for your Romanian contributions – they are greatly appreciated! Now, back to your questions:

1) Yes, there are and I have regrettably not found a rule which helps us know when it's the case. Usually if the "i" is preceded by a cluster of consonants, then it's not palatalised. From the top of my head, I could only think of two instances: metri (plural of metru) and afli.

2) Unsure, it's not usually done here and pretty rare back in the Romanian Wiktionary. I'm not aware of any guidelines telling us what to do here, but we risk adding a long list of verbs in the infinitive in the verb forms category.

3) According to Wiktionary's guideline, yes, but they have to be marked as uncommon or proscribed.

Keep up the good work and don't hesitate to reach out if you have any additional questions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

well I think that at least when it's pronounced differently (like a dormi/tu dormi) that should be indicated right? and how do we mark forms as "uncommon"? LICA98 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Definitely – when it's pronounced differently, such as in a dormi/tu dormi, it should be added mostly because they're both so commonly used. But what should we do with the third-person singular imperfect which in most cases is identical to the infinitive form (for instance abandona, accepta, termina)? I really don't know. You mark the rare forms by adding {{lb|ro|uncommon}} or {{lb|ro|rare}} before the sense. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

but what about in the conjugation tables? or should we not add them there LICA98 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to the uncommon verb forms, leave them out of the conjugation tables for now. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

ok 1 more question... why on this page the forms that are the same as the infinitive aren't bolded like they are on other pages? LICA98 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, not sure – I took a look at ține which uses a newer template and it could be the cause. Dunno how to change it though. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Links to the page that the link is on display as bold plain text. The only way to get an actual link is by linking to a specific place on the page, such as a different language section. It might be that the template in question is just listing the terms as text without linking to them. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz well that's not true because it still links to all of the other forms LICA98 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

you may compare the semantics of Albanian shtrungë and strungă in order to establish the etymology. HeliosX (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

See my comment for reverting your edit. As I said earlier, you make compelling arguments and you seem knowledgeable in the subject. However, you consistently refuse to source your edits therefore giving rise to doubts. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see you are rolling back my adding the obsolete forms for incrociare. Why? RizalSoulisa

I moved this to the bottom, where it belongs- no one should have to hunt for your post in among edits from 7 months ago. Now, as to the question: there were problems that left Robbie with the choice of fixing your edit, which he wouldn't have had time to do, leaving it, and hoping someone would one day run across it by chance and fix it (unlikely, since we have over 6 million entries), or revert it. So, what were the problems? We have standard formats that make the dictionary easier to use, and having a separate "Obsolete Forms" header with unlinked, capitalized verb forms would wrong in a number of ways. First of all, you'll notice that the entry is "incrociare", not Incrociare. Wiktionary is case-sensitive, and Italian verbs are normally lowercase. Second, in a dictionary that covers all historical periods, having a separate header for obsolete forms is just going to make things more complicated and messy. The usual way we do it is with an "Alternative forms" header, adding a note such as {{q|obsolete}} if necessary. Also, we try to make every term in lists like this into a link to the entry for the term, or a redlink that will allow people to create an entry if they have the information. We have lots of entries for obsolete terms- as I said, we cover all historical periods in all languages (at least those we have evidence for). However, in looking through Google Books, it seems like incrosar may not be Italian, but a related Italian language such as Emilian or Venetian. Many older references treat these as dialects of Italian, but we don't. If that's the case, it shouldn't be included in the Italian entry at all. As you can see, it's all very complicated.

I've added our standard welcome template to your talk page so you can learn more about editing here. I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want you to keep making edits that will have to be reverted or someone will have to fix- either way, someone's time will be wasted. As for why Robbie didn't explain this all to you himself: it's Sunday afternoon in my time zone and I have more time to spend than he did (it's late at night where he is). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Chuck, it was past my phone curfew :-) RizalSoulisa, Chuck Entz explained why I reverted your changes and I hope you follow his advice if you want to keep contributing. I had to revert them again because I found no support for their existance in the most reliable Italian dictionaries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit you rolled back on dan is indeed correct. It doesn't mutate. Thanks for keeping an eye out (there are all sorts of errors that get missed when it comes to Welsh!). Llusiduonbach (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok. Sorry about that, just saw an edit where the template was deleted to make room for plain text. Don't we have a template that conveys the same info? --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think it your roll back was incorrect. Both ja and nein are particles and usage of jein seems to be identical to me. This was also supported by the source. 2A0A:A540:88D2:0:68AD:E04B:5706:FD22 21:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell, it is treated as an adverb in English. I will however dig a bit deeper tomorrow to see if your edit was indeed correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of the linguistic merits, we don't put references inside headers, and linking offsite in unusual ways always arouses suspicion- though the site in question certainly seems legitimate. I've seen people putting links in their edit comments, or adding a comment on the talk page when they think they need to provide support for a change- but headers are part of the basic structure of the site, and we have rules about which headers can be used (see WT:EL). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I included this sense only after noticing that the sense of "action of the verb to lend" was given at lending. Perhaps "an instance of lending/loaning" are better statements? I would ask you to reconsider your reversion, or to please revert the sense at lending for the sake of uniformity. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.162.223.164 (talk).

I appreciate your intent, however, you placed it under the obscure obsolete meaning in Scottish and Northern English which might not have the same etymology. It probably should have its own section – if you intend on adding it back, please use proper formatting. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Robbie, I have tried to do as you have indicated. I introduced two separate etymologies to the article, corresponding to two distinct nominal senses. This was rather 'high speed' for myself, so I hope that this is formatted acceptably. I do not know how to make the hyperlinks navigate to the exact spot desired on the destination page, though... — This unsigned comment was added by 68.112.86.146 (talk).

You definitely get an A for effort – I made some minor changes. Don't hesitate to ask for help if you ever feel lost. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bothering you, Robbie SWE. I just added the second meaning of Bulgarian слон (slon). There are two semantic kernels for this word - standard elephant and dialectal offset, shelter → sheepfold. They are pronounced in the same way, so I left the Pronunciation section at the top and separated the two meanings under Etymology 1 and Etymology 2. Is this how it's supposed to be? 5.150.99.73 12:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've seen articles formatted this way so I see no problem with your edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. 5.150.99.73 12:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Being Italian, I can tell you that Geppetto is short for Giuseppetto, a diminutive for Giuseppe. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

That goes in the Italian entry (which is yet to be created). You were editing the English entry, and removing information. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

But the current version implies that Geppetto is equivalent to English Japheth, while there is no proof that these two names are related: their similarity is almost surely a coincidence, since they have different etymologies. There have been several Italian translations of Japeth, but Geppetto was never one of them. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm honestly having a hard time understanding your intention here @Newblackwhite. The etymology clearly states that the English Geppetto is borrowed from Italian – as Metaknowledge said, the Italian section is currently missing and you're more than welcome to create it, but please use proper formatting. As for Japheth, the Italian article on Wikipedia says, and I quote, "Jafet o Iafet, anticamente anche italianizzato Giapeto (in ebraico יפת, pron. Iéfet) è un personaggio biblico". I admit, the spelling might be a bit off, but are you saying that there is not connection at all? Would appreciate some sources clearly stating that. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE Indeed, to my knowledge there is no connection at all between Geppetto and Japeth, and the similarity with the ancient and rarely used Giapeto is likely a coincidence. However, a source saying that they are unrelated is hard to find, as it would require to prove a negative; I think the burden of proof should lie on people claiming that these names are related, something that at the moment is not backed up by any source. Anyway, the closest thing to a source that I could bring now is a comparison of etymologies:

• according to Giuseppe#Etymology, the name comes "From Latin Iōsēphus, from Ancient Greek Ἰωσήφ (Iōsḗph), from Hebrew יוסף."
• according to Japheth#Etymology, the name comes "From Middle English Jafeth (as attested in Wycliffe's Bible), from Old English Iafeth (see e.g. Aelfric of Eynsham) and Middle French Japhet, both from Late Latin Iaphet, Iafeth, from Koine Greek Ἰάφεθ (Iápheth), from Hebrew יֶפֶת (yépheth). Further origin uncertain; folk etymology as well as rabbinical and patristic claims usually point to a meaning like "enlarged", in reference to Genesis 9:27, or "fair" (pale, in reference to complexion)."

I am neither a linguist nor a scholar, but it is my understanding that if two names are similar but have different etymologies then they are not the equivalent of each other. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can agree with you about the burden of proof part. This is what I'm going to do: I'm deleting the Japheth part because there just isn't enough information about it. I'll also add an Italian section. From now on though, if you plan on participating, please follow our guidelines and use our templates. Ask for help if you get stuck or don't know what to do. Next time you come across information you think should be deleted, always ask the community for input. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a good solution. I apologize if I didn't use proper formatting, it's just that I am used to editing Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary and I am not familiar with the latter's rules. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Glad we could come to an understanding. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Referring to https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=infuse&action=history / how would you put it to make an offer for cooking terminology? Any idea? --84.62.132.223 12:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You don't. We don't have an entry for be steeped and I doubt it would be of use since the sense is covered at steep. What were you trying to achieve with your edit? Maybe I can help. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would like to have a proper translation for "etw ziehen lassen = lasciare insaporire" to be found on wiktionary. Please show me the link or anyone reading this question. What do you call ¿ to let sth be steeped = etw ziehen lassen = lasciare insaporire ? in Sweden? Please help! --84.62.132.223 16:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not idiomatic so it will not meet CFI. Please move on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please answer all my questions to show that you have understood me and to make me carry on. --84.62.132.223 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to be any clearer – the translation you are after is not idiomatic and does not meet CFI. The Swedish equivalent would be lägga i blöt and would, due to SoP issues, not meet CFI either. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

:ϟ the translation you are after is not idiomatic and does not meet CFI :ϟ. Could you please check if there is any support for your opinion. Please link to the translation of lägga i blöt. Thanks so far. --84.62.132.223 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're just not getting it – it is SoP. Read our guidelines about CFI and stop bugging me. I'm not going to link the Swedish translation because it does not merit an entry, the same as the other translations you've been trying to add. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

>>stop bugging me<< Robbie, you better controll your emotions. This is not fair. I want a pricise answer that is supported by less emotionally engaged wikipedians. --84.62.132.223 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

>>I'm not going to link the Swedish translation because it does not merit an entry,...<< This is not the plurality and the diversity with the unterstanding of the Wikipedian Movement of Free Voluteers. --84.62.132.223 22:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

1. This is Wiktionary. We do things quite a bit differently from Wikipedia.
2. Robbie is also a volunteer. Why should he be forced to do your bidding?
3. If someone decides to add an entry for sdnglurbflom as the German word for cat, should we acquiesce in the spirit of volunteerism?

Simply put, you're asking us to include an entry that has no reason to exist. There are thousands of intransitive verbs that can be used in such a construction, and if you know the construction and you know the words, you can figure out how to say/interpret all of them. It would be like having entries for "ich heiße Hans", "Ich heiße Wilhelm", "Ich heiße Franz", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is not healthy. You are right, but the ballance of cooperation (benefit/cost) has been disturbed. Sorry, my interests were hurt. A low cost punishment of failed cooperation is shunning. --84.62.132.223 07:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robbie SWE,

could you possibly protect my talk page for editing by IPs and new users?

This LTA troll doesn't stop anyway. Therefore, if possible, please protect indefinitely.

Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, my discussion page was vandalized again by this LTA troll a few minutes ago. Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry this happened to you. I reverted the vandalism. blocked the IP and protected your page. Let me know if you need anything else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robbie SWE, thanks a lot. That should be enough to stop this poor sick person. Usually he is mostly only active in de.wikipedia and de.wiktionary (and there also with other users and also in articles or entries). Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you don't think Wiktionary should link to w:He-Man, would you be willing to explain why in the Tea room? Thanks. 96.244.220.178 11:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

whatsoever may have happened, I would like to know the guideline that posits as pronunciation for Romanian "ii". In w:Romanian phonology it is ascertained as . Also, no long vowels are provided in the article for Romanian because the language, as well separately considered, does not have these. In this phonological research by Ioana Chițoran săbii is given as , sălcii as and prăpăstii as on p. 225. It was printed by notable publisher de Gruyter and the first article linked to is based to a large extent on her assessments. I am also directing this at Word dewd544, Redboywild and ManFromSuceava. HeliosX (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't put all my money on Chițoran's work – Wiktionary doesn't follow her IPA transcriptions which comprise different IPA traditions. It might not be a written rule AFAIK, but it sure makes sense – especially to a native speaker – that it's a long vowel. For Romanians, săbii sounds like , sălcii sounds like and prăpăstii sounds like . I'll look for sources that corroborate this distinction, so stay tuned. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

In addition, I would like to know where it would have been established that her works were not allowed on Wiktionary. HeliosX (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I apologise if what I wrote made you believe that Chițoran's work is questionable - I didn't imply anything of the like. However, please take into consideration that Wiktionary is autonomous and has taken freedoms when it comes to IPA which digress from say Chițoran's body of work. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robbie SWE, you recently made a couple of roll backs in error, namely on piĵamo and pepper. I have reverted these since the edits did not add any erroneous or unwanted information. 94.76.222.171 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

My rollbacks were not in error - however, your edits were utterly superfluous. Adding synonyms and different spellings the way you did adds nothing to the entries. You are blocked because you took the unnecessary step to revert before we had a chance to discuss these issues. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sneak&diff=58912422&oldid=58904533

I am not aware of a style guide or anything of that sort that advises against the use of "a" in romanian infinitives. If it in fact does not exists, the community should first decide on either style before making such changes. At present, I see both styles (with and without "a") being used, e.g. run.

--Fytcha (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

There's a difference between how you refer to something in everyday speech and how you refer to it in a translation table. You'll notice that the English entry is sneak, not "to sneak". I'm guessing that pretty much every Romanian verb could be written with an infinitive marker, which would mean that they would all be in the dictionary under "a"... Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's exactly how Chuck Entz says – adding the infinitive marker is just not something we do. We don't do it in the Romanian Wiktionary project either. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alright, so it seems that there is a standard (namely, omitting the "a"). In that case, I'll remove the infinitive "a"s whenever I encounter them in translations. --Fytcha (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

1) is there a way to know when in combinations like "ia", "ie", "eu", "au", "iu" etc. the i and u are pronounced separately and when a diphthong? like I've seen on DEX they indicate it on some words but sometimes I don't really understand the way they put it

like here for example:

• Pron. -ci-a, p.i. 3,6 -iază, ger. -iind.

what does this mean? that in the -iază and -iind forms there is a dipthong but in the rest there isn't?

2) in the "see also" is it necessary to add words in other scripts (like Cyrillic, Greek etc.)? also what about words that differ in 1 character (like here)

3) why in the Romanian wiktionary IPA they use the apostrophe (') instead of the IPA stress mark (ˈ)? LICA98 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Excellent questions – is it ok if I get back to you tomorrow? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

sure, whenever you have time LICA98 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your patience! Now to your questions @LICA98:

1) The combinations you mentioned are the most common diphthongs, but it all depends on the stress. DEX is pretty great when it comes to this – if the stress falls on one of the vowels and is separated by a syllable, then the diphthong is cancelled. E.g. negocia /ne.go.ʧiˈa/. However, you're right to be confused – the other forms do indeed have diphthongs. To me, they sound like negociază /ne.go.ʧiˈja.zə/; negociind /ne.go.ʧiˈjind/. They are however AFAIK pretty rare, so I doubt that there is a rule to guide you.

2) No, other scripts shouldn't be added. Romanian is – according to the Romanian Academy – written exclusively in the Latin script. Any other script is to be considered a historic remnant and shouldn't be dispersed. This however creates problems for Moldovan which in some instances is written using a Cyrillic script. It's a subject we haven't dealt with here so there is no consensus. When it comes to words that differ in one character, it's probably a fluke. Haven't seen this used like that before and I don't want to encourage this use either.

3) In the Romanian Wiktionary we imported a large number of lemmas from DEX and in the process we had a bot add pronunciation. Unfortunately, the bot substituted the IPA stress mark (ˈ) with an apostrophe ('), so we have a huge number of incorrect IPA pronunciations. I usually correct them whenever I stumble upon them, but unless we program a bot, I'm afraid we'll have to accept that there will be glitches.

Let me know if I can help with anything else! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

sorry I wasn't quite clear about 2: I meant that in general if another language that is written with a different alphabet has a similar word then should I add it in the "see also" section? e.g. for morcov there would be "see also: морков and морковь" (in Bulgarian and Russian respectively)

1 more question: in words like "absent" or "obține" is the b pronounced like /b/ or /p/? LICA98 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood you. I've seen it done in some entries, so it wouldn't be wrong to add, say морков at morcov. But I would say that it's not necessary. When it comes to absent and obține, both are pronounced with /b/. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This pronunciation is correct or wrong? "aw-THAW-rize". 138.229.19.202 14:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

My revert had nothing to do with the pronunciation per se – you just can't add "wrong pronunciation" in brackets like that. It's better to delete it altogether or, even better, add it under the appropriate section. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, that's not a good redirect? I thought it seemed acceptable under the last criterion in Wiktionary:Redirections#Acceptable uses. I'm not upset; rather, I don't want to mess up the wiki! Let me know if there's anything I should know for future editing. Thanks and have a good day. --47.146.63.87 19:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe go haywire, but gone haywire just didn't look like an appropriate redirect. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

• seven : File:En-seven (2).oga

Hello Robbie. Although that she didn't mispronounced, but her microphone was bad, so it sounds like , the "s" isn't clear, should I remove this recording? 138.229.19.202 16:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If the pronunciation indeed sounds like , then you should delete it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I said that it’s because of the microphone. 138.229.19.202 19:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why on God's green Earth were they reverted? Did you just revert them because you felt like it or something? (162.253.56.55 17:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)162.253.56.55)Reply

John is according to all sources, a diminutive of John – not Jonathan. Jack is also primarily a diminutive of John. We have to draw a line somewhere and adding every possible name remotely connected to either is not in the best interest of this project. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the IP has a point, though. "Jonathan" and "John" may be etymologically different, and there's the form "Jon" that's specific to Jonathan, but in modern usage there's no real distinction between "John" that started out as "John" and "John" formed as a nickname from "Jonathan". "Johnny", at least, can be derived from a "John" of either origin, and it looks like "Jack" is the same. It then becomes a matter of whether "Jonathan"-->"John"-->"Johnny" can also be described as "Jonathan"-->"Johnny". Look at this and this Google search for evidence. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, I understand your stance, however, I respectfully disagree. For instance, Robin is originally a diminutive form of Robert (just like Johnathan is related to John) – should Robin then be listed at Bob? Somehow I think it's warranted to include "the least common denominator" which in this case is John. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Robbie, I just wanted to talk about two rollbacks, which are on the words chilly and plack. I understand why you might've rolled back plack, the only reason I labelled it as an alternative form instead of a misspelling is because it's etymologically correct, kind of like how check is an alternative form of cheque. However, I do think that chilly is a misspelling. 69.124.202.225 03:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The spelling "chilly" may be nonstandard for the US and UK, but it seems to be perfectly normal in South Asian usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I guess that makes sense, but I'm still questioning the other rollback. 69.124.202.225 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The only alternative spelling I could find for plaque is placque. Plack is not mentioned anywhere in the dictionaries I looked in, so it prompts me to believe that it indeed is a misspelling. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that would make sense, I actually created plack as an alternative form of plaque by reworking the word from Proto-Germanic "*plaggą" in which plaque originates from into Old English "*plæcca" and then into Middle English "plack", and now that I think about it, I guess I got a bit carried away by putting it on here since no dictionary really accepts it. 69.124.202.225 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If someone is born to parents with X language, in a country with Y language, hence acquiring both from birth, then their mother tongue is X. Not Y. Not by any possibly stretch of the imagination ...but they are a native speaker of both X and Y.
According to anyone, and according to any definition. (outside of Wiktionary)

If someone is born to parents with X language, in a country with Y language, but the parents avoid their own language, in a misguided attempt to help their child acquire the language of the country (and not get confused or slowed down, which they actually wouldn't be, by having to juggle two languages), then that person will only learn Y, from birth. Their mother tongue will still be X, but they don't know it (or if they do, it'll be due to learning it later, as a Second Language) and it will not be a native language. They will not be a native speaker of X ...but they will be a native speaker of Y.

Essentially any place you may want to check, defines "native speaker" as someone who speaks a language as a native language ...and defines native language, in exactly the same terms as First Language. In other words, a language you grow up absorbing, in early childhood. That said, if it's a language that isn't a mother tongue, or a language of the country that you grew up in, I wouldn't classify that as "native", but that's just my personal opinion. (dunno how many would share it. Most wouldn't think to consider such a scenario. I inevitably do, as one of my First Languages, falls under that exact category)

Either way, the current Wiktionary definition, is preposterously wrong.
...and I notice that the definition for First Language, is also deeply wrong.
The first language one is taught?
There are three problems with that:
1. First Languages are not taught or learned! They are acquired, subconsciously. Teaching/learning is a conscious and deliberate process. Learned languages, are Second Languages. (note: There are First Languages, and Second Languages. There is no such thing as a Third Language)
2. You can acquire multiple languages, as First Languages. In my example above, you have someone with two. Which is very common. I grew up with three. (which isn't that rare, either)
3. In the cases like in point 2 above...
How are you supposed to know what order to place the languages in? Which language can be said to have been acquired first? That is completely impossible, to determine.--213.113.126.135 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Any point you are trying to make is completely lost in an overly verbose and, at times, inconsistent discourse. In addition to this, your purge of the translations section was really not in your favour and it eradicated any goodwill I might have had in this matter. Wiktionary is in no way, shape or form prescriptive – we simply describe how words are used IRL. Your edit made little sense – "A person who learned the relevant language, more of less from birth."; in addition to being grammatically problematic, it does not give a precise enough definition. What is a "relevant language" in this case? Honestly, this is no place to push a personal opinion about a term. More comprehensive definitions are found here, here and here. I don't see how they contradict the definition we're providing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Inconsistent? How? Where?

Removing translations, that are clearly wrong in light of the definition, after fixing the definition, is merely a necessary part of changing the definition and not a further action. (which I simply forgot to do, in my first edit, hence why it was done as a separate one) Why it should be seen as a further "transgression"... Not that I see why you view removal of false content, to be controversial or bad.

"Wiktionary is in no way, shape or form prescriptive – we simply describe how words are used IRL."

In this case, you don't. That is not how "native speaker" is used. By anyone. No one would say that someone who grows up in, say, Korea to Spanish parents, speaks Korean as their mother tongue (their mother tongue, exclusively being Spanish) ...but everyone would say that they speak Korean, as a native speaker.

"Your edit made little sense"

How so?

"in addition to being grammatically problematic"

How so?

"it does not give a precise enough definition."

Countless words, are not very precise...

"What is a "relevant language" in this case?"

I would have thought that was perfectly obvious: For a native speaker of English, the relevant language is English. When talking about Spanish, and mentioning native speakers, the relevant language is Spanish. Maybe I'm wrong, however, and it isn't quite so clear, in which case the phrasing needs to be fixed. The meaning, however...

"Honestly, this is no place to push a personal opinion about a term."

There is nothing personal about my edit. This isn't my opinion. It is clear and obvious fact, that any and all sources confirm.

"More comprehensive definitions are found /.../ I don't see how they contradict the definition we're providing."

Not a single one of those, stated anything about the language being that of a/both parent(s), or made any mention of mother tongue. They merely state that it is a language learned at very young age ...with great inconsistency, in regards to HOW young an age. If you check more dictionaries, and encyclopedias ...and linguists and other relevant experts, you will find that this is true across the board. Hence why I was vague, in regards to the age. In other words: Those definitions DO contradict your definition. They do not, however, contradict the one I wrote, in any possible way, and mine doesn't contradict theirs.

It is clearly you who are the one being personal, doing the typical thing on Wiktionary, of opposing all edits from people outside of the establishment. Anything done by anyone anonymous or new, is treated as negatively as possible, with responses that are written with an assumption of bad faith ...as well as a reluctance to talk/discuss (indeed, after making your reply, and challenging me to find contrary evidence, you then personally block me, so that I cannot show it! The only reason I bother to make a reply at all, is because it was only a one day block ...though why I would bother to do anything on here, at all, ever...) Treating anything done/said by "outsiders", as wrong, because they are "outsiders", fully regardless of any evidence or argument/logic.

Completely opposing any and all stated rules, guidelines, policies, and stated goals of Wikimedia, and what little there is of such things on Wiktionary (Wikipedia, on the other hand, has an admirable framework of rules, guidelines, and states goals. Too bad their admins regularly break them, with impunity...)

Oh, and if you complain about the above being "confrontational" or "rude": People in glass houses... (and if you complain about it breaking rules or guidelines: HA! How about you make sure you, and the other admins, actually follow them? Until then, you have no credibility or authority. Power to block and stuff, sure, but... And if you block me, I'll be deeply unsurprised, having only been proven right. Again)--213.113.126.135 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Take off your offerkofta and just stop vilifying this community – we are not discussing 薙刀 (it is you, isn't it?) and I haven't stopped you from bringing this issue to the attention of the community. On the contrary, I encouraged you to take it up in the Tea Room in my reason for the revert. The definition of native speaker is perfectly fine – there is absolutely no reason to complicate things – just because you grow up in a country does not make you automatically a native speaker of that country's language(s). I'm not discussing this any further – the external sources I posted were only to show that there are several interpretations out there, not to convince you of anything because simply, I just don't care. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"we are not discussing 薙刀 (it is you, isn't it?)"

Just because I express the true nature of Wiktionary, you assume I must be the same person as one who did so previously? Granted, you happen to be right, in this instance, but that is still a very foolish thing to do ...and IIRC, someone assumed I was the same person as had been in some previous altercation, back then as well. Quite wrongly, I might add.

You're the one playing the victim, here ...and I'm not vilifying the community, so much as stating clear and demonstrable and indisputable facts, in regards to it. You guys are the ones who vilify the community, by being villains.

You haven't stopped me from bringing this issue to the attention of the community, have you? YOU BLOCKED ME!!!

"The definition of native speaker is perfectly fine"

It stands in direct conflict, with any and every definition out there, as even your cited examples indicate. None of them talk of "mother tongue" or parents, much less have it as a requirement. Your definition does. To defend that, is to go completely counter to the stated goals or rules of Wiktionary, and qualifies as pushing a personal opinion, rather than describing common usage.

"just because you grow up in a country does not make you automatically a native speaker of that country's langauge(s)."

Don't try to push your personal opinion!

Any and all sources (including the ones you cited) clearly disagree with you ...and any that are more exhaustive than a mere dictionary definition (which are very short, often oversimplified, and far from fully covering the subject) is explicit in stating that a native tongue isn't necessarily a mother tongue. (and what of people who have grown up with just a single language, not belonging to either parent? Do they have no native language, in your opinion?)

I have never encountered, or heard of, anyone who would come anywhere close to ever think to imply, that someone who grows up with a language, due to it being the language of the country that they were born and raised in, isn't thereby a native speaker of that language ...aside from racists, of course.

(also, if you really think that, you should remove First Language speaker, as a synonym, shouldn't you?)

"I'm not discussing this any further"

Ah yes. As I said, you guys don't believe in dialogue or discussion. You've decided beforehand, that anything said by an outsider, is wrong.

"the external sources I posted were only to show that there are several interpretations out there, not to convince you of anything"

That is a lie. You explicitly said "More comprehensive definitions are found here, here and here. I don't see how they contradict the definition we're providing.", which is clearly you trying to show that your definition is in agreement with common dictionary definitions ...except NONE OF THEM agree with you, and all of them agree with me ...and none of them are actually more comprehensive, than mine (except that some are more precise, in terms of age ...but I've pointed out, how there is no firm agreement on the exact age. Hence the only sensible course, in a descriptive dictionary, being to be vague on that point)

"because simply, I just don't care."

Mm, that's why you blocked me, is it? Though not caring, may explain why you cited dictionary definitions that undermined your own position... You care. You just don't care to listen, or about logic, reason, or evidence, about right or wrong, about being in any way civil, decent, or respectful, to any degree, whatsoever. You don't care about discussion ...and this isn't one.

"Two monologues do not make a dialogue."

I have, despite my previous experiences, been willing to engage in dialogue (if I wasn't, I wouldn't write any comments), but you haven't.

Hence it isn't one.--213.113.126.135 21:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

So almost a week has gone by and... nothing. You've decided to ignore this. Further proving my point, and reminding me of the futility of bothering with Wiktionary, as it opposes discussion or debate, and any kind of "outsider" edits, regardless of whether they are bad or perfectly in accordance with the stated rules and guidelines. (as they go against the most important rule: they're made by an outsider, and an admin "feels" threatened by it, for no good reason)

Why I bothered, I don't know... I guess I'm still too naive.--213.113.126.135 13:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

A shield is not a piece of armour. Armour is something you wear, which passively protects you. A shield isn't worn, it's wielded. It is actively used, to protect. Technically, it's a weapon. Mainly defensive, yes, but still.--213.113.126.135 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

What does "A broad of defensive object" mean? You ripped the guts out of the sentence and left a mangled wreck. That's more than enough reason to revert, without even looking at the semantics. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so I forgot to remove the "of". That is easily fixed by removing it. No need to revert.--213.113.126.135 14:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Semantics, shmemantics – it doesn't hold up anyways. See this and this. Unless you can convince the good people behind Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com that their definitions are incorrect, there is no substantial reason to delete it here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Whilst it is very rare to find people who would define shields as, or think of them in any way as, weapons (and note I didn't include that in my modification to the definition. I would in a prescriptive dictionary, sure, but certainly not in a descriptive one), people do not, typically think of them as armour. People think of weapons, shields, and armour as three separate categories. Your cherry-picked definitions are invalid, as there are countless others, that describe the word without any mention of armour ...and the case for removing reference to shields being armour, doesn't have to show that it isn't armour. Merely that there is no clear case that it is.--213.113.126.135 12:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Definitions that go against the notion that shields are armour: Cambridge, Collins, macmillan, lexico, oxfordlearnersdictionaries (also the OED, proper, though that appears to be behind a paywall) ...and I could probably go on, with many more. You, however, could not.--213.113.126.135 12:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ibid (see above). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

...except the arguments are different, here, meaning that what you said there, cannot apply here. (even ignoring how it's all fallacies and full of holes, which doesn't really apply there, either) Granted, in both cases, you are in conflict with how dictionaries define it (and encyclopedias describe it), whilst I'm not. In both cases, you reject common usage, whilst I conform to it. You have no case, and you think that actually trying to make a case for it, actually evaluating the arguments and evidence, is beneath your dignity, and you can simply go with your initial gut feeling (or whatever some other admin has written, which must be right, because they're an admin) and reject anything that conflicts with it, out of hand. You might try to make some pathetic argument at first, to give the impression of being reasonable ...but beyond that, you'll either try to shut the "discussion" down ...or simply block the annoying person, who is implying that you might not be infallible.--213.113.126.135 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

MW online is known to be particularly poor. 109.41.1.116 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is: American centric. This might explain the different notions about l'armour. Playing deaf to the criticizm is a particularly sad display of ignorance. No excuses. 109.41.1.116 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rollback https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=writ&oldid=59394123 was in error. 2601:600:9500:42:E4A0:45D3:491A:59A9 06:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Only in Chile says «beterraga» in Spain uses betarraga

R C Peña--186.11.47.131 22:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply! You didn't use proper formatting, but I fixed it for you. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rollback of Polish Niderlandy meaning Low Countries is incorrect. There is no other way to refere to "Low Countries" in Polish.
source:
SJP.pl - Dictionary of Polish Language.pl PWN: "Niderlandy, hol. Nederlanden,, z czasem rozciągnięta także na Ardeny i sąsiednie wyżyny, obecnie wchodzące w skład Belgii, Holandii i Luksemburga. " eng: "pol:Niderlandy, dutch:Nederlanden,in time it was also extended to the Ardennes and the neighboring highlands, now part of Belgium, the 'Netherlands/Holland' and Luxembourg."
wikipedia also agrees "Niderlandy (region historyczny)" ("region historyczny" means "historical region" to clarify) corresponds to English language version: Low Countries

31.182.138.78 20:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because you placed the sense after the categories which isn't considered proper layout. Even if you can't see the effects in the article itself, we still have to be careful and follow layout guidelines. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

What's up with the mod-endorsed vandalism on adicio? 95.92.132.154 15:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Those are descendants of the adjective adjectivus, not the verb adicio. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Adject is also, firstly, barely a word, neither derived adicio. Adject, being only listed on Merriam-Webster which is certainly in the low tier of dictionaries, isn't derived from adicio, but from adjectus, as Webster puts it (if you are even gonna trust it). The word isn't on Cambridge or Google dictionary.95.92.132.154 03:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@95.92.132.154 you should be thankful that our Midsummer celebrations here in Sweden have put me in a, let's say, forgiving mood – "mod-endorsed vandalism" would definitely land you a block from me. In addition to it not being a descendant of adicio, you also added faulty code which gave rise to an inexistent template. So next time an admin reverts your edit, please go directly to them with your grievances before you readd the contribution that was deemed problematic. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The template is a simple bracketbracket.desc|lang|word.bracketbracket, as everybody uses it. I don't know what "broken template" is, it looked fine upon review. In addition of this place not being a real dictionary neither a respectable site, your celebrations "here in Sweden" are irrelevant given the fact that adject has little to do with adicio, which is barely a real word, as explained above. 95.92.132.154 03:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I had completely forgotten about until it just came back to my memory now. If by any chance, you could tell me why, it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your answer. (64.20.139.52 00:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)64.20.139.52)Reply

Your example was completely inappropriate and useless. You can say that about women, and men for that matter, from basically every country on the planet. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Two pennyworth. Hi, I revertrd the claim that two cents has overtaken two pennywoth in the UK< that sort of claim should have a good source behind it.Halbared (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC

I did the same on the two cents. That sort of claim can't be justified without a reference.Halbared (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If there is a source request, you can't just delete the entire thing. You have to follow our process, so your edit will be reverted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It looks like anecdote, original research, it's misleading, wiki isn't the creator of facts. What is the process?Halbared (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The process is to start a discussion in the Tea Room. Getting community input is the best way to gather support for you stance, that is, if it's valid. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The claim has made been up in wiki, with no source. The claim itself seems to have no 'validity.Halbared (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Valid or not, you either follow due process or you go do something else. I'm starting to lose my patience here. If you delete it again, I will block you. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Curious if my edit was rejected for its content or the way it was entered. I believe the Basque meaning of mascot is closer to its use in English. And it is not a stretch that it might have passed from Basque to its close neighbor Occitan.

If the removal was for the mode of entry I would appreciate your guidance.

Manrehberg (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your edit was reverted because it is considered original research, which really isn't allowed. The etymology is pretty clear and trying to link it to any Basque cognate is unsubstantiated. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

"trying to link it to any Basque cognate is unsubstantiated." That's a contradiction in terms. Basque cannot be cognate with an IE language anyhow, if Basque is a language isolate. An etymonline etymology is never "pretty clear", that is a century out of date on many accounts. Whether OP is onto something or not is immaterisl because they didn't convince you? As if you'd hunt down any obscure reference? Go ahead enforce references on all English etymologies. Should take a long while. 109.41.1.116 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’ve noticed that you on a few occasions have reverted some of my edits that take away possibly misleading information; citing some half-truths. Unfortunately, the wiki doesn’t give me enough space in the notes-on-revisions section to state my entire cases. I find it worrisome that they’re definitions surrounding ideas about gender and sexuality. I’m calmly requesting any disambiguation about this situation you can give. BlackAdvisor (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not trying to pivot the definitions towards any given gender or sexuality. Believe you me, I'm all for making definitions as neutral as possible. But in this case you can't disregard facts such as mass production and world sales. If we take that parameter into consideration, then using the word "chiefly for women" about thongs or G-strings isn't biased, but merely depicting the reality most people live in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

First, you’re ignoring one important thing I wrote there which is that there are two definitions of the word ‘chiefly’ and there is a very significant difference between the two. You also used ‘most’ in the same ambiguous way. BlackAdvisor (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not talking about semantics here. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using words like "chiefly" or "most", because they don't exclude anybody. I still see problems with some of your edits and I will be bringing the issue to the attention of this community. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Where shall this "BP discussion a while ago" be? Because the translation is not "utterly superfluous", but correct and useful, and such translations are common in the English Wiktionary, for example Swedish has "ruotsin kieli", "língua sueca", "limba suedeză" and many more, and even English still has "engleski jezik", "lingua ngrisa" and more. --Dialektologe (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is found here. I was mistaken that it was a BP discussion, but it doesn't negate the consensus that entries like that are redundant. If that is the case, why on earth would we accept them in the translations section? For Romanian, but also the other Romance languages, such compounds are common when referring to languages but they are not included in dictionaries. If you feel this is worth discussing further, please bring it up in the Tea Room. I'm however inclined to delete such translations because they are redundant and lack precision. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, you did a rollback on "wank", removing a well-founded section in the etymology. Would you mind explaining why? — This unsigned comment was added by 185.113.99.201 (talk) at 05:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

Your edit was not accompanied by a source, so it kind of felt taken out of the blue especially considering the trustworthy sources already present, designating it as "unknown". In addition to this, it lacked appropriate formatting. I advise you to read this and if you find sources backing you up, please make sure to show the whole development from Old Saxon into Modern English – words don't just jump from extinct languages to living ones willy-nilly. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your objection is entirely absurd. You can't prove a negative - it is not possible for a word to have an inherently unknown etymology, the source referred to simply did not have one. Regardless, I did have a look at the purported source claiming it to "be unknown", and there is no such information there. "please make sure to show the whole development from Old Saxon into Modern English" - I thought this place didn't allow original research? I could show a trail through time, but I'm not at all certain that that kind of entry has a place here, nor do I want to spend that kind of time on an entry when quarrellous self-entitled jerks get to rudely remove things "willy-nilly" and then patronise the contributor. I copied the formatting from another article. — This unsigned comment was added by 185.113.99.81 (talk) at 21:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hello. This is the word "liste" in French with French accent, the vowel is very closed with a smile, but it's short, but to American people, you heard "least" or "list"? 138.229.19.202 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm cleaning up Romanian verb forms with manual headwords using diacritics (e.g. gândind), and I was wondering if these are desirable or fit in our policy. These entries already have pronunciations, so the issue is whether it's common practice to write them, even if it's just in dictionaries. Ultimateria (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria: See this page above. He finds them confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's just that it doesn't exist in Romanian, so any native speaker would find it confusing and non-natives would think Romanian requires these stress marks like Italian. Besides, if there is a pronunciation section, I see no reason why we should have them. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I won't preserve those manual head parameters then. Ultimateria (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why was it undone? (64.20.139.52 00:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)64.20.139.52)Reply

It just wasn't good enough as an example sentence. You seem to add quite a few of those and I'm not the only one who thinks so. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why you reverted my change? Was there a procedure I was meant to follow?

I would like the current example sentence replaced because I'm uncomfortable with its adjacency to body shaming, among other more minor reasons. Autumnontape (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The current text does not necessarily have anything to do with body-shaming and I'm growing increasingly tired with people who interpret the most mundane texts as derogatory – he could've been a bodybuilder, disproportionately sized for the seating arrangements or plus sized and proud of it. Your example ("A leviathan stood before me, forty storeys tall or more.") didn't provide any comparison or relate to anything familiar, thus making it a bad usage example. It's the equivalent of "I saw a bird" used as an example for bird. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was intrinsically derogatory; I said it was adjacent to body shaming, and I say so because the way such language is deployed toward strangers in real life is virtually always body shaming. I don't have a problem with acknowledging the existence of large people, but different ways of talking about them have different connotations. In my opinion, a less mundane example would also serve better in an entry for a word that's most often used to evoke a sense of awe. I don't think changing the example sentence to something more like what I wrote should be controversial unless you have some particular reason to be attached to the current one, so I will ask if you would object to a replacement that uses a type of building as a point of comparison rather than a number of stories: A leviathan loomed before me, taller even than the skyscrapers that stood around it. Autumnontape (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's still not working for me I'm afraid, and my main reason for saying so is that you just write "a leviathan" like it's something beknownst to everyone – if people look this up in the first place then they need a reference point. My suggestion: Walking through the redwood forest, a leviathan loomed before me, taller even than the skyscrapers in the city. Not my best attempt, but I hope you understand what I'm going for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

How's this: As I stared across the sea, there arose from the depths a leviathan of a creature, which loomed far above me and my ship. Autumnontape (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! Go for it! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

All right, thank you for taking the time to workshop this with me. Autumnontape (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary's rhymes are based on RP but variably rhotic. "Gular" only belongs under -uːlə(ɹ). If it belonged under -uːlə, every English accent would be non-rhotic. Here's the Wiktionary guide for rhymes: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Rhymes:English

I'm guessing you reverted my edits in the descendants sections of those Vulgar Latin pages because each word should be its own separate link? When did anyone tell me that? I was never notified. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that @Word dewd544 – I wrote why in the summary section of the revert, but I forgot to contact you personally to explain myself. My bad! That's precisely why I reverted – each word should be individually linked (see Reconstruction:Latin/posso). On another note, I don't believe it's right to include the long infinitive (infinitivul lung) as a descendant. For starters, it's considered a noun in Romanian thus having its own specific meaning, and secondly we have to ask ourselves if it's an internal development in Romanian or if it is a direct descendant of that specific Latin verb form. For instance, is putere a descendant of *possō or a descendant of the present infinitive potēre? Do you see my conundrum? Otherwise, keep up the good work – your contributions are truly appreciated :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I understand. The long infinitive is used as a noun in Romanian yes. I suppose I included it, as well as the Aromanian form, to show more direct comparisons to the other Romance equivalents (interestingly in a few cases, like Italian piacere and French plaisir, the infinitive can be used as a noun). But yeah it's still debatable whether the addition of the -re suffix to the short infinitive is a later development within Romanian or has an earlier root. From what I've read, the longer form in (pre-written) Proto-Romanian would have been the norm and actually used as a verb, but it evolved over time to its current usage. But thanks, I'll keep these policies in mind going forward. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I fully understand why you added them and even if I personally would abstain from including them because of the uncertainty surrounding their internal development, I would not have reverted your edits if you had used proper formatting. So this is purely a policy issue and I believe we've come to a solution. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm also directing this remark at @Word dewd544. In Aromanian, the long infinitive has partially maintained its verbal use which gives proof that it may have been used verbally in Proto-Romanian. It is unclear, seemingly, whether the long infinitive of Romanian employed for the archaic conditional derives from a conditional based on the perfect stem, only adopting the infinitive stem later on, or was formerly based on the infinitive stem as well. But the long infinitive should, from my point of view, not necessarily be listed because it only functions as a noun in Romanian nowadays. The infinitive suffix "-re" was certainly not an innovation of Romanian, further reasoned as it is shared by Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian as well. HeliosX (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

You'll also want to hide the first of my undos on Appendix:Medical prefixes, suffixes, and combining forms because it contains the offensive text. I suggest protecting the page so only registered users can edit it because it is a frequent target of vandalism. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 Done, protected the page for a month. We'll have to see if the protection needs to be extended. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Another vandal today. Probably needs to be permanently protected against anonymous editing. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you answer a few questions on the use of The verb Object.

1. The difference between objecting vs disagreeing?

2. How is it possible to disagree with a something? Eg I disagree with the thing called the air conditioner. As opposed to the things behavior (which it doesn’t really have)

3. Tell me one time the use of the word to object is NOT related to someone’s behavior not someone or something.

I believe all the dictionaries have it wrong and your editing is contributing to this error with potentially grave consequences due to how we disagree and the resultant disputes that follow. Desa97 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Desa97 , sorry for the delay! The usage example (I object to the proposal to build a new airport terminal.) clearly shows that the verb to object can be used in reference to abstract notions or things. Even though you disagree with object being linked to disagreeing, I assure you that finding a more suitable definition will be difficult. Perhaps adding the word "oppose", as in "To oppose or disagree with" might be a solution, but I advise you to take this discussion to the Tea Room before any further edits on the entry page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Robbie I would but I don't have anyone that I can bounce the idea off. I will not make any further changes until I get more info.

I don't think you are answering my question though. The definition is this "To disagree with something or someone; especially in a Court of Law, to raise an objection. I object to the proposal to build a new airport terminal."

My question is can I disagree with a thing like a table? Please can we just start with this very simple question? I don't disagree with object being linked with disagree, I used "To disagree with something's use or someone's behavior" It is possible to disagree, I believe to disagree with a use or a behavior, which is objecting I believe. But I don't believe stating that I can disagree with a thing or something like a table is accurate.

So in summary I believe the verb to object is obviously related to being objectionable and we know that that means, bad behavior. I may even say this "I agree with the content of your argument but I object to how you delivered it as it was objectionable."

Don't worry if you could answer if I can disagree with a table and I will be happy?

Desa97 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Desa97, but I'm siding with Equinox on this one: We define words as they are used in English by English speakers. You are entitled to your opinions, but we are not obliged to cater to your preferences. In regard to your question – yes, you can disagree with an object but more importantly it can disagree with you. It's quite common to say things along the lines of "Onions disagree with me" implying that they cause harm or unease when consumed. So I advise you to move on, just accept that things are inherently weird and that Wiktionary is descriptive, not proscriptive. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

let me tell you something, whats wrong with copying format, but look im contributing, i added the Brahui section in the ŧ page something which u didnt and i might have taken some tries BUT I DID IT OK? https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%C5%A6

im not Globins why are you blaming me for it

Hello! On 27 August, you reverted my edit in the “galėti” entry. I noticed this today I added the information again. Why did you revert my edit to begin with? I speak Lithuanian and “galėti” does, in fact, mean both “can” and “may”. 83.226.235.200 07:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

When you just write "can" without the infinitive marker "to", it becomes confusing; are you referring to the noun or the verb? Patrolling anon edits you sometimes get blinded, so I apologise for the revert which I see now was made in good faith. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree and can see why it was confusing. It looks really nice now, though! No need at all to apologise. Have a nice day! 83.226.235.200 11:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see nothing to indicate that this account is anything but a totally clueless South African 13-year-old, though the thought that this might be a bot did cross my mind. The bots try to make the user pages as generic and nondescript as possible so they can blend in. They also don't do this kind of edit. Besides, if they were a bot, deletion of the bogus user page would be the first priority.

That said, the sudden expansion of smartphone usage in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia has brought in a whole class of novice users with poor English skills who often aren't even aware they're editing a dictionary- and this seems to be Exhibit A.

I unblocked this account to avoid giving the wrong impression, not because I think there's any chance of any useful contributions. Feel free to reblock them on other grounds if you feel it's appropriate. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should have been there — This unsigned comment was added by 168.9.37.100 (talk).

You funny :-D But no, it shouldn't. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Robbie, this French woman said with a French R at the end, so should we remove it? 138.229.19.202 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

On 5 November, you blocked my account for 24 hours based on the following: Adding formats yielding a so called Moldovan Korean category and ultimately presenting false information as to the use of some old verb forms in Romanian. Granted, I have no idea what a ”Moldovan Korean category” means, but I have a bone to pick with you over the block itself. You blocked me right away without even contacting me before, which I think was pretty indefensible and I am quite sure most administrators would agree with me on that. I have never engaged in any sort of vandalism, which you should know. I was pretty stunned to see that there are actually users who would block serious contributors like myself over such a minor infraction. My edits were all made in good faith and you went over the line by blocking my account. I do not want to feel that I have to create an account to be treated fairly here. I expect you to behave differently the next time and not use the blocking tool the way you did.

Secondly: the edits I made about the old sînt forms in Romanian are not incorrect in Moldovan from what I know. I clearly stated that they are obsolete in Romania, but they are in fact very much used in Moldova, which I pointed out. They may be obsolete according to official grammars, however, in which case I apologise for getting ahead of myself.

Thirdly: the word moldovenește also refers to the language spoken in Moldova, which is referred to as Moldovan by many citizens (although not all of them). You may have your opinion about this situation, but it is used that way and should not be removed. I have left the sînt edits be for now, but I took the liberty to revert the moldovenește edit. 83.226.235.200 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

For the record, Moldavian ISO 639 code (mo an mol) were made obsolete back in November of 2008 which indicates that there is no substantial difference between Romanian and Moldavian. The country itself has Romanian as its official language so your change will possibly be reverted because it's to some extent untrue - you have to provide proof that the English lemma is used in that way and taking into consideration what I mentioned previously, you will have a hard time proving your case. In regards to you block, you made a bunch of formatting errors which created a red category called "Moldovan Korean". You did not go back to look at your edits and I was afraid that you were on a roll. We've had several anon users who have politicised lemmas related to Moldova, so I have adopted a no tolerance policy in order to spare Wiktionary unnecessary tension. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologise for blocking you. However, please take into consideration that Moldovan/Moldavian is no longer recognised as a separate language and we have discussed it enough in the past. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I appreciate your answer and apology. The thing about Moldova and the Romanian language in Moldova is that while the political situation has changed and there is a reason to get rid of the notion that there is a distinct Moldovan language, there might still be some dialectal variations. This is not the same thing as stating that there is a distinct Moldovan language, which I never did. Also, in the case of my moldovenește edit: we already know that the people of Moldova to a certain degree treat the Romanian spoken there as a distinct language and while I agree that that is wrong and should have no place here, it is still a fact that they refer to the language as moldovenește. This is the reason I think we should acknowledge it in the moldovenește entry. It is hardly about politics, but rather about practical use (because it is used by the people). This is my view. 83.226.235.200 09:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was actually mainly referring to your change at the English entry. We have to substantiate its use in English in order to have that sense listed. To put it bluntly, these kinds of topics are prone to be debated by people holding conflicting positions, so it's better to keep a healthy distance so that they don't become problematic issues. I understand your point of view and will take it into consideration when I go through these entries later this week. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I can see the difficulties as well. Thank you! 83.226.235.200 11:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! You reverted my edit on “pažinti” yesterday. As you may remember, we spoke the time you revered my edit in the “galėti” entry on 17 October. I find it difficult to understand the procedure here. I still speak Lithuanian and know for a fact that “pažinti” refers to places as well (although it has never had the same meaning as “žinoti”, which refers to information rather than being familiar with something). Would you please explain why this edit was reverted? I am open to constructive criticism if you have it. 83.226.235.200 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The revert was a simple mistake on my part - my cellphone changed orientation while scrolling and I happened to come across the rollback button when trying to put it right again. A blunder on my part which I fixed immediately. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK! No harm done. 83.226.235.200 11:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just saw that you revert an unknown editor's edit. I think that it SHOULD be included in there since Malay also has that word (I'm Malaysian, so, I know that it deserves to be mentioned). Emotioness Expression (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not contesting the validity of the term in Malay. It was just so poorly formatted - nothing was correct, not even the header. If you want to readd it, please use proper formatting and headers. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you reverted someone's addition of an illustrative image to 1-2-3 block. I have undone your edit because I believe the edit was well-intended and may be helpful to readers as it would help the reader better visualize the definition given for the term. Inner Focus (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was a fast revert based on the incorrect placement of the image and superfluous sections. I don't object to adding an image, however, it should be formatted properly. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

If there's some relevant nexus between "later" and "building materials" I'd love to hear about it. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the Latin section, Latin later is defined as "brick; tile". Categories may be relevant to only one of the language sections, but if you want to categorize one of the parts, you have to categorize the whole page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz:I'm pretty sure I thanked you for the edit summary, but I didn't see this post until now. So, either thanks, or thanks again for the info as well as for your notice of the intended humor in things that nonetheless go wrong. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chuck summarised it perfectly. Must say that I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't know that already – I advise you to take some time to familiarise yourself with Wiktionary's guidelines, especially how categories are added. Any questionable edits on your part will be reverted and I'm not the kind of admin to shy away from blocking users for obstruction, regardless how knowledgeable they come off as. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. FYI: I'm one who relishes valid criticism yet I eschew not only interpolations of others' motives but also assessments of their range of knowledge. And I'm not averse to being blocked for harassment (versus bad taste) or defamatory remarks (versus sardonic or otherwise lame humor). Perhaps I should make a concerted effort to gauge others' familiarity with satire and self-deprecation. Anyway, I apologize to you, Ron Sheppard: Ron, if you're a user here, I hope my frivolous mention of your publicly noticed serial marriages hasn't exposed you to any additional scorn. And Robbie, if my quirks of humor get me blocked by an administrator who wants to give me some comeuppance upon reading some obstructionist quality into the text of my edits or posts, please back me up. Cheers, and love all 'round. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

(Un)fortunately, a bad sense of humour and improper use of satire are apparently not blockable offences. Your comment directed towards Equinox was for me neither amusing nor becoming a person of your (purported) stature. Then again, boomer humour was never really my cup of tea. Did I act rashly when I blocked you? Possibly, Chuck thought so and I defer to him – I respect his decision. However, your tone and incessant diatribe is edging you ever so close to the cliff of being blocked, by me or any other admin growing increasingly tired of having to read your verbose essays du jour addressing your Wiktionary grievances. Adopt a more relaxed tone, and everything will be smooth sailing. Thanks, and please don't spread "love all 'round" cause of quarantine and lockdown. Stay safe! ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was a difficult decision, but in the end, I had to consider motive and the extreme unlikeliness of the purported identity. @Kent Dominic Privacy is important. Even pretending to doxx someone is a very bad idea. This may be a game to you, but there are those of us who have to wrestle with such issues all the time. As a checkuser, I can see the IP address and the browser information shared with Wikimedia servers for every edit in the past 90 days. I sometimes accidentally learn things in the course of an investigation that the privacy policy requires me to keep to myself. I don't find jokes about such things very funny. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted and understood. FYI, I'm likely to doxx myself here next year. I'd like my commercial readers to have the benefit of checking all the linguistic rants I've made here and at Wikipedia. So, I'm invested in keeping my rants and occasional put-downs clean but edgy. Sometimes too edgy, maybe. (Getting blocked and unblocked validates my intent to come as close to that line as possible when warranted.) Thanks all the same. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I appreciate your tolerance regarding the mock items I listed under the "requests for deletion topic" on your discussion page. Somehow I knew you wouldn't be personally offended. The mocking truly is geared at anyone who can't see the inconsistencies that swirl around a myopic perspective re. POS and linguistic taxonomies. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

My edit to the etymology section replaced "*vorbъ" (inexistent page) with "Proto-Slavic *vorbь", a page that explicitely lists "vrabie" under "Descendants". — This unsigned comment was added by MerryXIV (talk • contribs).

Your edit created the automatic category "Serbo-Croatian terms derived from Proto-Slavic" which is entirely incorrect for a Romanian entry. Please be more careful and make sure to use the proper language code. We can't clean up every edit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie, I’ll forever deny being obstructionist, but I readily admit being too lazy to invest the time needed to figure out proper protocols regarding the change indicated here. If you’re interested in doing it yourself in a way that avoids ruffling feathers, have at it. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The suggested changes make a pretty straightforward definition exaggeratedly complicated and therefore deemed by me as meaningless. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

May I respectfully disagree about it being meaningless without heeding your suggestion regarding the Tea Room? My laziness supersedes my linguistic affinities in this case.

P.S. Please pardon the self-deprecation; indeed I'm less lazy than I am interested in ultimately maintaining the intellectual property rights concerning my own lexicon's entry for "hear, hear." --Kent Dominic (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It goes without saying that the words in an idiom have their ordinary meanings when not used idiomatically. 73.71.251.64 19:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is still pointed out when the literal meaning is as common as this. It'd be confusing for people using this dictionary if step off did not have the meaning you insist on removing. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Even a literal sense is useful if it helps distinguish the idiomatic from the literal. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You reverted one edit by 2601:644:100:9F20:F83F:3CFD:278D:49C9. There are several more unnecessary additions of use examples involving a guy named Jim. Not vandalism taken one at a time, but odd. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was on the fence about deleting them. I decided to keep them since they seemed pretty harmless. Do you think they should be deleted? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've removed or altered some, and replaced one with a genuine quotation. Maybe the rest should be edited too. It feels like in combination they might be about a real Jim. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The edit to ask shows a deficiency in the definitions. We don't have a sense matching the added ux. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for your help. I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your rollbacks on coyote and potty were in error. I checked by listening to the audio on the wolves page and the coyote page and searching potty and calves on Yarn. --174.29.20.139 03:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

What you mistook for a /d/ was probably the alveolar flap, /ɾ/. It's understandable, since they're very close in sound and both t and d tend to be pronounced as ɾ between vowels where the second vowel is unstressed. Still, this is a dictionary, and we should be accurate. If you're not familiar enough with phonetics and the International Phonetic alphabet to recognize the difference, you probably shouldn't be editing the IPA sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have a question, why did you revert my edits? LukeSkywalker26 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Several reasons actually: a) Wiktionary is case-sensitive, b) we usually don't allow names of TV shows unless they have exceptional linguistic implications, and c) Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

In 2017 you added etymology to păpădie, likely copied from dexonline.ro, giving Greek as the source. I think it is likely that Ottoman Turkish پاپادیا (papatya) was an intermediate form between Greek and Romanian because (1) the Ottoman Empire was in the way between Greece and Romania and left behind many loan words, (2) with the Turkish intermediate form the semantic shift from wife to flower only needs to occur once. What do you think? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's conceivable, but I find no source supporting it (just a mention by Scriban, but his works are known for being simplistic). Considering the morphology and regionalisms (papadea, papadie, papădie and popodie), proposing an Ottoman intermediary is unnecessary and problematic (t < d seems unlikely, especially in loanwords). On another note, Romanian does have quite a substantial Greek vocabulary thanks to direct influence during the Phanariote era, but also intermediaries such as Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and even Bulgarian. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to add this word and some info maybe that it's used often in political contexts (or at least I keep seeing it there) plus add a table on România like for other nouns with full declension

btw do you know if there are such forms for other countries as well or it's a unique thing? LICA98 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

For sure, Românie is definitely a noun form. It is generally speaking, quite uncommon though – I've only seen it used in literary works where the author wants to personalise what is otherwise considered, an abstract concept. I'm quite wary of adding a declension table to proper nouns, because many of the forms are correct in theory but will never be used in real life. When it comes to other countries, it's a real pickle. I mean, I've never heard of Moldovo, Franțo, Germanie/Germanio or Spanio/Spanie. Maybe @Bogdan can shed some light on the subject. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

for Moldova it should be Moldovă instead, like it's mostly used in the context "o Moldovă fără X" or "o Moldovă "

examples:

Pentru o Moldovă Democratică şi Prosperă

O Românie fără hoție

Pentru o Românie normală

Alianța pentru o Românie Curată

actually I just googled and you can find results for "o franta fara", "o spanie fara" etc. so they should exist for any country I guess LICA98 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think we misunderstood each other – I thought you were talking about a vocative case ending in -e. An analogous reconstruction, creating a hypothetical singular nominative of country names is an entirely different subject and would possibly be frowned upon by scholars. It's non-standard and not applicable to a vast number of country names. I would seriously discourage such additions, unless other Romanian-speaking users chime in and we can establish some kind of consensus. When it comes to your examples, any results without diacritics should be discarded, because I can't decipher if it's "o Franță fără" or "o Franța fără" even if the latter might be considered incorrect from a grammatical point of view. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's non-standard, like same way in English we can say "a Romania without corruption" or "for a normal Romania" even though in general it's used without an article (or Romanias in plural exists as well, in the context "two different Romanias" (as we have already Frances or Norways))

like the reason it needs to be added is because of common usage in political contexts and foreign people see them as well (example) so we need to have an explanation available (at least Românie and Moldovă but I don't see anything wrong in adding Franță, Spanie, Germanie... not everyone has them obviously, like for example Ciad and Fiji I doubt you can make a separate indefinite form ;) LICA98 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's because English doesn't have a similar case system. Romanian has many lemmas and compounds that lack a nominative form and creating one just seems outlandish (e.g. mărul lui Adam, floarea soarelui, etc.). It's a complicated subject and I personally oppose adding those forms because they don't adhere to standard proper noun rules for Romanian. We can have a similar discussion about first names: it's ill-advised to include forms such as Mariă for Maria, or Lucă for Luca. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no Mariă, but rather Mărie, as in the the saying aceeaşi Mărie, cu altă pălărie ("same Mary, different hat", equivalent of English "same meat, different gravy").  :-) Bogdan (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think you keep missing the point... this has nothing to do with cases but rather definite/indefinite: in English it's just the articles that change and the word stays the same but in Romanian you have the word change as well

also I don't see what personal names have to do with it since this is about country names LICA98 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Country names and personal names are proper nouns and should be treated as such. They adhere to special rules just like in any other language. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

the difference tho is that the o Românie/a Romania construction is frequently used but personal names with articles not so LICA98 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The "o Românie" construction might be common, but it doesn't mean that you can apply it as a general rule to all countries. For instance, we don't pluralise Sweden here. My point is yes, maybe add it as a usage note, but adding a regular declension table is just not something I'd advise you to do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is your rationale for reverting my change to ‘come the raw prawn’. This information is on at least 2 Australian government websites and a TV documentary. Roy Rene was a well known Australian comedian popular around World War 2. — This unsigned comment was added by Chrisjej (talk • contribs).

It is deemed as having an obscure origin, so you can't just delete ambiguity like that. You are free to add it as a possible etymology, but do not make it look like the only one especially since the source you added is just not enough. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There are some adjectives for which the default form is in feminine. Is it possible to use the templates to do this, or should I use the masculine form?

For example, ouătoare, for which would not make sense to have a masculine form. DEX shows just the feminine form. Bogdan (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bogdan, think it would be best just to keep the feminine form as the main lemma page. Try using the regular adjective template and see what happens – I have to admit that I've never seen an adjective only used in the feminine form. I agree that there is no point in adding a hypothetical masculine form if it doesn't exist. And if I have your attention, what is your opinion on the subject raised by LICA98 just two titles up? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bogdan Scripts are very useful, but you have to check the edits. Your entry for monofonă has been in CAT:E for a day and a half due to module errors that would be painfully obvious to anyone who viewed the page even once after it was created.

There's no excuse for this: if you use a script, you're just as responsible for your edits as if you had done them by hand- actually more so, because automating things has a greater potential for wreaking havoc if things go wrong.

If you knew about it and did nothing, that's even worse: CAT:E should be kept as clear as possible so that new problems can be easily spotted. There are about 20 pages that are apparently beyond our ability to fix, so any added clutter is a real problem. Besides which, an entry with content replaced by Lua error in Module:ro-adjective at line 102: Feminine of "monofonă" could not be generated automatically is useless to everyone and makes us look bad. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Robbie SWE, this entry is obviously a noun, not adjective. Very clear from the definition (semen). Mazsch (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Then please change the template too – you only changed the title, resulting in the lemma being categorised as both a noun and an adjective. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do think it's an error. And it's important to add what I added. It didn't come suddenly from latin as well — This unsigned comment was added by OPAZL (talk • contribs).

Nobody said it did, but you don't seem to understand how etymologies are written. Please read our guidelines. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Aiti could be related to Ata. After all finnic is not related to any other european family but hungaric only kazak (ata) and in Kyrgyz "ata" (ата) means the elder. In other languages languages "anya" in hungarian and "anne"in turkish....but well hungarian and turkish while from different families (ungric and turkic respectively) are too afar. In Kazak and kirgiz...why are they not more similar to turkish? Since both turkic? Tyrsenian family was spoken close from Hungary. — This unsigned comment was added by OPAZL (talk • contribs).

Not how etymologies work I'm afraid. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

You ask for a note on your talk page if the rollback at https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pateet&diff=next&oldid=61912685 is in error. It is in error. The ditransitive verb "to deem" in English takes two objects with no preposition, as in "I deem X Y" ("a person deemed such"). It does not, in careful writing, take the preposition "as" between those two objects; "I deem X as Y" ("a person deemed as such") would be incorrect. See the multiple example sentences given by Merriam-Webster at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deem, and the example sentence (though there is only one) for deem#Verb in Wiktionary. 2607:FEA8:12A2:B200:0:0:0:DEE8 01:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, not prescriptive. The construction "demmed as such" has over 5,4 million hits on Google and over 27,000+ quotes on Google Books – you can find British English examples going back as far as 1836. Mostly legal documents, but still using this construction. So you're in the wrong here. Regarding "based off of" maybe you should stop throwing "illiterate" around like that and try to find out if it is actually used that way. It's informal and mainly used in the US (20,000+ quotes on Google Books and Merriam-Webster has a nice article about it). --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you want Wiktionary to describe "deemed as such," feel free to add an entry for it. But Wiktionary should itself be written in the best available style, and "deemed as" is not that. "Based off" is not relevant to this point. 2607:FEA8:12A2:B200:0:0:0:DEE8 18:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not how it works dear anon. That's how people use the language and there's nothing wrong with that. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Extraordinary. 2607:FEA8:12A2:B200:0:0:0:DEE8 18:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It truly is - aren't languages fun?! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

baptisme isn't a synonym of baptême, just look at https://fr.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/baptisme Larousse has pretty much the same definition https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/baptisme/7887 — This unsigned comment was added by 78.98.86.191 (talk).

You added a full-fledged definition to a French entry – unless the term is untranslatable, there is no need to do so, this is the English Wiktionary after all. Baptist in English designates a person, not the doctrine which in this case is correctly translated as baptism. If you feel that a distinction is necessary, consider wording it like "baptism {{gloss|a Baptist doctrine}}". --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is an IP who's rather productive in Aromanian. If you are able to ascertain that the edits are of a high quality, it might be a good idea to invite the user to create an account. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've seen that they've been productive. I'll take a look. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, I've checked their edits and they're fine. The only issue might be all the alternative forms – AFAIK, Aromanian doesn't have a standardising authority, so we're stuck with a bunch of more or less common forms. I'll keep an eye on their edits in case they don't follow my advice about creating an account. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"cool down please, take it up with the community and stop edit warring" - someone

if you were gonna protect the page, which made sense, why didn't you also bother looking at my edit before that? the user Equinox had to waste their time to remove the "law" part (the thing I did) bc of you 2600:1700:BAD0:23C0:C87C:A363:498E:4AF0 22:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

You really did make a mountain of a mole hill and taking into consideration that it took you two months (!) to contact me, still up in arms about it, just goes to show that your block was warranted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"You really did make a mountain of a mole hill and taking into consideration that it took you two months (!) to contact me, still up in arms about it, just goes to show that your block was warranted." - someone

the edit war is beside the point. other than protecting the page, why didn't you use any common sense and at least look back at my edit before deciding to protect the page? does the word (and its definition) seem like it's related to law? again, Equinox didn't deserve to waste their time 2600:1700:BAD0:23C0:C87C:A363:498E:4AF0 02:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"all it'll do is just confuse other people and make them think they've been using it wrong" is exactly what I said on the talk page 2600:1700:BAD0:23C0:C87C:A363:498E:4AF0 02:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wow, absolutely wow. I don't know what's gotten you all wound up, but you're just gonna give yourself an aneurysm. The problem was solved – these types of things happen all the time. I assure you that no one failed their Bar Exam because they saw our label and thought it only applied to law. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you temporarily add autopatrol to my account? I'm trying to make a post at Beer parlour but am hit with a crappy abuse filter that is configured too harshly. I am a trusted user elsewhere and a sysop on two WMF projects (my CentralAuth). Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please disregard this message, I figured out what was wrong and it was a misunderstanding. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

You asked me to leave a message so by all means here it is. There isn't too much to say, as my comment on the edit said it all. What reason would there be to sustain such an entry to the contrary? 82.26.240.238 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You don't understand Wiktionary at all. We're an uncensored, descriptive dictionary- if people use it, we have an entry for it. If you think it's not used, you tag it with {{rfv|en}} and (preferably) post it to Requests for verification/English. People will then look for evidence of usage that meets our Criteria for inclusion. Only after it's determined that it's not in use will it be deleted. This is not Wikipedia, which requires references from reliable sources. Your opinion of whether it's a good entry or whether the sources are authoritative enough has no bearing whatsoever on whether an entry will be deleted. The {{d}} template is for cases where you made a mistake and no one else has edited the entry, or obvious typos like "appple" (though note that teh is a good entry). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why does Wiktionary say it comes from Latin when I saw several Slavic langiages using the same siffix, sometimes with the same usage (e.g. as a diminutive)? There's also this article which claims it comes from Proto-Slavic *-ici: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228544014_SLAV_INFLUENCE_UPON_THE_ROMANIAN_LANGUAGE-DIRECT_REFERENCES_TO_CROATIAN 178.138.97.44 06:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned in my comment, the article you cited has received a lot of criticism for only looking at one language and not providing the evolution of sound changes and more importantly, how Romanian would have had direct connection with Croatian. In addition to this, several words ending in -eț have possible counterparts in Vulgar Latin and cognates in Romance languages (see călăreț) which suggests a possible Latin origin. Compare Spanish -izo and Italian -iccio which are used similarly. Just because terms look alike in several languages, doesn't make them connected. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was deleting those entries based partly on this discussion and mostly on the lack of consistency with names from other cultures (only Japanese names seem to be populating categories for non-Japanese languages). Why were these included in the first place? And why for only a handful of languages (English, French, Portuguese, Tagalog)? There's no sourcing for any of this either, so basically it's just unverified claims of Japanese names (or transliterations) being native names in other languages. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nonetheless, the discussion does not constitute a vote. No consensus means that it's better to leave it be until we can establish one. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Either way, hopefully you won't do an Equinox and mass-delete everything I ever created! Wubble You (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering why you undid my revision to sentí Your right that it's used for yo but it is also used for vos in the Affirmative imperative. So it would mean feel for example Sentí triste cuando vos no tenés comida Sentí in this context would mean feel sad Mazz111 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it was just really badly formatted – you had good intentions, but it didn't follow our guidelines. Usually, I would help out but I just couldn't see how it was salvageable and it was also not supported by the declension table for sentir. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Am sorry i just don't have any experience with how editing on here is, but it is a correct and recognized way to use sentí, references are of course spanishdict.com which will confirm what i said, and of course Diccionario de la Real Academia will also confirm that sentí is used for the (vos) Affirmative imperative form , so if you can edit it yourself to include the second usage i would greatly appreciate it Mazz111 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Promise to take a look next week. If I forget, please remind me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reminding you now Mazz111 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Done, I've added the correct format which is in keeping with standard procedure. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Should I strive for this or this style? I.e. honoring every derivation by a single line or compressing all derivations of a single base word into a single line? Personally, I think I'd prefer the latter but there doesn't seem to be a consistent policy regarding this. Also: Are there language-specific talk pages on Wiktionary? How can I reach all the regular Romanian Wiktionarians? --Fytcha (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The second example for sure! I don't know if we have a Romanian talk page to reach Wiktionarians – from what I know Bogdan, ‎ManFromSuceava, Word dewd544 and I are the only continuously active Romanian Wiktionarians around here. Ilinca2000 is pretty new and Lupesc was pretty active until about a year ago. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. That's really an oversight if you ask me, how can there not be language specific discussion pages on a multilingual dictionary? Beyond me :) I'll just ask Bogdan or you directly in that case. --Fytcha (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you're discussing general issues regarding a language, there's always the talk page for the language's "About" page. In this case that would be Wiktionary talk:About Romanian. That said, there's no guarantee than anyone actually has it on their watchlist. No one has posted to that page in five years- it's not surprising that Robbie forgot about it.

If you want to know who else might be interested in Romanian, you can go through the subcategories of Category:User ro, which are populated by the Babel boxes on editors' user pages. Just make sure you look at their contributions so you're sure they're still around and working on Romanian. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

If I'm not mistaken, there's a meaning of lui that's missing in the corresponding Wiktionary article: the lui that's used in front of a name that doesn't allow a D/G ending, e.g. "Casa lui Tom". It isn't the same lui as genitive el because lui in this sense is also used for women's names. However, I don't know which part of speech it is so I can't add it to the article. --Fytcha (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lui is the masculine singular form in the dative/genitive case for el which makes it a pronoun form. See the declension table at DEX's entry el. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The dictionary entry clearly states "Ține locul persoanei despre care se vorbește" so this is not applicable to the example sentence presented above. Furthermore, do you believe that in the sentence "Casa asta e a lui Mary" there is a masculine singular pronoun present? --Fytcha (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, there is no masculine pronoun present in that example. Is this site helpful? I always thought that sentences like the one above were exceptions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've skimmed over the article but I didn't find any mention of lui in the sense that I'm talking about. I'm also fairly certain that the part of speech of such a lui isn't pronoun, my line of reasoning being: If such a lui is a pronoun, which male entity does it replace in the sentence "Casa asta e a lui Mary", considering there are no male entities in the universe of this sentence?

I found this on Wikipedia: "Masculine proper names designating people form the genitive-dative by placing the article lui before the noun: lui Brâncuși ('of/to Brâncuși'); the same applies to feminine names only when they don't have a typically feminine ending: lui Carmen."

It explicitly refers to this lui as an article, which answers my initial question: I didn't know which part of speech it was, which is however crucial to making a Wiktionary entry. I am going to add the article definition if you don't have and qualms with it. --Fytcha (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=age_of_consent&diff=next&oldid=63882203#English

Any explanation for the rollback of my translation? Sources:

vârsta consimțământului sexual:

https://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/legile-din-romania-nu-ii-apara-pe-copii-de-agresiunile-sexuale-indivizii-care-violeaza-copii-de-11-12-ani-primesc-pedepse-cu-suspedare-2896932

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0716

https://www.cires.info/post/dic%C8%9Bionar-v%C3%A2rsta-consim%C8%9B%C4%83m%C3%A2ntului

vârsta consimțământului:

https://www.bashbradford.org.uk/ro/relatii-si-sex/sexul-si-legea/varsta-consimtamantului

https://www.bashbradford.org.uk/ro/intrebari-si-raspunsuri/sex-si-legea/ce-inseamna-varsta-consimtamantului

https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/BZgA_Standards_Romanian.pdf — This unsigned comment was added by Fytcha (talk • contribs).

Your translation was in the definite form which isn't always apropriate to add as a main translation. Vârstă de consimțământ is perfectly fine. Please be careful with your translations - some have been a bit off and you also don't have to link to individual words if it's a set phrase. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, you didn't only change it from definite to indefinite, you also changed the genitive construction to the "de" phrase, both of which are correct and used. In my eyes, you should have provided the version with "de" as an alternative, not as a replacement. Secondly, even following your link I only ever encounter examples where this phrase is used definitely. If a set phrase only ever occurs in its definite form, why should we not write it down how it is actually used >99% of the time? I've never seen nor heard this phrase being used indefinitely.

Regarding "some of my translations have been a bit off": I made a mistake in iced coffee, it happens, but apart from that?

Thanks for your help, --Fytcha (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fytcha, your tone sounds a tad aggressive, which I don't believe you intend it to be. I'm here to help, especially since you describe yourself as being a heritage speaker. Now back to the subject at hand, Romanian is tricky in that respect – providing a "de" phrase more often than not, is the most correct thing to do. Using this standardised construction, you can speak of "diferite vârste de consimțământ" which otherwise would be impossible if one was to take your translations. That's the reason why we don't provide åldersgränsen as a Swedish translation for age limit, but åldersgräns which is indefinite. Why would the situation be any different for Romanian? Granted, some set phrases are written using definite and genitive cases, but these can be used as indefinite compound nouns (e.g. floarea-soarelui, mărul lui Adam, boul-Domnului etc., where one can say "am o floarea-soarelui"). You see what I'm getting at? What you're proposing is actually the equivalent of adding articles to translations which would yield the French translation la majorité sexuelle or Italian l'età del consenso, even German das Schutzalter for age of consent (N.B. all of them have tens of thousands of hits each on Google) – doesn't make their inclusion any more appropriate. As to your other translations, it's no biggie – only minor corrections here and there, but it doesn't hurt to be mindful and check usage before saving. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as aggressive; no hard feelings! It can be hard to accurately convey emotions (or lack thereof) over text sometimes. I enjoy becoming a better Wiktionarian with your help.

I see your point regarding the definite article and I agree with it. The problem was that you cannot put the phrase with the genitive construction in an indefinite form so I was forced by the grammar to use the definite "vârsta". I have to ask though: Do you not also see value in the inclusion of "vârsta consimțământului (sexual)" as a secondary translation? It undoubtedly is an attested set phrase and its inclusion would allow Wiktionary to return a correct translation when somebody searches for this phrase. I would like to either provide it as a secondary translation in the article at hand or create a new article for this phrase. What do you think? --Fytcha (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I see little point in adding it in the translation section, because unless you have basic knowledge of the Romanian language, you're bound to misunderstand how it's used and risk interpreting vârsta consimțământului as an indefinite compound noun. With that said, it might be worth mentioning under Usage Notes if we had an entry for vârstă de consimțământ and we should without a doubt provide durable quotes where the different forms are used. As I said Fytcha, some languages (Romanian) are tricky, and we must keep things as clean-cut as possible especially in translation sections. I would however consider adding "vârstă de consimțământ sexual" as an additional translation, even if it pretty much is the equivalent of saying age of sexual consent (borderline tautology). --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just felt like explaining you what happened. So as I'm kinda new, I don't know all these templates and boilerplates by heart, so what I do is I copy them over from other articles that I've recently visited. I think what happened in this case was that I copied over the "Pronunciation" block as usual (from parasol) and then - embarrassingly enough - forgot to replace the IPA with the new one (I think it was because I was distracted by "Derived Terms" and then forgot to come back to it). I'm sorry!

Do you always type out the same templates? Do you know them all by heart? Or is there a better solution that I'm overlooking? It would be really comfortable if there were buttons above the edit box that automatically insert the boilerplate code. --Fytcha (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it! I did (and sometimes) still do the same mistakes. To answer your question, generally I use the templates at the bottom of the editing window. You can switch between Templates and Headers and IPA. It takes some time getting used to though...--Robbie SWE (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

When I was copying over the quote, I've actually noticed the mistake in there. But is it actually acceptable practice to fix mistakes in quoted material? Or should we instead put a "" there?

Furthermore, I am fairly certain comorbiditate is used countably:

https://www.google.com/search?q=comorbidit%C4%83%C8%9Bi

https://www.cnscbt.ro/index.php/analiza-date-supraveghere/west-nile-2/645-analiza-infectiei-cu-wnv-2016/file ("Toate cazurile decedate au avut boi asociate, astfel: 18.8% (6) dintre cazuri au avut o comorbiditate, 28.6% (8) doua comorbiditati si 71.4% (5) trei si mai mult de trei comorbiditati.")

I think grammatically the situation is similar to that of the English word comorbidity: comorbidity has an uncountable meaning (the situation/presence of a coexisting disease) but also a countable meaning (a specific coexisting disease). What do you think? --Fytcha (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just talked about this with Bogdan, and I think you're right - we should add "uncountable and countable" under the headword like we do with some English words. I'll go change the declension table. When it comes to quoted material, I must admit that I'm starting to doubt my own actions. Think you can revert those changes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

For German nouns, the template template:de-noun contains an optional field for diminutives which I find reasonable. In my opinion, this would make even more sense for Romanian, where the diminutive forms are even more irregular than in German. We could just copy paste the code they use in the German template. We then could iterate over all entries in Category:Romanian diminutive nouns and automatically supplement the diminutive form in the ro-noun template of the corresponding base noun. The remaining nouns that don't have an automatically supplemented diminutive form, we could put into a new subcategory in Category:Requests_concerning_Romanian named "Requests for diminutive in Romanian entries‎" where human maintainers either supplement the correct diminutive(s) or remove the request token. What do you think? --Fytcha (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I don't think it's a good idea. German diminutives are more regular and, to some extent, more sparse than Romanian diminutives thus making them easier to manage in the template – I just don't see the benefits here. Is it to save time or space? Or so they're placed under the headword line? Mind you, most diminutive nouns have standalone meanings which would be diminished were they to be reduced to mere diminutive forms. I'm also having a hard time coming to grips with the visual nightmare that it would be – picture brad with its diminutives brădioară, brădișor, brăduleț, brăduț, brădui, brăduiac, etc. not to mention possible augmentative forms. Italian has also multiple ways of forming diminutives and augmentatives – it doesn't do so in the template and neither should Romanian. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here's how it looks like in the context of a German word having many diminutive forms: Haus#German As to the question what the benefit would be exactly: 1. It would make it so that the corresponding diminutive forms are easier found and visually delimited within an article; right now they're just among the derived terms somewhere. 2. It would give us a consistent process by which we could find and add missing diminutive forms, which would entail increasing the number of Romanian articles that refer to their diminutive forms in the long run. I do however see your concerns and I agree that the situation is more complicated with Romanian than German. --Fytcha (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Fytcha, but that German example is absolutely appalling – it's messy and does not make their relation to Haus any clearer. Another issue we're facing is that the diminutive forms for Haus, such as Häuslein, Häusle and Häusel only say "Diminutive of Haus", while Romanian diminutives most often than not have standalone meanings and semantic developments. For instance, brădișor means little fir but also northern firmoss, brădioară is a rarely used feminine diminutive but means mainly hazel grouse. I prefer them under Derived Terms if you ask me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

We can group them in the Derived Terms, like I did in brad. Bogdan (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Bogdan! Much better, I really think this is the way to go! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking neat, I like it. --Fytcha (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be some Romanian articles around that are internally inconsistent like https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sufletele&oldid=54590229#Romanian before I edited it. The template:g box said neuter-singular whereas the definitions said plural. I feel like such inconsistencies are easily checked for by an appropriate bot. I've encountered at least 4 in the ~150 articles that I've just fixed. --Fytcha (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if I'm not mistaken, these were added manually at a time when we chose to include the singular gender. I personally see no reason whatsoever to add any gender to noun forms, because the person looking them up, would naturally click on the singular form to learn more about it. I don't have an active bot, but I agree with you that it should be something to amend. The problem doesn't only exist in Romanian entries, all the Romance languages have similar issues in their noun forms categories. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

discussion Contribber (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why were my edits removed? They were well substantiated, based on existing literature on the matter. It makes no sense that youb deleted it. — This unsigned comment was added by 2804:d49:8215:1e00:8515:274:ac75:3ad8 (talk).

I'll give you several reasons: 1) your edits were badly formatted, 2) they were more like discussions and/or conclusions therefore unbefitting an etymology section, 3) relied on very few sources which were also hard to find online and 4) you didn't actually provide any compelling reason why the existing etymology would be false. If you want to make changes like the ones you intended to, you should've started an open discussion about this matter in the Etymology Scriptorium – we have extremely talented editors around here who could have supported you or provided reasons why your supposition was incorrect. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why you rolled back the change of definition? 194.115.212.165 13:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You excluded transsexuality and transgenderism which are important to mention in this context. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

"transsexuality" is outdated and "transgenderism" is straight up offensive. I don't see how either are important to mention, given that "transness" encompasses the meaning of both. 194.115.212.165 14:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to whom? Look, this is a descriptive dictionary – our job is to show how the language is actually used and avoid being proscriptive. Terms like these are hornets’ nests of starkly different and oftentimes conflicting opinions. Give it a week or two and someone will come along and say that the trans community is reclaiming transgenderism therefore making it legit again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to literally us: both of the things I said are also mentioned in the respective articles (transsexual, transgenderism). And yes, if the trans community ever decides to reclaim "transgenderism", we will adjust accordingly. But that hasn't happened, and so we shouldn't use that word. The same way we wouldn't use other offensive words just because they might be reclaimed at some point in the future. 194.115.212.165 07:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

By all means, make the changes you deem necessary - I will not revert you this time around. But don't be surprised if someone else comes along and changes it again to fit their interpretation of the term. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just wanted to discuss your claim on the rollback that "Luna is the Latin name, frequently used in English across several domains." I know this is a commonly held belief, but based on my research it's not actually the case. I've complied several examples of domains where it's called "the Moon" at itsnameisthemoon.com. The only domain where I found it to be used with any frequency is science fiction, within the fictional universe. If you have some evidence that it's frequently used across several domains, please share it with me so I can update my findings, thanks. Cosmologicon (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's original research and not allowed on Wiktionary. Read this section about the use of Luna as a name for the Moon. Please remember that we're a descriptive dictionary, not proscriptive. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely yes, it is my intention to be descriptive. I have no idea why you think otherwise. My whole question was about evidence of actual usage. I've read the section you're referring to. Are you saying it supports your claim that Luna is used as the name of the Moon "frequently across several domains" other than science fiction? That's not how it reads to me. It looks like it says that outside science fiction, it's used only in limited contexts with very few exceptions. Thanks. Cosmologicon (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The section clearly states that the name is occasionally used in scientific texts in order to distinguish our moon from the others. It also, clearly states, that the name is used in poetry to denote personification of the Moon. Restricting it to just "science fiction" is obviously inaccurate and I really don't understand why you find is so important to label. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm.... if you're understanding that it's used "frequently across several domains" from that passage, I think it's potentially unclear. I'm sure that's not the intention: in fact it's used extremely rarely outside science fiction. As I mentioned on the talk page, this has come up several times on the Wikipedia article before. I'll go ahead and get it reworded over there, and hopefully that'll clear things up. Cosmologicon (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please don't, it just looks like you have an agenda and that you're trying to make every piece fit. The Wikipedia section is already sourced and I don't see how your label helps anyone understand it better. Robbie SWE (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Robbie SWE:

regarding the definition of most entries in Wiktionary: in almost all dictionaries online or in print, particularly Oxford and Chambers, the definition entry of a word or term always begins with a lowercase letter — This unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:cec2:a3a0:dd3b:3c4c:c7b5:bfe7 (talk).

Wiktionary is not like other dictionaries. You might want to read this before you change anything else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

sounds good, thank you for the information

Hey Robbie. When I'm complementing or creating Romanian articles, I heavily draw upon https://dexonline.ro I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that the site merely lists other dictionaries, being like a meta dictionary search. One thing I constantly notice is the fact that MDA2 consistently has the most definitions, some of which can seem very obscure and questionable to me (to give you an example: https://dexonline.ro/definitie/iute). The ones by DEX on the other hand are briefer and also more consistent with what I know about the language. My question: Is there ever a reason to look at MDA2 when there's also a hit in DEX? Can I translate definitions found in MDA2 but not in DEX with good conscience? Fytcha (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would (mainly) stick to DEX if I were you – MDA2 is excellent if you really want rare and obscure senses. They're perfectly fine if you want an all-encompassing dictionary, but most often DEX is enough. Robbie SWE (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

See e.g. avat. The etymology is unknown, however there is a theory proposed in the article. This in itself is fine but the issue now is that the article has been put into the category "Romanian terms derived from Turkish" (I can't link to the category with ] somehow) which seems wrong to me. It seems to not even matter whether {{etyl}}, {{der}} or {{bor}} is used, it is added to at least one wrong category anyway. What should I do in such a case? Is it possible to suppress the addition into the category? Should I go ahead and replace it with {{bor}} (because, if that theory is correct, it must be a borrowing)? --Fytcha (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Where there's a will, there's a way :-) Look at my edit at avat. Don't forget to use the "unknown" template so those terms are added in the right category. Robbie SWE (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is it always preferable to use {{alter}} over {{l}} in the alternative forms section? I've only very recently discovered that {{alter}} even exists at all which does not speak to its wide spread. Fytcha (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: Yes, then one can also fetch pages with {{desctree}} or {{desc|alts=1}}, apart from it being more fit for semantic web. You are wrong about its wide spread, it was just formerly not extant, therefore it is not found in older layers of the dictionary, so it is very widespread under consideration of its age. Fay Freak (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I prefer using it because you can add several alternative forms on the same line. Robbie SWE (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie_SWE, Fay Freak: Thanks, sounds like it has a lot of benefits. I will use it exclusively from now on. Fytcha (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You see, that troll that you just blocked, has a history of cross-wiki abuse on a different MediaWiki project. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=salume&type=revision&diff=64462111&oldid=64457169
Salume. Il termine è generalmente usato per identificare insaccati e prosciutti tipici italiani.
https://it.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Salume | --188.109.103.164 15:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most times, products called "salume" are in fact made from ground meat. A Google Image search supports this definition. I added "usually" and I hope you consider it a valid compromise. Robbie SWE (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Robbie, a Google Image search of «Swedish legs» proves that all legs have been shaved and are only female ones. --188.109.103.164 20:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It depends what you eat - regular guy with regular gums (en or it or sv?). What about coppa? Coppa is a salume https://it.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Coppa#Alimentazione and the prosciuttos are "due salumi: il prosciutto crudo e il prosciutto cotto" https://it.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Prosciutto. "Salume mainly minced meat".\. (A Nomark is applied to point out objections and rejections.) --188.109.103.164 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your sense of humour really doesn't translate well. Any further "funny" remarks from you and you'll end up blocked. As I said before, I changed it in order to provide the nuance you were searching. If you feel it still isn't up to your standards, then by all means, take it to the Tea Room. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie! Can you please replace "Borrowed from {{bor" with "{{ubor" in this article for me? Fytcha (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done and dusted. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reliable as always. Thank you! Fytcha (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the rollback was a mistake because "gotten" is a correct alternative for the past participle but maybe there's something I'm overlooking. Fytcha (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Late night rollback, possibly a mistake ;-) Robbie SWE (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie! I've noticed an influx of eager editors adding the unfinished {{ro-IPA}} to random articles. It's probably good to monitor Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ro-IPA for the time being; I will keep an eye on it (is it possible to have changes to that page pop up in my watchlist?). Furthermore, I take it that it's probably a wiser choice to contribute to Module:ro-pronunciation than to copy over transcriptions from ro.wikt, right? Cheers :) Fytcha (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're totally right – I also try to keep an eye on them. Don't know if it's possible though to have changes pop up in your watchlist. Have you tried adding the template to your watchlist? Any edits related to it should pop up I think. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought adding templates only makes changes to the template or to any of its related pages show up, not sure about transclusions (which is what I'm after in this case). Anyway, I've added the template to my watchlist now, let's see what happens. Fytcha (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you happen to know any good candidates for FWOTD, please don't hesitate to nominate them. Swedish and Romanian nominations are always welcome. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Lingo! I'll keep that in mind and see if I can nominate something soon. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie! Do you think de la is an entry worth creating? It is SOPpy but there might still be value because of synonyms, usage notes, usexes etc. Fytcha (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Go for it, I mean the French entry exists so why not a Romanian section? Robbie SWE (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good point, thanks for the advice. Creating it now. Fytcha (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie! Do you know whether something like Proto-Balkan-Romance (the different Romanians before the split) has been reconstructed in the scientific literature? I personally couldn't find anything unfortunately. If it doesn't exist, I'm wondering whether this is just due to lack of interest or because there is some technical reason why such a reconstruction would not make much sense / doesn't have much legitimacy. Would this be something of interest to us at Wiktionary? Cheers, Fytcha (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, no serious scholars have done any extensive or scientific research in this area, mainly due to a lack of written sources before the 14th century. It's hard establishing a timeline when so much is unknown I'm afraid. It's a pity, because such information would've been valuable. Robbie SWE (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see; that's really a pity. The jump from late Latin to Romanian is quite a big one. Thanks for the help. Fytcha (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree, we're actually looking at a window spanning nearly 1000 years which we know almost nothing about. Unique for a Romance language and a huge shame for linguistics. Robbie SWE (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The reason why a "Proto-Balkan Romance" is not very well researched is that it was relatively late (perhaps 1000 AD or so), so it doesn't tell us much about the history of Romanian. The Romanian and Aromanian words (and other features) are often very similar, the split being after the major innovations of the language were settled.

The window about which we don't know anything is perhaps much shorter than 1000 years. Romanian was connected to the Italic branch of the Romance perhaps as late as 500-600 AD (Romanian being derived from Late Latin, not from Trajan era's Classical Latin) and it split into Romanian and Aromanian around 1000 AD, so the dark period is around 400-500 years. Bogdan (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was mainly referring to a lack of valid written sources up to the 14th century when the first sources in Romanian are found. If there are any sources between the year 1000-1500, please tell me cause I'd love to study them. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are no texts, obviously, but there individual words or names in texts in other languages. Bogdan (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

New to editing Wiktionary, but I made the change after reading in multiple sources and comparing with the original that autism is actually a portmanteau of auto-erotism, which Freud himself said was another word for "Narcissism" in the classic psychoanalytic sense--concerned for one's self. Since the term comes out of a heavily psychoanalytic intellectual environment, I feel it's important that the definition contextualizes it as such; although I myself am not knowledgeable enough on Bleuler's texts themselves to give a good explanation as to why this is the commonly understood origin (within psychoanalysis), only how he's referenced in other works. I provided such sources in my edit.

2601:88:8102:2A30:3D95:B9B8:7175:CB23 08:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia article deals with this matter extensively. Only attributing the term to Freud is overly simplistic. I'm not against developing the etymology section, but I believe that engaging in a broader community discussion before making such changes would be wise. Robbie SWE (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, sorry if my original message seemed abrasive. I have done some further research on this topic, which I added to the talk page of the Wikipedia article (I'll link below). To summarize the important points, in truth the first written occurrence of the word "Autism" in a psychological context was not in Breuler's book "Dementia Praecox", but by in a letter to Jung written by Freud in October, 1908; although, the person who suggested to use the term "autism" may have in fact been Breuler, though he is indirectly referenced. The thing is, though, if it is Breuler's suggestion, the best interpretation from the content of the letter is that Breuler is suggesting Freud change the name of Infantile Sexuality to something that would appeal more to the public in the same way as was done with "Autism", although neither are we able to learn exactly from that text which term became "Autism", nor who did the changing. Regardless, the current etymology is at least partially lacking as it doesn't reference this earlier usage of Autism in Freud's writing, from which, presumably, it was either adopted by Breuler or from whom it arrived, but in either case from something publicly controversial that I imagine must be, due to the similarity of it's occurrences and meanings at the time, "auto-erotism"--implying further the similarity of "autismus" with "autism" is itself a cover up to prevent the general public from understanding the more controversial meaning.

Also, there's a great article I'm reading about the modern development of the term "Autism" (post Freud, Breuler, and Ellis), which dives into its recontextualization in the 60s leading to it's modern definition, which I'll also link below.

Any and all criticism is welcome! I hope you find this as fascinating as I did.

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:Autism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757918/#bibr15-0952695113484320

2601:88:8102:2A30:E563:CE04:5E74:8B5C 12:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've actually found reference to Autism even earlier than that, attributed directly by Jung to Breuler in a letter dated May, 1907:

• "Bleuler still misses a clear definition of autoerotism and its specifically psychological effects. He has, however, accepted the concept for his Dem. pr. contribution to Aschaffenburg’s Handbook. He doesn't want to say autoerotism (for reasons we all know), but prefers 'autism' or 'ipsism.' I have already got accustomed to 'autoerotism.'" (24j, pg.44-5)

The book of letters https://archive.org/details/FreudJungLetters/page/n53/mode/2up gives many interesting details about interactions between Freud, Jung, and Bleuler while the latter was composing Dementia Praecox, and from what I can glean, it was the former two who believed Breuler's term "Autism" was invented due to squeamishness with "auto-erotism", or at least his belief that it's use will garner public disapproval; although, Breuler clearly seems to state in the published version of Dem. pr. that his term "Autism" differentiates from auto-erotism. But given the analysis above (written before finding this earlier reference), the two words were probably "allophones", originally which developed over the course of many years during the composition of Dem. pr. into two separate but closely related concepts, similarly to the terms "I" and "Ego", or any number of examples in English of originally variable pronunciations that developed into distinct words. In any case, in light of this research that shows a more varied and slightly earlier origin of the term "Autism", I will make some slight edits in the etymology section to account for the data while still retaining the Greek origin, which was clearly Bleuler's intention. Do not hesitate to edit yourself if you find my work lacking, or out of line with the present data. And if you do, perhaps vehemently so, I look forward to an engaging response!

As a side note, I imagine we may find, in those first 45 pages or so of the Letters, some statements about Bleuler that may fully illustrate his distaste for Freud's more overtly sexual vocabulary, but who knows.

2601:88:8102:2A30:C01:9205:C05C:9E9E 00:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see no problem with the changes you've made, because context has been added. We'll see what the others have to say. Thank you for your help! Robbie SWE (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The paragraph "(European software patent law)" on wiktionary for the word "industry" has a single reference with a broken link. Furthermore and as an extra paragraph, one expects it to define a particular meaning for this word but this meaning is given as "Automated production of material goods". This is hardly specific. On the contrary, it is just about the most general meaning for the word "industry". Since there has been considerable lobbying to push for the adoption of software patents in the EU and a consistent push back from the European parliament, I suspect this paragraph is part of this lobbying. The idea is probably to establish some sort of legal technicality to the word which could then be used in court. Indeed wikipedia (and probably wiktionary as well) is often used as a reference by judges. — This unsigned comment was added by 81.111.26.188 (talk) at 16:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

Read the discussion page of the entry. AFAIK, this issue was discussed but no consensus came of it. Try sending the sense to RFV and hopefully we can agree on something this time around. Robbie SWE (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but how do you send anything "to RFV"? — This unsigned comment was added by 81.111.26.188 (talk) at 00:10, 4 January 2022‎.

By adding the template {{rfv-sense|en}} to the article, saving it, then clicking on the little (+) and saving again. --Fytcha (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I remember that there has been some kind of minor confusion between the two of us regarding ţ/ț in translation boxes. I just wanted to tell you something I've recently figured out, namely that the translation box automatically replaces ţ with ț (likewise for ș) but that it only does so in the article itself, not the edit summary (see this edit for instance). So if you see the cedilla variants within an edit summary, that's no cause of concern. La mulți ani :) — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, la mulți ani to you too! Had a little Wiktionary vacay, but I'm back to business now. Thanks for pointing this out, but I must say that I'm still a bit iffy when it comes to letting scripts and/or bots fix things that we should do ourselves. Romanian is written with ț and ș using commas, not cedillas and I for one will continue to fix those problems wherever I see them. Robbie SWE (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm glad to see you back! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Robert,

I've been adding Aromanian lemmas for quite some time and I need your help. I have a few requests

1) Can you add roa-rup.wiktionary.org to: Aromanian language edition of Wiktionary None => replace this with: roa-rup.wiktionary.org

2) can you add Aromanian language to: Links related to Aromanian language in sister projects at Wikimedia Commons

Can you add these for me? Bolt Escargot (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Links: https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Aromanian_language Bolt Escargot (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Forget I asked. I found it. No need for help.

Thank you and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Bolt Escargot (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem - you just got me stumped, because I thought that anyone could add those links :-) Robbie SWE (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

You rolled back my edit for the etymology of 'commingle'. This was done in error. I rolled back the rollback.

Voojagig (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You used the wrong language code. Please be more careful. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete those pages like autumntide, etc. (I did not create them -- I had left a message on the person's talk page). I think some of them would pass CFI. Would RFV not be more appropriate? Maybe you could paste the list created by that user and I can go through and see which are citable. 70.172.194.25 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aside from the "English" and "Noun" (not adjective) headers and {{en-noun}}, the entire content was:

autumntide (literary or archaic) Of or relating to autumntime.

And then there's "autumnsome", defined as "(rare, literary) of or relating to autumn.", which is so "rare" that all the hits on Google Books are from the OCR misinterpreting hyphens at the ends of lines and not recognizing that there are multiple columns (with one exception: a fictional and decidedly non-literary slogan based on a bad pun). Or how about "stuporific", a "noun" defined as "(rare) stupor"? As one would expect, all the hits are adjectival usage.

Yes, some of these are (barely) salvageable, but by the time you've cleaned up the wrong definitions and POS, you've spent more time than it would take to create a new entry from scratch. Worse, rfv searchers are a rare and valuable resource- why waste their time on stuff that's marginal, at best? The fact that this person obviously took different season names and rather mechanically combined each of them with -some and -tide doesn't argue for their having much time or thought invested that would be wasted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those are fair points. I had only checked "autumntide" previously, which seemed like it would scrape by, and did not look at all their entries. Perhaps effort is better spent elsewhere. 70.172.194.25 04:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

A rule of thumb that I abide by is that an entry at least needs proper formatting to be put through to RFV. I'm afraid that none of the deleted entries fulfilled that criterion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie! Do you agree with what I write about collocations in DEX / on ro.wikt here (relevant part: "The same is true for the major Romanian ...")? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey Fytcha! I agree with what you write about DEX so you have my blessing. However, I'm not sure I would vote for this proposal though, but I guess we'll have to see when the vote starts. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for confirming! I wanted to make sure that I don't misrepresent DEX or ro.wikt. For the second part, if you have any concrete improvements in mind I'd be happy to listen to them. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

“Адыгэ” is the name the Circassians gave themselves. The old link (which you have reverted it back to) goes towards the wiktionary for the Adyghe language, not to the Wikipedia about the Circassian people. I do not understand why my edit was changed. Neqolen (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's unfortunate that the current entry doesn't hava a correct adjective section, but it doesn't make the translation wrong. I will however add Circassian in there too and hope that it's a suitable compromise. Robbie SWE (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

My edit was unusually reverted. Can you please put it back? — This unsigned comment was added by 168.213.7.133 (talk).

Can't do that I'm afraid. You haven't read what Wiktionary is about so I suggest you do that before you do any further edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's straightforwardly wrong that 'autist' is a back-formation from 'autistic'. Check for example the OED. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/34953712?redirectedFrom=autist#eid

Not sure why you reverted this? There was evidence already on the entry's talk page. --Oolong (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Linking to a source that requires membership is not going to help in this case. The only source remotely close to what you're looking for is Merriam-Webster, but it still looks nothing like what was added earlier today. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's really not controversial the it was imported from German, from a Greek root. Webster is evidently referring to the same ultimate source as the OED, given the date.

I'm very puzzled that you're so invested in keeping this etymology misleading and incomplete. Also baffled that you requested this discussion go to your talk page rather than the entry's, as is standard practice.

Oolong (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Standard practice? Firstly, I responded at the entry talk page, you were the one to open a discussion here. The OED link above requires an account so I can't access it. Secondly, you're the one who provided a poorly written etymology – see the entry talk page for my reasoning. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oolong: the rollback tool automatically adds an edit summary that ends with "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". This happens on all rollbacks, and the text can't be changed without changing it for all rollbacks everywhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh okay, thanks Chuck! And sorry, Robbie. I guess I may be importing Wikipedia assumptions here, or something.

Is there a rationale for why it directs us to an individual's talk page rather than the one for the entry, do you know? Is it even deliberate? Oolong (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Come on man. This can seriously only be tenuously considered a synonym. Please unrevert my edit. — This unsigned comment was added by Lil Diodorus Siculus (talk • contribs).

Wrong – see the synonyms listed here. If it's good enough for the Oxford Dictionary, then it's good enough for us. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why have you rolled back my edit?

I wrote the most precise definition of the word "pajeet"

Please fix it. MT111222 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The definition i added was taken from the top rated definition of the word "Pajeet" on Urban Dictionary MT111222 (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, there are two Punjabs. One is in Pakistan and one is in India. So it is better to clarify that we are talking about the Indian Punjab here. These types of names are not found in Pakistani Punjab. So i edited it and wrote "Indian Punjab". I hope that is ok. MT111222 (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The entry pajeet is highly susceptible to vandalism. It is at times very hard to discern what is a valid edit and what is not. I suggest you take it to the Tea Room so that you can get some input from the community. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You reverted my edit on the Canberra page, which is fair because I didn't source my contribution. While it may not be reflected in the spelling, the name is believed by some to either derive from the Ngunawal word kamberra (which wiktionary shows) or Camberry. I believe it would be original research to claim that these earlier terms are why the word has this alternative pronunciation, so I provide both https://qr.ae/pvUZ6e and https://qr.ae/pvUcJn to show that, while it is not necessarily the most common pronunciation, kæmbɹa is used by Australians. Typheuss (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're free to add an alternative pronuciation, but not delete a valid one. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear contributor, to my knowledge the prefix "apo" comes from the ancient Greek. Also WIKTIONARY mentions that' https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/apo-

That's why I reverted it from English to Greek :) Juliet8wonder (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you should take a look at the source. It is an internal creation, so a direct Greek origin is highly unlikely, even if the English prefix apo- is indeed Greek. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Robbie. I believe it was you who requested verification of my entry on cissexual, to ensure that it meets Wiktionary's attestation criteria. Is there any supplementary information you'd like for me to provide or changes you think I should make to the definition? Let me know your thoughts. —WbK Wordbookeeper (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your revert here was clearly made in error.

My edit was supported by a source and what I removed is not supported by source. Editorkamran (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The source you added mentions that it is a term used to denote a lower-class person, a Dalit. You deleted that sense and also a possible relation to a Sanskrit term. From what I can tell, your source does not support such changes. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong. It says "“Bheemta” (offensive word to demean Dalit Ambedkarites)". It does not mean just any "Dalit" but the one who is follower of Ambedkar. It would be better to write a single definition which would be "offensive term for a Dalit supporter of B. R. Ambedkar and his philosophy of Ambedkarism", until we can discover better sources.

"The usage against Dalits and lower-class Indians was derived from Ambedkar's popularity among lower-class people in India, and his opposition to Hinduism," is absolutely nonsense because only Mahars among Dalits have any admiration for Ambedkar, and the rest don't admire him as much. Also "lower class" makes no sense because class factor is completely absent.

Such a "possible relation" is not only senseless and does not need to be added on the article because this website is not an encyclopedia for unsourced and misleading content. Editorkamran (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, change it as you see fit. Robbie SWE (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You removed my corrected and more complete quotation of the Talmudic dictum דיה לצרה בשעתה. in English "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof," which I posted in Wiktionary. You "edited" without any knowledge of Aramaic or of the Talmudic text, nor of Rashi's commentary on the Talmud. How do you justify "correcting" when you do not know what the correct text is? Please restore my edit immediately. I do not know how to do this myself. — This unsigned comment was added by Ykvweiss (talk • contribs).

Your wording made little sense and adding a source within parenthesis like you did, made it completely incomprehensible to an English-speaking person. But I'll make you a deal – I'll add the translation from Wikipedia which is somewhat more intelligible. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you take a look at Category:Romanian terms with IPA pronunciation you’ll see a multitude of words whose pronunciations are given in square brackets, added all the way back circa 2009. This is not ideal. Think it’d be worth it to hire a bot to change them over to slashes? ―Biolongvistul (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay! I agree with you, but unfortunately, I have little time to operate such a bot. Do you have one you'd like to use? Seem to recall @Bogdan having a sophisticated bot, maybe he can help. Robbie SWE (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I admittedly made a mistake by forgetting to add my source; I happen to lack the experience in editing in Wiktionary in particular in order to do so. My source would be "Enzyklopädie der slowenischen Kulturgeschichte in Kärnten/Koroška: Band 2 J-PI : Von den Anfängen bis 1942", in particular pages 1003-1005. You can find it at https://openresearchlibrary.org/content/0dc93b61-01f6-4a29-90b5-8da39014bd40 . From there on I traced it back to Proto-Slavic by dissecting the components in their respective Wiktionary articles for the Slovene language. Lephilologueserbe (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this edit correct? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would say that it isn't. It's an Anglicism yeah, but a widely used term in certain domains especially in tech. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

While it is common with those outside of the region, and originated in the UK and US, the word “Caribbeans” is almost never used by those within most of the sovereign Caribbean territories to refer to people rather than just the archipelago. It is in fact considered inappropriate and sometimes even offensive, especially in the Lesser Antilles, given that the origin of this use is what are considered colonising and neo-colonising entities. It’s dehumanisation through the removal of the word “people,” and seen as an imposition of an outsider term. But those unfamiliar with the Caribbean people and Caribbean language are unlikely to be aware of the pushback within the region by local and indigenous people that the correct appellation is “Caribbean people.” I think it’s important that this nuance be at least mentioned on the Wiki, especially as those with little knowledge of the region, its languages, or the continued history of colonising power including the role of imposed terms. Particularly as most available perspectives are largely poorly informed by indigenous realities, I think it’s important that the Wiki indicate what people actually call themselves, rather than what other people have decided they should be called. SamuelJackmanPrescod (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary, we deal with words and how they are used. We are not here to educate people, but document past and present usage. If you feel this to be unfair, please take it up in the Tea Room. Robbie SWE (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hope it’s not against the rules to ask. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't think it's against the rules, but I'm not familiar with common procedure in this case. Let me look into it and get back to you later this week, ok? Robbie SWE (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Biolongvistul, I hope this helps. You make awesome contributions so I don't think this will be an issue. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Aw, thanks. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The breastfeeding page stated that breastfeeding was an activity performed by women from the page's creation until 23rd January 2023. On 25th January 2023, I edited the page back to saying that breastfeeding is done by women. Later that day, you reverted my edit, i.e. reiterating that breastfeeding is done by "adults". This is not correct. Biological males cannot breastfeed. We should use the more specific term "woman". Doing otherwise implies that biological males can breastfeed. If there is a consensus, perhaps the page should say "biological woman" rather than simply "woman", though I see this as unnecessary. The most widespread usage of the term "woman" implicitly refers to "biological woman", i.e. no Y chromosome. — This unsigned comment was added by Tony1800 (talk • contribs).

If we disregard spontaneous male lactation, case reports of lactation induced in transgender women have been published. Narrowing it down to "women" or "biological women" is out of touch with contemporary discourse. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you bring it to the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is standard practice in every science where statistics are used to to "disregard" outcomes when their frequency is low enough. If we relied on spontaneous male lactation to feed babies, there would be a lot more infant mortality in the world. Contemporary discourse is that the words "man" and "woman" refer to biological sex, as I suspect you are well aware. You seem to have a history of politically-motivated edits. There are several people accusing you on this page alone. Tea Room it is. Tony1800 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't necessarily invoking male lactation as the main reason. The Tea Room discussion proves that defining the term is harder than you believe it to be. As to your remark about "politically-motivated edits" - you don't know me or my political views so please refrain from commenting them any further. Robbie SWE (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't need to know you. I am looking at what others have said about your edit history on this site. I notice that the Tea Room came down against your edit. Future readers of this page can make their own minds up. Tony1800 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If that is what you got from the Tea Room discussion, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time. Passing judgement on an admin after one edit(!) says more about you than it does about me. Robbie SWE (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am Kyrgyz and I know my history well. there are only 2 versions. Kyrgyz - Kyrk Oguz - 40 tribes. this is the most popular version. The Kyrgyz consist of 40 tribes. on the flag of the Kyrgyz Republic there are 40 rays of the sun symbolizing 40 tribes. There are a million examples. and the second kyrgyz - kyrylgyz. means indestructible. Kyrgyz is the most ancient ethnonym among modern Turkic ethnonyms. 40 girls - this is how kyrgyzophobes scoff because of consonance. 185.117.148.186 22:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

it was said there that 40 girls are a reference to the epic Manas. it's a lie. not 40 girls, but 40 legendary warriors of manas. they are men. kyrk choro. read, study. but this is irrelevant to etymologists. all Kyrgyz know that the Kyrgyz consist of 40 tribes. Kyrk+Oguz. To say I'm shocked is an understatement... Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://ky.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9 Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://ky.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%82 Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://ky.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%9A%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BA_%D1%87%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please take your grievances to the Etymology Scriptorium – we rely on sources here so if there are valid sources supporting such a claim, it's our duty to present it as a theory. Your personal beliefs are of little importance when it comes to linguistics. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

these are not my beliefs, the whole Kyrgyz people think so. And 99% of Kyrgyz, Russian, Turkic historians, linguists. search the internet and draw your own conclusions. 1% - there are always deviations. there are still a lot of people on the planet who believe in a flat earth. in physics it is easier to prove that they are wrong, because physics is an exact science, sort of. History is not an exact science. especially linguistics. but you can try to reason objectively. Kyrgyz people - consists of 40 tribes. Manas does not have 40 girls. there are 40 kyrk choro warriors. their names are known. all names are male. I have already sent you the link. there is still a problem. the entire history of the Kyrgyz is written in Russian. little information in English. stupid etymology can be found on any nation. please don't be selective. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Russian wiki. https://ru.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8B Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found the most authoritative source. Majmu at-Tawarikh. an essay in Persian written in the 16th century in Fergana by Mullah Sayf ad-Din Aksikendi. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://ru.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%BC%D1%83_%D0%B0%D1%82-%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%85 Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

link to the book. but the book is written in Russian. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

the link doesn't drop. here is another link. go to 1 link and download. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

the link doesn't drop. write Маджму ат-Таварих скачать. 18 page. 1 paragraph. kyrgyz is kyrk oguz. translated by forty tribes. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again, please take it to the Etymology Scriptorium. That's how things are done around here in order to avoid edit warring and other disputes. It also allows users who speak the language to chime in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Robbie, I have added information to the etymological Scriptorium. Is everything right? You can check? Now can you change the etymology on wikipedia? Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia? This is Wiktionary and the discussion needs to run its course in the Scriptorium. If you have an issue with the Wikipedia article, take it up in their community. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I messed up. Sorry. Wiktionary. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are you in the etymological scriptorium asking me or other users? I can just give a link on Facebook to doctors of historical sciences. Kyrgyz and Russian. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No need, let other users partake in the discussion so we can come to a conslusion. Robbie SWE (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fine. then we wait for the answer. I hope they answer quickly. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello dear Robbie. I don't seem to get an answer. It would be ideal, of course, if there were no theory of 40 girls. I have already explained why. It's just consonance.

But if you like this theory so much, you can leave it. But I will ask you to at least modify the text a little. The wikipedia version is fine, I think. https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Kyrgyz_people

And in your version, it is immediately written about 40 girls. It's like it's the main version itself. This version is far from the most important. Somewhere around ten. This is what provoked me. If you want, I can even make a video for you, walk around the city. Ask what the ethnonym Kyrgyz means. No one will say about 40 girls. There will be versions of either 40 tribes. Or indestructible. Kyr - destroy. Kyrgys - Indestructible.

About 40 tribes. Just to clarify. It's not something abstract. The Kyrgyz still honor and remember their tribal affiliation. For example, I am from the Saruu tribe. Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you feel like it's taking ages, but I urge you to have patience. There is no need for a video since it can be considered original research which is not permitted on Wiktionary. I'll make you a deal – if no consensus is reached on Monday the 27th of February, I'll make the necessary changes myself. Is that ok with you? Robbie SWE (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes Wikislowpoke106 (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes I think there is a spelling/pronounciation mistake in the "bhenchod" page, you reverted my edit and told me to come to your talk page if I thought there were some mistakes. I think the spelling is supposed to be "bhenchod" and it's pronounciation is supposed to be "behenchod" the spelling which is in the page "behencod" is wrong. Sudesh Sougoumar (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You removed formatted content and replaced it with, what seems to be, an incorrect transliteration. The term बहनचोद renders bahancod – not behenchod. If you believe the transliteration to be wrong, take it to RFV and explain why you want to verify the term. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey I am sorry, this is a cipher I made for a friend as a riddle. I was wondering if you could leave it up the rest of the day then I will be happy to take it down. There's no misinformation in the cipher and anyone is free to crack it. I'm sorry again! — This unsigned comment was added by TheMaverick12 (talk • contribs).

Wiktionary is not your Facebook wall or personal playground, so no I can't leave it up and if you readd it, you'll end up being blocked for vandalism. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

bruh its rlly not that deep. And it had to do with cenotaphs anyways. Besides it within my rights to edit wiktionary pages. But alright then guess Ill head elsewhere. TheMaverick12 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TheMaverick12: if I were somehow able to figure out your real name, address and all the other information necessary to steal you identity, by your logic it would be within my rights to add it to an entry along with a load of personal, obscene insults as long as I promised to remove it at the end of the day. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robbie,

You rolled-back my edit on the '-inator' page, but I believe the current information is incorrect.

The article says "Perhaps popularized by, or first used by, Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz,"

However, it is not possible it could be first-used by Dr Doofenshmirtz (a show that came out in 2007) as the 2003 movie 'The Cat in the Hat (film)' also makes use of this word. Alibasherable (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have made a new edit, written a bit more clearly this time, as the current information is incorrect and the added information is listed in the citation. Alibasherable (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Much better - thank you for going that extra mile. Robbie SWE (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I’m 90% sure that, despite appearances, this is SOP, as neither the ‘people’ sense of lume nor the ‘all members of a collective’ sense of tot are confined to this expression. This entry’s content, I think, would be more helpful and readily visible to readers as a collocation under the corresponding sense of lume. What do you think? (I’m raising this issue to you instead of WT:RFDI to get a more involved opinion on a less unequivocal subject.) ―Biolongvistul (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm torn, but your point of view is convincing. Having it as a collocation under lume makes more sense though. Robbie SWE (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in order to make my contributions more longer lasting, I wanted to know why my additions to the list of wifebeater synonyms was reverted. Potilas-6 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You linked to SoP terms that don't currently exist on Wiktionary. It just looked bad and didn't improve the entry I'm afraid. Robbie SWE (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy to get code reviews previous to commit; is there procedure to propose? Is this it? Was this an auto-reject?

Thanks for considering the contributions I offer!

Mlemlord (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your contribution was frankly not an improvement, that's the reason why it was reverted. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey thanks for reverting my mistake on "داف", it was my first time editting so i wasn't sure how to do it which is why i just copied other etymology, since you are an administrator i was thinking it would make sense to ask you this, would the information of edit i made be logical for a wiktionary page if it's done with the correct formatting? Amininja (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, copying any etymology from an unrelated language like you did is risky. Even if it's plausible, we don't know how the word entered Persian. If you feel unsure, it is better to leave the etymology unformatted, but request a comment in the Etymology Scriptorium. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see, makes sense, will keep that in mind next time. :) Amininja (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Keep in mind that we have many knowledgeable users who'd love to lend a helping hand in our different community forums. It might take some time, but usually there's always somebody there to help. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, why was my edit to efilism reverted?

I was trying to make the definition more neutral. If you could give some feedback or reasoning I would appreciate it. SoopaKhell (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but the definition didn't need to be "cleaner / more neutral" – was is provocative to begin with? No, it was perfectly fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is broke. I think the definition is provocative, ambiguous, and just kind of wrong.

"A philosophical position based on observations of reality that all sentient beings do not produce anything except waste and suffering and should go extinct."

The definition implies that "all sentient beings do not produce anything except waste and suffering" is merely an "observation of reality". And if it doesn't, then "based on observations of reality" is redundant. It adds nothing to the definition.

Also, many efilists would agree that life produces more things than just waste and suffering, so that part is sloppy or just blatantly false. Their argument is based on the premise that there is more suffering than pleasure in life. This applies to practically every efilist.

At the very least, I believe the "based on observations of reality" part should be removed. SoopaKhell (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't see the issue here. I suggest you take it to the Tea Room to get some input from the community. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done! I'm new to Wiktionary so thank you for directing me there.

Here's my post: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2023/December#efilism SoopaKhell (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with SoopaKhell that the current definition for Efilism is biased. Not only that, but it isn't descriptive of what Efilism actually is either. A reader who had never heard of Efilism before would not understand what Efilism is if they read this definition.

• Efilism isn't merely a "philosophical position". It's an entire philosophy in its own right. The entire Efilist philosophy includes several other philosophical positions, like determinism, materialism, atheism, negative utilitarianism, Darwinian evolution, rationalism, hedonism, altruism, etc.
• The current definition doesn't mention that Efilism is a negative utilitarian philosophy, which is essential to understanding Efilism.
• The phrase "based on observations of reality" is too wordy and non-descriptive. It would be more appropriate to simply say that Efilism is a "rationalist philosophy".
• Efilists would agree that sentient beings do produce much more than just "waste and suffering".
• The phrase "should go extinct" does not reflect Efilism's endorsement of the Benevolent World Exploder, i.e. the Earth should be destroyed and life should go permanently extinct so that sentient life should never arise again.

I'm going to edit the definition for Efilism to reflect these facts, and I also propose that new Wiktionary entries be made for "Benevolent World Exploder" and "Unintelligent Design", so that Efilism can have the most accurate and descriptive definition possible. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I really hate it when users jump the gun, circumvent due process and edit a current definition arbitrarily despite an ongoing discussion in the Tea Room about the very subject. Where is the rush? Considering that efilism is not even an entry in any of the biggest and most respected dictionaries, I highly doubt that we're dealing with a high-traffic entry in need of immediate attention. But since it is Saint Nicholas Day, I feel rather magnanimous and won't revert your edit. I'll settle for adding a label, but don't forego the process again please. And for the record, the current definition is not only verbose but also unintelligible for people who have no clue what the term means. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The user KamilekLebioda was being disruptive for some reason, especially as the source did not mention Aromanian at all (which would make no sense as there is no historical evidence of specifically Aromanian, as opposed to Romanian Vlachs, coming into contact with Poles in a way that would lend them this word). Likewise, I will also say I find it implausible that northern Slavic languages would borrow directly from proto-Albanian, like a few etymologies for cognates seem to imply. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Word dewd544: Re: the block description, "guess someone needs to calm down, can't say you weren't warned": the user has definitely been warned, it's a sockpuppet of Shumkichi, an editor who has been permanently banned for harassment and disruptive behavior. Hythonia (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Word dewd544, Yeah, I completely agree with you – mentioning Aromanian made no sense and was not supported by the sources either. That user's behaviour was just the last straw. Sorry you got the brunt of their bigotry. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just so it's clear, Brucker does mention Wołoski, which is a bit ambiguous, so it's not really accurate to say the sources don't even mention it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wołoski is an umbrella term yes, but encompassing Aromanian here in this case just doesn't make sense. It's like saying "life is Germanic which means it can come from Gothic, German, Swedish or Icelandic". They're all Germanic but are they all plausible sources? Of course not. Just because some linguists have a hard time distinguishing between different variants of Romanian, doesn't mean that we have to replicate their limited suppositions. Robbie SWE (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have to remember the time period when it was written, these terms change with time. You shouldn't presuppose modern terminology on something that existed a century ago. Vininn126 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not even disagreeing with the second part, but I'm replying directly to your statement that the sources don't mention it: they clearly might. Be more careful before throwing around "you need to actually read the sources". Vininn126 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The user who reverted Word dewd's and mine attempts to delete Aromanian as a possible direct source, seemed to imply that it was expressively stated in the source which it actually wasn't. If the original source is ambiguous and today considered to be erroneous, then it shouldn't be used at all. We should be careful what sources we cite in order to avoid discussions like this one. If it's unavoidable, maybe the wording should have been along the lines of "According to X, of Valach origin, compare Romanian XX". Robbie SWE (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have initiated a discussion on the Discord server concerning the long overdue process to automatically add pre-1993 Romanian forms featuring word-internal î. While reception is favourable, the necessity for consultation with Romanian editors is unavoidable. One issue raised was the precise way to represent the alternative spellings in a standardised way, as there is for Moldovan Cyrillic forms.

Another point which I did not bring up was that of proper nouns traditionally spelled with â (Brâncuși being the classic example). I am of the opinion, however, that any such name is attestable enough in its form spelled with î. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also pinging @Bogdan, as a contributor with a predilection for automation and proper nouns. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I'd prefer it if they were represented similarly to French entries with the post-1990 spelling – in this case, adding the terms to a superseded or discouraged Romanian spelling category. This is however not without its own set of problems – mainly an older generation clinging for dear life to this spelling. As I understand it, the Romanian Academy is quite lenient so labelling it one way or another can be tricky. Think Bogdan might have some insight into this. On another note – not that you asked, but I still want to speak my mind – adding Cyrillic forms under Alternative Forms to Romanian entries is an abomination I have vehemently argued against from the get go. I mean, we don't provide Arabic script alternatives to French entries even though it was written like that by Arabs and Berbers in Algeria and other parts of North Africa during the French colonial period. Mind you, more recently than when the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet was in use. Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contribution. As for your thoughts on Cyrillic forms, I think you might be confusing the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet with the obsolete Romanian Cyrillic alphabet, which nobody has any intention to bring to Wiktionary. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not confusing it, I've seen users try to bring it to Wiktionary. But I do have an issue with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet being used under alternative forms – I personally don't want to see those forms added to Romanian entries, because they misconstrue the current situation of the Romanian language. I'd prefer them as separate entries altogether. I was outvoted when we discussed this a few years back and I still believe that we made a mistake. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"sissy", "man up", and "manlet" are all offensive terms. So why did you removed the "Reverted" tag i added? ShinJaeHee (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Manlet and sissy were already labelled as derogatory and pejorative – adding an offensive label doesn't add anything new in regards to their usage. You also have to prove that they are indeed offensive (to whom and when?). Man up is an idiomatic phrasal verb, hardly offensive to anybody. Labels need to be substantiated, just because a few people find something offensive, doesn't necessarily make it so. Robbie SWE (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

— This unsigned comment was added by 2a02:a03f:928f:9e00:d400:fbe4:a3c9:ddf7 (talk).

The sense was quite random and unsourced. It was also placed under a non-lemma form which is out of place if it indeed is a valid term. What you would want to do is find citations, basically make sure the meaning you want to add meets CFI, and then add a regular noun section below the non-lemma form. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

To elaborate a little: CFI would be our Criteria for inclusion. Also relevant would be our Entry layout page: if this exists in actual use rather than being a protologism, it should be under a separate etymology section, as a blend of hypocrisy and -cracy. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply