User talk:Robbie SWE/2015-2017

Hi Robbie. In case you're interested in Romanian plurals, I recently made a category of Romanian entries missing plurals. Perhaps you could check some, and if you have time you could create the plurals (WT:ACCEL is a good tool for doing this). --Type56op9 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thank you for the initiative! I'm gonna take a look and contribute when I'll have the time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

He's been contributing more after his warning. It all looks good to me, but I know next to no Romanian, so I'd appreciate if you could check his edits as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've checked yesterday's translations and most were ok. But I don't get Baican's sudden "love" for diminutives and plurals - he added quite a few and he doesn't provide any additional information such as etymology, pronunciation, inflection or what they actually mean. For instance perniță means (1) cushion, (2) pinball, pincushion, (3) hassock, (4) shoulder pad etc. In Baican's latest contributions he includes pronunciation templates but doesn't actually provide IPA or SAMPA pronunciations. Doesn't that mess up the categories - words lacking pronunciation appear as if they do? --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Eu stau și mă mir cu ce nonșalanță faci tu uz de verificabilitatea modului corect de scriere de la ro.Wikipediaǃ ... Doar dacă mă gândesc că pe acolo se mișcă în voie de vreo câteva luni bune un agramat ca userul Andrei Bacria, mă umflă râsul despre această verificabilitate, des invocată de tine, privind ro.W.BAICAN XXX (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

"I'm wondering, with what nonchalance you rely on the verifiability of the correct way of writing on ro.Wikipedia! ... Just when I start to think, that around there for the last couple of months, the ignorant user Andrei Bacria has been lurking, I start to laugh at this verifiability, often invoked by you, in relation to ro.Wikipedia"

(Translation for those who are interested) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a problem with the word?

Jdogno2 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jdogno2! No, there's no problem with the word. I was a bit concerned, because the hits I got on Google weren't convincing enough. However, a fellow user has provided citations, so I apologise for my disbelief. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, but what was the problem with that etymology? That's basically what the Trésor de la Langue Française says, and it's linked to it at the bottom. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm really sorry about that @Word dewd544! My mouse is on the fritz and it sometimes registers a click even when none was made – the registered click just happened to revert your edit. So your contribution was fine, it was just a hardware malfunction on my side. Promise it won't happen again :-) Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the link to ustensila? Linking to empty pages is a common practice here. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I checked if ustensila exists in any other language, but couldn't find an example, so I figured that it wouldn't hurt if I erased it. If I acted against a policy I'm unaware of, I can add it again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

But it’s used in Romanian. Is that inadequate? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I contemplated the inflected form, however, that would be a hell of an undertaking, adding the articulate form wherever it coincides with the main article. E.g. consider coapsă, boacă, moacă, lipsă etc. they're definitely unique Romanian words – should we include the inflected forms as a "see also" if they still lead the reader to the same initial article? As long as there is no rule about it, I thought it better to avoid that discussion. But as I said earlier, I don't mind adding it again as long as it serves a purpose. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think that there’s an urgency to add them all, so nobody should feel forced to make all of those links. (An automaton would be more appropriate for that task.) Some entries like cliche and Æsop contain redirections even though the definitions have the exact same links, and people seem fine with them. @-sche, do you have any comments? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's no harm in linking to inflected/alternative forms that just lead the reader back to the initial page, or that are linked-to on the definition line or in the inflection table. It's also not a high priority. I wouldn't remove existing links, but I wouldn't normally bother to add them in cases like this, either. Hypothetically, things like ustensila or Æsop might be words in other languages, in which cases the links would be useful. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then I'll put it back. Thank you for your input! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean something like ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’ in Romanian? Because that’s what I’m inferring from the 2nd definition here. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, you're kind of right – it is used as a term of endearment, but it's much stronger than ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’. If we take a look at the English definition of life, we find:

"7. Something which is inherently part of a person's existence, such as job, family, a loved one, etc."

She's my love, my life.‎

That's pretty much the connotation in Romanian too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah! It looks like I was 90% accurate. I myself don’t usually see life used in that sense, which is why my guess was imperfect. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unrelated: do you know how to say solēre in Romanian? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It depends which meaning you're after:

• I am accustomed, used to, in the habit of = a (se) obișnui, a (se) deprinde, a (se) habitua (rare), a (se) familiariza
• I tend to = a tinde să/spre

Hope this information was helpful. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is elevator a good synonym of ascensor? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, their function is basically the same; to transport heavy loads vertically. However, looking at the definitions in my dictionaries, elevator () was never mentioned to transport people, only heavy materials or goods in construction sites, harbours, train stations, etc. Ascensor () is used for both people and goods in high-rises. Then yet again, I personally use lift () which designates your run-of-the-mill elevator for people (from 3+ people). Hope this helped! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, definitely. Your feedback is strengthening Wikcionario. I decided to add elevator as a hyponym here, which seems like a good fit to me. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, this is really weird. I could have sworn that I made the Spanish entry for viață a few days ago, but I looked around on the project and found no traces of the entry. There was no copy of it on my hard‐drive either. I think that somehow my brain tricked me into thinking that I had created the entry when I never did. Probably a side‐effect from undersleeping. Anyway, here’s the Spanish version. I know that your Spanish is basic, but it might still be interesting to look at. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

To be completely honest, my Spanish is much better than I give it credit :-) I took a look at the entry and it seems ok, just did some minor corrections to the expressions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Does însemna conjugate differently depending on the meaning? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile Yes, you're right. When the sense is "to mean, to signify", the verb "a însemna" takes the first declension table (eu însemn, el/ea înseamnă etc.), while it takes the second declension table (eu însemnez, el/ea însemnează etc.) when the sense is "to mark, to note". I suspect it has to do with the etymology – while the English article only mentions a Latin etymology, which definitely is true for the first meaning, DEX also mentions în + semn as an alternative to what I believe to be the second sense. I believe it to be a plausible explanation for the second declension. Hope this helped, don't hesitate to contact me again if anything is unclear. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

, is the declension correct? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile looks fine. However, historically, the term has been interpreted as being neuter, therefore resulting in a plural form ending in -e. Don't have a more reliable source than Scriban (1939) though. Considering that the neuter is considered archaic, I wouldn't be all too worried about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you know any synonyms for ferăstrău? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile first and foremost we have the variants ferestrău, fierăstrău and herăstrău. As for synonyms, we have a couple of (very) regional words: chimilioară, corzar and firez/firiz (source). --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

There’s also șegă, but are any of these CFI‐compliant? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, never heard of șegă before, so thank you for introducing it! The variants are CFI-compliant and I think the synonyms are too. However, I can't provide any citations for the regionalisms because they're not a part of a day-to-day Romanian vocabulary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was going to mention this to you earlier, but I di’n’t remember until I had a dream about it. When people misspell words, it helps me find obsolete spellings in other languages, such as this one, so please never learn how to spell perfectly or else I’ll run out of work to do. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are degustare, degustație, gustare, savurare all synonyms (to you)? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would say that degustare, degustație and savurare are synonyms (DEX backs me up on this). However, I wouldn't consider gustare as a synonym mainly because it also means "entrée", "snack" and "gustation". --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

. Perfect? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile A-okay! I would however also add închide. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE, can you give an example of some incorrect rhymes that he added? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

BAICAN XXX (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're in error.

• Mexico City: The translations there are correct.
• Merseburger: That's not restriced to males.

-84.161.17.13 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

According to German Wikipedia (), only Mexiko-Stadt is accepted. Unless you can provide a trustworthy source to back up your allegation that I am in the wrong, your edit will be reverted. Concerning Merseburger; since Merseburgerin implies a woman from Merseburg, it is necessary to underline this differentiation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

WP is not a reliable source, supports my statement (see de.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Mexiko_(Begriffsklärung) ), and I can give a reliable source, namely duden.de/rechtschreibung/Mexiko_Mexiko_Stadt .

Anyway, "Merseburger" is not restricted to males, which is true for many words in -er, while the word with -in is restricted to females. Of course, in the context the basic form is often used to refer to males while the form with -in is used for females (as in "Zuschauer und Zuschauerinnen"), but it's also quite common to use the normal form for both (as "Zuschauer" meaning "männliche und weibliche Zuschauer"). E.g. one can search for "-er beiderlei Geschlechts", "weibliche -er", "männliche und weibliche -er" etc. and quite often one can find results which without a doubt proof that the basic form in -er is used sexus-neutral.

-84.161.17.13

I'm currently looking at the Begriffsklärung and it implicitly says "Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos" so it isn't confused with "Mexiko, ein nordamerikanischer Staat". That's the reason why "city" is added - to avoid confussion. When it comes to Merseburger I understand that it can be used to mean "a person from Merseburg". However, I strongly oppose deleting the differentiation altogether, because it exists throughout the category of German demonyms. Last but not least, for future reference, please discuss problems you have with other users before you go alleging that they are vandals. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The "Begriffserkärung" states: "Mexiko als Name steht für Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos". That is, "Mexiko" refers to the city too. Anyway, WP is not a reliable source. Duden instead is a reliable, but prescriptive, source. While it should be true, that the city nowaydays is often called "Mexiko-Stadt" to avoid confusion, "Mexiko" also refers to the city, especially in older sources.

So you see that terms in -er are used sexus-neutral. Thus the restriction with "male" is incorrect. Well, there could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person".

I tried to discuss it, while you didn't even give reasons for you reverts, and you didn't try to talk to me. Also unreasoned reverts IMHO are very impolite.

-84.161.17.13 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I happen to agree with the anon. "Merseburger" can either refer to a person of unspecified gender, or specifically to a male, while "Merseburgerin" refers only specifically to a female. Stating that "Merseburger" is a "male from Merseburg" does not account for the "person of unspecified gender". --WikiTiki89 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent. Impolite or not, it's quite clear in the edit summary "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". You didn't do that; you just remade your edits, forcing me to undo them. Impolite or not, I'm never closed to discussing my edits, but you didn't follow protocol. Believe it or not I agree with you in several aspects, however, the way you went about doing these changes leaves a lot to wish for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

"I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent." - 1. It's not consistend anyway. 2. It's not becoming consistend when you add "male". It's even more consistend without "male".

"the edit summary" and "You didn't do that" etc.: 1. That seems like an automatic comment, so it seemed to be dishonest. 2. I did do that. Though not at first (see above). 3. Anyway, you could have given a reason in the edit summaries, especially when re-reverting.

"you didn't follow protocol" - might be true, if I don't know the protocol, it's hard to follow it.

"leaves a lot to wish for" - might be true, but same is true for you too. Examples: (a) You could have given reasons, especially when re-reverting or even re-re-reverting. (b) You could have tried to talk to me too. (c) Instead of the automatic comment - which seemed to be dishonest -, you could have used a real comment.

--

""Mexicopolis" is the prefered form in Latin" - That's unlikely. googleing for "Mexicopolis" only gives a few results. "Mexicum" instead is quite common - especially in older source, that is, when Latin was more common. Of course, "Mexicum" for the city could have been more popular back then as the country was a part of Spain.

"male person" - That's still incorrect, and you even said that you know it's incorrect. Again: "here could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person"."

Labeling German "Mexiko" dated: Duden doesn't support that and Wikipedia doesn't support that too. Thus, it's unsourced. Also I doubt that it's dated. When the context is clear (like one is talking about cities or Mexico City or one is talking about historical situations), it should still be ok to just use "Mexiko".

-84.161.17.13 21:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC), 21:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a valid source at all. As for Duden, it is a secondary source. We only accept primary sources as evidence (much unlike Wikipedia), unless it is something that is difficult to find evidence for. To find a primary source, search Google Books for quotations using the word. --WikiTiki89 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, "dated" is a statement. Statements needs be sourced. Thus, he should have to proof that it's dated.
As for counter-proving: books.google.de/books?id=9mCN2yQXn0cC&pg=PA89&dq="Stadt+Mexiko" from 2012 or 2003 (could be a quote) has "Mitte der Stadt Mexiko", books.google.de/books?id=x5VuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&dq="Stadt+Mexiko" from 2016 (according to google) has "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." Thus "Mexiko" still refers to the city, (especially) when the context is clear. Also, though just for clarification, "Stadt Mexiko" is not a name per se, and one can also find "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Die Stadt Marburg zählt um die 70.000 Einwohner" etc. -84.161.17.13 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know where your experience lies, whether it's with Wikipedia or with German Wiktionary or whatever, but you should know that at English Wiktionary, we have our own rules. If you want to say it's not dated, please prove it with direct quotations that use the word, not with citations of other sources. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The google book results above should count as quotations of uses. In case of books.google.de/books?id=x5VuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&dq="Stadt+Mexiko" with "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." it's undoubtful. As for books.google.de/books?id=9mCN2yQXn0cC&pg=PA89&dq="Stadt+Mexiko" , the book (from 2012) quoted the title of another work (from 2003). In case of the other work it's a usage too. Do you want to say that a title doesn't qualify as usage? Even if titles don't qualify, one can find many more results from the 21st century. books.google.de/books?id=yL5ppzzwYS8C&pg=PA74&dq="Stadt+Mexiko" ("der Stadt Mexiko", 2009), books.google.de/books?id=KIuAJwd_jlUC&pg=PA41&dq="Stadt+Mexiko" ("der heutigen Stadt Mexiko", 2011 according to google), books.google.de/books?id=3m5uAAAAMAAJ&q="Mexiko+eine+Stadt" ("Mexiko eine Stadt der Spaziergänger", 2003, though could be a quote from another work from the 20th or 21st century). In fact, "Stadt Mexiko" (similiar to "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Stadt Marburg", ...) should even be prefered over "Stadt Mexiko-Stadt". -84.161.17.13 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's pretty good evidence. I just somehow managed to skip that part of your previous post. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

To prevent further unreasend reverts by you:

• e.g. "Anglokanadierin" is either derived from "Anglokanadier" or from "Kanadierin", but not from Kanadier.
• it doesn't make sense to collect all words with -kanad- as releted terms. Terms with -kanada- rather belong to Kanada and terms with -kanadisch- rather belong to kanadisch. Maybe you can take a look at other entries, there's done this way, too.

-84.161.17.13 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Referring to a person without a disability as “lame” is offensive to many as it suggests a derogatory characterization of the physical condition from which the term was derived."

Regarding the change I made from "many" to "some" and your subsequent reversion. I can't think of any way of proving that usage is considered offensive to many and my personal experience would suggest it's not true, that it's not many but a very small minority of people who find it offensive. On the other hand it's very easy to prove that it is considered offensive by some. Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? — This unsigned comment was added by 78.25.204.207 (talk).

Let me ask you this instead: do you have substantial "proof" supporting your subjective personal experience? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Obviously not, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. My belief is as subjective as yours. It can't be proven either way that "many" people find the usage offensive without a substantial amount of research. I was hoping you'd either point me in the direction of research proving that many people find that usage of "lame" offensive or allow me to change the sentence from an unsubstantiated assertion to one which is easily proven. Let me ask again: Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? — This unsigned comment was added by 78.25.204.207 (talk).

Here's the thing, getting hung up on semantics – some, a few, many, a lot of etc. – is deflecting attention away from real issues: people habitually and callously using terms considered derogatory by people with disabilities. Do I have proof? No, unfortunately I haven't been able to find an empirical study dealing with this subject (not entirely sure if such a study is necessary though, I mean, do we need a study to confirm that a majority of people of African-American descent consider the N-word derogatory for it to be a fact?). However, you just have to search for "lame" and "offensive term" and you'll find some 400,000+ hits, quite a few of them linking to blog posts from people with disabilities, where they talk about how they feel when the word lame is used in everyday speech. To be completely blunt, as a rollbacker who keeps a close eye on anon edits, any arbitrary change which doesn't substantially improve an article, gets reverted. It's not personal; it's just us trying to maintain a form of consistency around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your answer. I remain a sceptic, and totally reject the equivalence with "nigger". Keep up the good work! — This unsigned comment was added by 78.25.204.207 (talk).

If I may butt in, in my personal experience, I've never heard of anyone being offended by the word "lame". It's too pervasive of a word; and it's its use for people who actually have a disability is nowadays a bit old-fashioned. As for the words "some" and "many", these are weasel words used to convey their users' personal impression when the facts are unknown (I'm pointing out the problem, yet I know of no good solution). --WikiTiki89 14:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for butting in! I take your point on weasel words, at very least this is a controversial statement which raises a lot of interesting questions though I'm not sure if this is the best forum to discuss them. I'd never heard of anyone being offended by "lame" until last week, it puzzled me and that's how I found my way here. I wanted to tone that statement somewhat without diving headfirst into what Robbie calls the "real issues", but I can see that was naive. What it really comes down to is two competing subjectives, and as I can't even be bothered to register an account I can see why his should prevail. For the record: I do believe that "lame" is offensive to some for the reasons given, I don't believe it is offensive to "many" because in my experience the term is not used "habitually and callously" and (crucially) isn't taken that way in most cases. I found the comparison with "nigger" especially misleading, a word that's totally rotten to the core.— This unsigned comment was added by 78.25.204.207 (talk).

Hi, You erased this compound, butiIt is often used. Shiromura Nekomao (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Shiromura Nekomao! Can you please show me where I made this edit? Can't seem to find it in my list of contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is macaronar a slur, or is it just informal? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile DEX lists it as colloquial. However, the term does convey a depreciative tone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you know other synonyms for Italians? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile Let's see...if we set macaronar aside, which is popular albeit somewhat depreciative, we have an archaic ital, regional and archaic talian and of course broscar (N.B. slang and pejorative) – funny fact, Romanians believe that it is in fact the Italians who are the true frogeaters, and not necessarily the French (although they might also be frog-loving people). --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/odzei

Why are you delete my adding informations ?

Because it's promotional material. Don't forget that Wiktionary is a virtual dictionary; we're neither Wikipedia nor LinkedIn. Please read this before redoing your changes, which I guarantee you will be reverted, by me or some other user/admin. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

😂😂 LMAO at whoever who added this to to hacker:

{ ThIs GoEs OuT 2 aLl ThE nIgGaS tHaT bE fLeXiN oN tHeIr RoOtEd IsP tHaT aRe CoNnEcTeD tO mY nEt ! ! ! }

Amin wordie (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

False Northing Your rollback to the incorrect definition of False Northing is in error. It is the same/common error propagated throughout the internet ( I'm assuming someone got it wrong once and it just kept getting reused and reposted ). The definition as defined with the rollback will not produce the correct values. — This unsigned comment was added by 130.76.24.29 (talk).

I'm not contesting the validity of your contribution. However, you provided no sources whatsoever and your definition was overly complicated, not to mention that it was too long. Please remember that Wiktionary is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

anser 95.49.106.229 10:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no English entry for anser as a misspelling of answer. That's the reason why I reverted your change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I requested a new entry here https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requested_entries_(Finnish)&diff=39570026&oldid=39564603

and you reverted the request. Why? The word is in a recently published book and I gave the context for it. — This unsigned comment was added by 85.76.17.130 (talk).

Hi! I apologise for annulling the entry you added – I only saw the "uT". I added the entries again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your rollback is in error. Granted, it's a somewhat dated meaning, but that is all. I'm afraid I do not have the experience to properly create a new entry for the term 'fout in de oorlog', but you might want to read w:nl:Goed en fout in de Tweede Wereldoorlog as an introduction, before deciding whether or not to revert the change again. Thank you! 83.208.207.158 11:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The reasons why I reverted your edit were (a) it wasn't properly formatted; (b) it was in Dutch which makes it inappropriate to have in the definitions section, and (c) it was most likely an expression and/or example, not a definition. Please read our guidelines before contributing. Evidently, I wasn't the only one who thought your edit was an error – it has since then been reverted by an administrator. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your rollbacks here and here are indeed in error. "Unit trust" is a term that is found in other dictionaries too, and has a Wikipedia page. --88.114.12.148 07:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing this out! I apologise, I'll add the info again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added the Romanian term fariseu and slightly edited ferice. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Lo Ximiendo! Took a look and they look great. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're not an admin on en.wikt, are you? Would you be interested? You seem to revert a lot of vandalism. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Shucks, I'm flattered. I am interested, but I'm still learning how things work around here so I would like to remain a patroller a little while longer. Can I take a rain check? Thanks though! --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

How about now? You {{speedy}} a lot of entries that you might as well delete yourself.__Gamren (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Gamren It does imply a vote I guess? Well, I've become more experienced, so maybe the stars align this time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does. You may accept here. I am asked to remind you to specify your time zone (I'm leaving this in English so others will know they don't have to). I am further told to inform you that you have until midnight to accept (although if you don't make it, it's no big deal)__Gamren (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gamren! I accepted your nomination. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the confidence! A special thank you to @Gamren who nominated me :-D I'll do my best and please let me know if there's anything in my conduct that I have to improve on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Så lidt. Jeg så forresten i en bog, at det svenske ord for gruppe er grupp, således også gruppanalys, gruppegenskap osv., men gruppeparameter bliver til grupparameter. Har svensk en regel imod tre på hinanden følgende ens konsonanter?__Gamren (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej @Gamren! Väldigt intressant iakttagelse! Du har helt rätt – en svensk skrivregel statuerar att man inte får ha tre konsonanter på rad i sammansättningar. Detta medför att vi helt enkelt tar bort en konsonant, t.ex. nattåg (natt + tåg), äggula (ägg + gula), glasstrut (glass + strut), mässkjorta (mäss + skjorta) o.s.v. Men det finns ett undantag – avstavning. Syftet med avstavningar är att dela upp ord ifall de exempelvis inte får plats på en rad. Om det finns en risk för att ordet skulle kunna misstolkas så lägger man till den borttagna konsonanten. T.ex. glasskål (glass + skål) blir glass-skål för att inte blandas ihop med glasskål (glas + skål). Ursäkta denna långa utläggning :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Det skal du endelig ikke undskylde for, det er skam interessant at se lighederne og forskellene mellem så tætte sprog. Bindestreger bruger vi ikke så meget på dansk. Skaber det ikke problemer i tekstbehandlingsprogrammer der deler ord op ved linjeskift, eller er de smarte nok til at genindsætte bogstavet? For et program behøver jo, for overhovedet at kunne dele meningsfuldt, kende de ord den behandler. Selv foretrækker jeg helt at slå orddeling fra.
Problematikken med tredobbeltkonsonanter eksisterer ikke rigtig på dansk, da vi kun undtagelsesvis (primært i proprier og låneord som gløgg, stress, knarr) tillader ikke-intervokaliske dobbeltkonsonanter (hvilket inkluderer ordinitial og ordfinal position).__Gamren (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Visst är det för många förundransvärt att våra språk är så sammankopplade, och ändå så skilda från varandra :-) Hmmm...jag har faktiskt aldrig stött på problem i de olika ordbehandlingsprogrammen eller de lite mer avancerade editeringsprogrammen som jag använder dagligen. Har man en svensk version, borde det funka utan problem. Men det händer så klart att man tvingas göra manuella ändringar. När det kommer till bindestreck skulle jag vilja säga att vi har märkt begynnelsen till en revival – bindestreck har börjat användas allt oftare främst i samband med utländska ord, såsom YouTube-kanal, H&M-reklam, o.s.v. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

FYI, {{t-}} is actually long-deprecated; it's been a redirect to {{t}} for almost three years now, aside from a four-month period when it was simply deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Ruakh, but I haven't deliberately used it. Have I? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, at fracture?diff=40546283. Not a big deal, though. —Ruakh_TALK 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I see! Thanks for pointing that out. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why did you cancelled my edit? Austrian means a supporter of Austrian economics, an Academician or a layman.--77.66.234.102 14:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contacting me about this. For starters, the edit seemed unlikely considering the second definition ("Just a person supporting the Austrian school") which is not something you'd expect to find in a dictionary. The wording was just off and the capitalisation was incorrect (it's called the Austrian School). But I see what you were trying to convey, so I'll add a definition which works out. I encourage you to read our guidelines before contributing again. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That word is more informal conversation than charla, chamuyo and lata are both lunfardo. Greetings. — This unsigned comment was added by 167.56.188.219 (talk).

The reason I reverted your edit was because you didn't follow translation guidelines. Please don't add plain text in the translation section. Please read our guidelines before adding new translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hej Robbie SWE,

Vil du verificere dette? På forhånd tak.__Gamren (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hej @Gamren! Tack för dina bidrag till listan! Jag har gjort väldigt små justeringar, måste dock erkänna att jag aldrig hade hört talas om blåmåndag. Men du vet vad man säger – man lär sig något nytt varje dag :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tusind tak!__Gamren (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I recently edited the folk page and added an Etymology 2 with a source. Just wanted to know why you reverted it. THANKS 45.126.43.163 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The source you added did not sustain your affirmation – the source referred to a translation page which didn't mention etymology whatsoever. What part of folk, which can be traced back to Old English and other Germanic languages, would be Hindustani? I'm sorry to say it, but it was too unclear and dubious, and that's the reason why I reverted your edit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

ta-ididntno!:) ps.ta4leearnin~mymuisarm2-avagud1!:)81.11.218.154 19:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

(in response to the thank you sent me for a revert). --Dixtosa (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Before I reinstate my edits, I would just like to note that "rope" is in fact commonly used as a sexual term. — This unsigned comment was added by 216.11.222.27 (talk).

I have added your definition back to the page. DTLHS (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I apologise for reverting your changes. However, is the definition grammatically correct? I'm refering to the "the shots semen" – I feel that there's a word missing, possibly "of". @DTLHS am I in the wrong here? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi RobbieSWE, do you know of any online resources that have pronunciation on Finland Swedish? Just curious – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 08:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Awesomemeeos unfortunately I don't have any online resources, just the Swedish article about the subject. If I manage to find anything, I'll let you know. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej (or should I say Hei) Robbie SWE, I've just been wondering about two very different languages that you can speak as native languages. How can that be the case? One of my theories is that you're a Romanian who was grown up in Sweden – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej @Awesomemeeos! Your hunch is correct — my family relocated from Romania to Sweden when I was really young. I therefore consider myself a Swede :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

To keep track of their contributions. Why would you want to delete that? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D599:A3D8:A87C:4080 19:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Because you are currently an anon – you haven't created your own account and why would you want to track their contributions in the first place? Once you create an account you can create a personal watchlist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

How can I create this kind of watchlist? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:25A4:A0E1:70D8:4F46 22:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that you register – choose a username and a password, it's as easy as that. Afterwards you'll see the label "Watchlist" besides "Preferences" – create your own watchlist and add how many pages you want. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Although admittedly, afaict you can't add specific users' contribs to your watchlist, just specific entries. — Kleio (t · c) 18:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've added users to my raw watchlist so that I easily can find their latest contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, they're back again. —CodeCat 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

ːJa, ich bin wieder daǃ No, und?--/#Ionel Bănescu#/ 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please answer me why you deleted my addition to the page Gãrtsia.This add was vrry helpfull cause i added how is Greek called by Greek Aromanians -_-.Gãrtsia and Gartsescu are Slavic the correct is Grecu and Grecia Kp4816 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Kp4816! I'm not contesting the use of the forms grecu and Grecia, however, you did not follow Wiktionary standards. I understand that you're pretty new around here, but please take the time to see how other articles are created to get the real look and feel we're after. I'll take a second look at the article and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Robbie SWE, I wonder if you know how Swedes can speak English so well, that I don't even hear an accent from them? Is it because they are exposed to a lot of American TV shows? Or superb education? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ ) 20:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Awesomemeeos: Well, there are several reasons;

(1) we start learning English in the 1^st grade (we also have private English schools in every major city),

(2) we don't dub TV shows or movies (unless they're cartoons or kids' films),

(3) we're extremely Americanised (I studied intercultural communication at uni and we learned that Sweden is the fastest country in the world to acquire trends from the States),

(4) the historical ties to Anglophone countries are very strong (over 1 million Swedes emigrated to the US in the late 19^th to early 20^th century and the UK is a study abroad hot spot for Swedish students, including yours truly)

(5) last but not least, we're pretty good at creating stuff that people want (IKEA, H&M, Volvo, Spotify, "music" in general, etc.), which makes English a lingua franca for each and every business aspiring to become a global household name.

There are probably many more reasons why Swedes master English so well. Having said that, I assure you that not all Swedes speak English masterfully. There are loads of more or less funny faux pas committed by Swedes on a daily basis when speaking English, but I guess that's an entirely different conversation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, their accent may sound flawless and non-foreign, but it's their grammatical mistakes which reveal them as a foreigner? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ ) 08:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would say a little bit of both – accents vary and so does grammatical correctness. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you tag the page you also need to create the RFV discussion so people can see it. Click the little + plus sign that appears on the tagged page. I did headass for you. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Equinox! I intended on doing so, but got distracted elsewhere. Thank you for the heads-up though, I promise to be more careful from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The edit removed sourced, updated information. 128.84.127.161 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@128.84.127.161 I felt that the changes, although sourced, were far too major to keep without having discussed the subject with the community first. I encourage you to open a discussion in the Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium in order to invite our experts to chime in. If it turns out that I have acted incorreclty, I apologise beforehand. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't do this as it makes it impossible for bots to update pages automatically. Full protection should only be used if it's really necessary and rarely needs to be permanent. —CodeCat 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

My intention was to fulfil steps 10 and 11 here. I felt while doing it that I wasn't completely in the right, but I closed my eyes and hoped for the best. @CodeCat which level of protection is more appropriate? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Move protection is ok, although I haven't really seen people vandalise page with moves. For editing, semi-protection is ok, that just keeps IPs and new users out. —CodeCat 19:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I'm particularly slow tonight – blame it on all those Easter eggs I've been eating lately – does that mean that I have to change protection or am I good to go? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest reducing the edit protection on your user page. —CodeCat 20:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

why to revert soft brexit and hard brexit? — This unsigned comment was added by 77.193.103.42 (talk).

I reverted you contributions because they did not improve the entries. Please remember that we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. I have a hard time seeing how adding arbitrary statements such as "and resume full control over immigration" and "or anything less than a full withdrawal" contribute to a clarification of what soft Brexit and hard Brexit mean. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Polish is my native language, and my edit was correct. Look here. Polish "insulina" in plural (Liczba mnoga) is "insuliny". But the explanation is in Polish so you will have a problem with understanding. You can also find in Polish Google: "różne insuliny", which means "different insulins".

But we can discuss the subject in Polish, if you wish ;-) Ja naprawdę wiem jak jest "insulina" w liczbie mnogiej, zwłaszcza po polsku. Pozdrawiam serdecznie. — This unsigned comment was added by 85.193.243.42 (talk).

I don't speak Polish I'm afraid. The reason why I reverted your edit is not that it was wrong; it was because it was added outside the standard template and the plural should be visible in the dropdown declension section anyway. Since I don't know the language, please feel free to check this category and see what template is appropriate for this entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@85.193.243.42 please see the entry now. Do not add the plural outside the template again. Thank you! --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good job. Now the table is correct. Thanks! 85.193.243.42 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

In reference to this edit, even when the formatting is off and it all looks weird, it's always better to try to fix something rather than to revert it. When you can't fix it or don't have the requisite knowledge, ping somebody who does. Luckily it was on my watchlist, since I had created the Swahili L2 there, but for most of them it just requires a bit of extra effort to ensure that content actually gets added. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, sorry about that. I was going through anon contributions and taking into consideration that the person deleted categories, I just figured it was some kind of lite vandalism. Since my Swahili skills are practically inexistent, I didn't feel comfortable correcting anything. I'll keep this in mind from now on so thank you for the heads-up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I certainly appreciate you patrolling anons! Anyway, you can ping me if this anon ever reappears. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Rob. So, what did you want to discuss anyway? You know, one thing I'm interested in is the conditional tense in Aromanian, also once found in Old Romanian. Unfortunately my relatives that speak Aromanian are no longer around, so I'd have to do independent research online. And information on the grammar is rather scant. As of now, we only have it for a handful of articles, like cãntu. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Word dewd544 Sorry about the delay! Thank you for getting back to me. I'm fascinated by your deep understanding for Romance languages, and I'm grateful for the work you've done on Romanian and Aromanian. Your background is similar to mine – although I'm born in Romania, I also have Greek and Italian roots – so it's always interesting to hear your thoughts on Eastern Romance linguistics. Now, to your question about the conditional tense, unfortunately things get a bit trickier. When I studied Portuguese grammar and history at Uni, we learned that the conditional/subjunctive tense was the weakest feature past on from Latin. It didn't survive in Eastern Romance and in Western Romance it had to be reconstructed. The conditional/subjunctive tense is "dying" in Western Romance as well – good riddance if you ask me, I've always had a hard time grasping the concept of this tense which differs greatly from the Swedish conditional tense. Hope you manage to find more info on the subject and please feel free to share. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're right. It does seem to be used less and less even in Western Romance. Of course, it's completely gone in Romanian, but some vestigial/remnant forms of a synthetic conditional were still found in some of the really early Romanian writings up to the 17th century from what I recall. Obviously, that doesn't need including on here, but it is interesting simply from a historical linguistics point of view. Aromanian and Istro-Romanian (itself basically a 15th century offshoot of Romanian) also seems to have maintained some of it to some extent, but I'm not sure how much it's actually used in normal speech anymore. I was just interested in finding out more about this. And by being "reconstructed" in the Western languages, you mean that the conditional in general was basically a purely Romance creation, not stemming directly from Latin, which is true. It's constructed with the imperfect of Latin habere. Seems to have been originally periphrastic. Romanian still is, and Portuguese still uses it in speech often. Different languages seem to have taken from different elements from Latin, too. Anyway, I don't know much about Swedish... I'd imagine it's less complex grammatically than German, but more than English? Word dewd544 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Word dewd544 Exactly, I agree with you – it is an interesting topic and I would also like to know more about the vestiges of this tense in Old Romanian. When it comes to Swedish I would say that if it isn't just as simplified as in English, then it's even more simplified. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

WHY Did YOu Revert My EDIT ??? I WAS Construtive Altough !!! 83.24.99.100

The title "no-gos" is, itself, an incorrect spelling/pluralisation of the term "no-go/es". At the very least "go" would require an apostrophe to show pluralisation: "go's".

Dictionary searches, and a general search of the internet, show either "no-goes" or "no-go's" for pluralisation, where dictionaries provide pluralised results. The majority of dictionaries do not include a plural form.

I can find only two results that utilise "no-gos", as per this Wiki entry. "www.yourdictionary.com" links to the Wikipedia article in question therefore creating problems as per its validity in regards the question of how to pluralise "no-go". It does, however, also show an entry above for: "n.pl. no-goes". http://www.yourdictionary.com/no-go The only other result I can find is Google's dictionary, but Google does not provide information on its etymology or meaning, preferring to refer back to the singular "no-go".

Encarta, Macmillan (British and American), and American Heritage all utilise "no-goes" as the plural. http://www.memidex.com/no-go

202.243.187.17 04:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean and I agree with you. However, I think it best if you were to bring this matter to the attention of the community. According to the entry, no-gos is the plural of no-go which is an alternative form of no go which is uncountable. I think that somewhere something went terribly wrong and it would be best if you present your arguments to the Tea Room. I would personally erase the entry altogether and mark no-go as uncountable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sorry to bother you with such a request, but I created a module in the Module namespace when I intended to add it as a User Sandbox Module. My concern with moving the module is that I'd rather not create an unintended/unnecessary redirect from the initial module to my module sandbox.

What is your suggestion here? It's not a module that necessarily 'needs' to remain in the general Module namespace. Could you perhaps delete the module altogether -- as opposed to me just blanking the page or leaving it as is?

I appreciate your time,

Tezamen (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tezamen Hi! Thank you for contacting me! I'm afraid that I'm not so well-versed when it comes to modules and templates, but I'll ping others who might be able to help. (@DTLHS, @Erutuon, @Wyang) --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tezamen You can move it to Module:User:Tezamen/Page_tabs (or some other similar name under your username). After moving modules, the old module will be deleted, rather than being kept as a redirect like pages in other namespaces. Wyang (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang Oh that sounds great! Will it return the old module to its original state (in other words, will it appear as though there never was a module there/page created in the first place)? Thanks for the help! Tezamen (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tezamen No problem! The old module will have a note saying this page was previously moved to another page. An example can be seen here. Wyang (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Was I reverted for any reason other than being not logged in? No reason was provided in the edit log. --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is the definition a euphemism? In that case, it wasn't mentioned and you didn't provide citations or quotes to support this sense. This is the reason why it was reverted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is, and a simple google search brings up a good number of examples of its use. Where and how should I list sources? I assume sourcing works like Wikipedia and only mass-printed media is acceptable? --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, I figured it out for myself. If this is not sufficient then I surrender. I would have appreciated being given some guidance rather than being treated as a common vandal. --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for readding the information together with citations. I assure you that my revert was not intended to make you feel like a vandal and I apologise if it made you feel that way. The rollback function doesn't allow us to give an explanation, but I'm glad that you reached out to me here to settle this issue. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Kamâl is Atatürk's given name. It's better to write this. - Ullierlich (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, as long as it's coherent I guess it's fine. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're free to tell me why you think my edit to 'harlot' was worth reverting twice. Because as far as I can tell, the edit made the entry if not correct, at least more correct than it was. The word 'harlot' is not archaic (but as I mentioned in my edit comment, it may be dated or historical), and likely not any more derogatory than the word 'prostitute' either. I cannot find any such usage tags in other dictionaries. --88.114.12.148 18:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for messaging me! The word harlot is considered old-fashioned/archaic by the Collins Dictionary – the trends report found on the same page supports this classification and shows a steady decline in usage, which today is at an all-time low – and Oxford Dictionaries also states that it is archaic and derogatory. If you feel that we should reconsider, please open a discussion in the Tea Room so that our more seasoned users have a chance to pitch in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi saw the Hokkien term was missing so I added it? 2605:E000:8597:8B00:C4D8:C243:852D:B220 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that! I was quick to push the button, but it's reverted now. Thank you for leaving me a message! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, your rollback is in error. The prior version was significantly flawed. Did you really look at it? (1.) The first meaning had a quote that was a fragment which was nearly nonsense, it was incorrectly formed, and incorrectly attributed. While it was buried under the "quotations" pull-down, bots that comb wiktionary propagate this fragment all over the web so fixing it helps more than wiktionary. I added the full quote plus the correct attribution. The full quote not only makes more sense, the restored part draws a contrast and exemplifies the meaning much better. I fail to understand how anyone could have a problem with correcting that, and I assume the pull-down caused you to miss or be confused by this. (2.) That first meaning had two quotes, the Huxley fragment and the Cardozo Law quote, and the latter violates wiktionary's NPOV. While it's a valid and sourced quote, it'sss is clearly a political statement that makes a (debatable) negative criticism of a political group. At the least, it's controversial. If you're a target of that statement, it may be offensive. There is no need to publish a NPOV example when plenty other examples exist... such as the original fragment that I fixed. Note that I did not take it upon myself to be the thought police and delete the Cardozo quote. I simply moved it to the pull-down and switched it with the restored Huxley quote. (3.) The second meaning didn't have an example/quote. It's understood that every word and meaning in wiktionary don't need or should have an example, but again, did you look at what was there? It was actually a *comment* requesting for a quote. Comments belong in the Discussion, not the Entry. I could have rightly deleted that error and left it at that. Instead I honored that request and provided a very clear usage with attribution. (I did not provide a Hamilton quote because frankly they're not expositive for this purpose and citing things written in the mid-19th Century makes the word seem archaic compared to citing Evdokimov from the 20/21st Century.) (4.) Hypostatize is a word that can be tricky because it overlaps with other figures of speech, its technical use in linguistics is a shade different than what's here, but it's use in British English conforms very well. So examples help. If you don't like quotes/examples then delete all of them but don't roll back to a clearly flawed entry that has errors. It makes no sense to remove corrections and revert to errors. Since you're clearly monitoring this and many other pages, you obviously have an interest in getting things right. I'm confident that when you think about what I've written here and how I fixed the entry, you'll revert back to the corrections I made. But because you're a regular editor, I suggest you do one more thing that I did not do... I suggest you delete the superfluous NPOV quote. — This unsigned comment was added by 72.89.181.144 (talk).

I patrolled that revision; I thought it was an improvement too. Equinox ◑ 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page, and most of all, thank you for your thorough explanation. I apologise for reverting your contribution – in hindsight, I believe I may have acted arbitrarily, not allowing myself to contemplate if the contribution indeed was an improvement. I have reverted my rollback, but I have not deleted the Cardozo Law quote. My reason for not doing so is mainly that I'm not it the mood for censoring quotes which may be controversial. If anyone has a problem with that particular quote, they are more than welcome to raise the question in one of our forums. I apologise again for acting hastily, and I encourage you to continue to contribute wherever and however you see fit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tx. Keep up the good work. — This unsigned comment was added by 72.89.181.144 (talk).

My understanding is intellectual disability refers to problems with overall intelligence, not any problem related to specific parts of intelligence. For example, I have severe below average motor skills (dyspraxia) and scored 70 on the motor skill part of IQ, and I also have below average Visual Spatial memory/reasoning (Visual Spatial Learning Disability), I scored 81 on that part, which is 19 points below average, and I have below average math skills (dyscalculia), I scored 85 on the math part, but I was still considered non-intellectually disabled because I scored 98 overall, which is only 2 points below average. I have disabilities relating to my intellect, but I'm not considered intellectually disabled because I have a normal overall IQ. I have never heard the term intellectual disability used to refer to specific learning problems such as dyscalculia. Leucostictes (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

In other words, the definition I removed seems to be saying intellectual disability can refer to learning disabilities in specific areas, while I think it solely means problems with general intelligence. Maybe I'm mistaken but I've never heard it used in reference to specific learning disabilities before. Leucostictes (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, I was mistaken. The entry has been verified. However, wikipedia does not contradict what I said, there article defines it as low general intellect, not specific intellectual problems such as dyscalculia. But the entry has still been verified. So you were basically correct and I was mistaken.Leucostictes (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Leucostictes, the revert was not in any way personal — I was relying on the following explanation from Wikipedia:

• It is defined by an IQ score under 70 in addition to deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living. Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environments. As a result of this focus on the person's abilities in practice, a person with an unusually low IQ may not be considered to have intellectually disability. Intellectual disability is subdivided into syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits associated with other medical and behavioral signs and symptoms are present, and non-syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits appear without other abnormalities.

In all honesty, the term is pretty new to me and apparently far more complex than I expected it to be. I believe the citations provided by Kiwima have improved the entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I thought you were saying intellectual disability could also refer to specific problems with intellect instead of low general intellect. I think I misunderstood you. Leucostictes (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Kreta is also used in Serbo-Croatian, especially in Croatia and Bosnia. Krit is only used in Serbia. I would like you to revert your edit.

As proof, here are Croatian and Bosnian wiki articles: https://hr.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Kreta; https://bs.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Kreta --89.164.168.211 11:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not doubting that the term is used in Croatia and Bosnia — you removed a valid term in order to add Kreta. That is the only reason why I reverted your contribution. I will add it again and I urge you to be more careful; don't erase correct information to add your contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Innate, genetic or developmental origin" would seem to me like synonyms. Innate means its genetic, as opposed to environmental, which would be external factors. Developmental is the only one of three that might not be genetic. Would it be ok for me to word it "development or genetic"?Leucostictes (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Leucostictes, the current definition doesn't need an additional explanation. Please remember that we're a dictionary – we don't have to explain everything empirically. If anyone wants to dive into the subject, they can always click the Wikipedia link and read about it to their hearts' content. I appreciate your contributions, but I feel that you at times overcomplicate things. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry. Have I made any good contributions so far?Leucostictes (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Innate can mean either genetic or developmental. It simply means "present at birth" which could be either. —Rua (mew) 18:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Of course you have! You're very knowledgeable in diverse fields and you have brought problematic issues to the attention of the community. I encourage you to keep doing what you're doing, but please bear in mind that a dictionary isn't always the best place for presenting empirical facts which are oftentimes prone to revision and/or discussion. Naturally we strive to be as correct as possible, but with that said, Equinox stated it quite illustriously when discussing changes to the term adolescent: Would we specify "short" hair as a certain number (of centimetres, etc.)? I think you get what I'm trying to say here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Equinox told me not to use real people's names in sample sentences when I used the name of a former wikipedia editor, I used Annie Jay's but she's a public figure because she's a Wisconsin Prosecuting Attorney and also a former actress and author. Is that different since she's a public figure or do I need to remove those sample sentences to? Leucostictes (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Personally I see no reason why you should remove those sample sentences. Just be careful when using real people's names. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor is insisting on including 18-40 year olds as a definition of young adult in usage notes. A 40 year old's life is almost half over, I don't see how that's a young adult. I thought the term meant 12-21 year olds, or maybe 18-21 year olds if one insists on limiting the term to legal adults. Leucostictes (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with you — 18-40 is too broad a range, although I get why people pushing 40 would gladly consider themselves "young adults". I suggest avoiding numbers altogether and just focus on the qualities. In other words, the current definition seems perfectly fine to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the adolescent entry should define adolescents as being necessarily non-adults, " Someone who has reached puberty but is not yet an adult.", which it currently does, because the term adolescence sometimes includes 18 year olds, and 18 year olds are usually both legal adults, have adult bodies and adult minds and are popularly viewed as adults, and additionally adolescence usually includes 16-17 year olds and even though 16-17 year olds are not usually viewed as adults, they do have adult bodies and partially adult minds although slightly less adult than 18 and up, and in most jurisdictions it is possible for them to become legal adults either through emancipation or through marriage, for example when Courtney Stodden married Doug Hutchison when she was 16 years old she became a legal adult as a result of the marriage, so not all adolescents are children legally or biologically. Obviously some adolescents are non-adults, but not all are. Leucostictes (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Leucostictes, you're doing it again – overcomplicating things. Just leave it as it is, cause you're getting too caught up in technicalities and therefore risk rubbing other users the wrong way. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is my entry on multiple intelligences ok?Leucostictes (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looks ok to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Amgine reverted me on young adult when I included mental maturity as a characteristic. Sexual maturity can be achieved as early as 8 years old in rare cases, but mental maturity never begins prior to 12 years old, that's why I added mental maturity, because the term young adult never refers to people younger than 12, since one of the characteristics defining adulthood is mental maturity. At least I've never heard under 12s referred to as adults. I know under 18s are usually viewed as children, I'm just specifying 12 because that's the youngest age I've ever come across referred to as an adult. Since sexual maturity can include 8 year olds should mental maturity be added also? Leucostictes (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Leucostictes, I'm saying this for your own good: leave it be. The current defintion looks fine, no changes needed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Other than my being hung up on technicalities, is there anything else inappropriate about my editing?Leucostictes (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nope, the ones I've seen where you've stayed away from numbers have been fine. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi I'm the who edited the article on Romania. Romania is not (just) new Latin, in late antiquity and the early middle ages the term was used to refer to the Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire. Hence the Italian region Emilia-Romagna, named such as it as the last land held by the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Greek term Ῥωμανία, a name for the byzantine empire. The use of the name to refer to the eastern European country comes from Romanian (Vlach) nationalists appropriating the older term in the 19th century. This is why I think my edits are justified. — This unsigned comment was added by 2601:801:103:f032:9f4:647b:8014:e70f (talk).

The (deliberate?) omission of Romanian România and the erroneous addition of (Ancient) Greek Ῥωμανία which seems to be the source of Latin Romania aside, both I, and I believe @CodeCat who also reverted your contribution, removed this segment because the definition currently encompasses New Latin. I understand why you added these descendants though – we currently lack a definition which includes historical usage of the term. However, etymologies aren't always as transparent as they seem to be. For instance Italian Romagna is derived from the vulgar form *Romandìola, and therefore not directly from Latin Romania. I suggest we open a discussion in the Tea room or the Etymology scriptorium before we do anything else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I reverted only because the descendants were misplaced under the English section. —Rua (mew) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you for clearing that up. I reverted because of other reasons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if the Romania is from Greek or the other way around. If it's from Greek simply add that as the etymology, thought if it is indeed from Greek wouldn't it be late Latin? Is there a tag for that? I did over look the Romanian form, if we can work this out it should be added. Killerbee256

According to the info at Ῥωμανία, Latin is a direct descendent. Anyways, I think the current defintion in the Latin section of Romania needs to be looked through and revised. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It says this here : "Sometimes only refers up to the legal minor limit in many countries of eighteen years old, or sometimes only refers up to the point of high school graduation." That doesn't make sense to me, I've never heard that. So on someone's eighteenth birthday is he considered a non-teenager, despite an 18 year not being significantly different from a 17 year old? I've not heard of that before. I won't change it if its true. Do you think the usage notes are correct or do you agree its mistaken?Leucostictes (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, smells fishy to me too and I agree with you. However, I wouldn't bother changing anything unless you want a tug-of-war. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Surprisingly enough, they agreed with me and removed the rest of the note when I removed the part I didn't like. :)Leucostictes (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! Nicely done and it goes to show that a collaborative spirit will always take you that extra mile. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Obviously you are not aware of the fact that (often non-Latin) Translingual terms are listet as descendants and not as derived terms. See e.g. bombyx#Descendants, accipiter#Descendants, aequoreus#Descendants, alauda#Descendants where the Translingual term is a descandant. And in advance, no I didn't add the descendants to these other entries.
Furthermore, derived terms must be in the same language as the entry (WT:ELE#Derived terms), that is Latin derived terms must be Latin terms. But w:Pseudomonas kilonensis ("Sikorski, et al. 2001") probably isn't Latin, although that would be a matter of an WT:RFVN to verify. -84.161.10.219 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I apologise if you see my revert as provocative, but I still believe that it is a big mistake to add translingual terms as descendants. In a category with over 1000 terms you pretty much managed to find the only ones listed as descendants. The issue concerning translingual terms as descendants is worth bringing to the attention of the community in the WT:BP. On another note, Swabian has a language code and is considered a language on Wiktionary – if you revert it again, you will be blocked. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, again, it's common practice list translingual descendants as descendants and not as derived terms. And if the translingual term isn't even Latin, than it can't even be a derived term by WT:ELE#Derived terms.
That apology together with a threat makes the apology look very insincerely. -84.161.10.219 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, as you removed the see also Kiloniensis again without explanation: The term does exist and the term is Latin and it's worth adding as an see-also term.
And as you put the taxonomic term into the see-also section: It's common practice that see-also terms must be in the same language too, i.e. see-also terms in an Latin entry must be Latin entries. -84.161.10.219 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oy vey, taxonomic terms are currently being looked at and will probably be changed (hence the hidden category). Regarding my initial apology, I was referring to the dispute we had about kilonensis. What you consider a "threat" is merely a heads-up – we really don't like edit wars, but we do encourage people to discuss issues before they start reverting in absurdum. I agree with you that we have conflicting information about Swabian, but instigating an edit war is definitely not the way to go if you want a change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Again, see e.g.

• w:Swabian German: "Swabian is one of the Alemannic dialects of High German"
• Swabian#Proper noun: "One of the Alemannic dialects of High German" and also "dialect" in the translation table.

As for your Category:Swabian language: English Wiktionary treats German dialects as languages (see also Category:Central Franconian language, Category:Pennsylvania German language and compare with e.g. w:Central Franconian dialects). Which except for the label "language" makes sense, as the High German dialects are more like LDLs. But WT's (mislabelled) categories doesn't proof anything.
And again, alternatives could be just "# Swabian" (which would result in a link to Swabian where it's "dialect"), or "Swabian dialect or language" (which leaves open what it is). -84.161.10.219 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

See my comment above. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alt right entry says it is both "white nationalist" and "white supremacist". I think it should just say white nationalist because the two terms are synonyms so its redundant and the first is more neutral.Leucostictes (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Supremacy needn't be about specific nations. Equinox ◑ 20:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

White supremacy is specific to the European ethnicity, so is White Nationalism. Just like Zionism is specific to Jewry. Leucostictes (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Leucostictes, sorry for the late response. I'm siding with Aryaman here (see this discussion) – the current definition looks alright to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Robbie, do you know where the Romanian word pix (ballpoint pen) came from? The article says it is from English pick, but I don't see the logic. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen G. Brown, according to DEX, pix is indeed from English pick, which was the name of a brand of ballpoint pens. I think we're dealing with a genericised trademark here. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any additional information such as first mention or if the brand ceased to exist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Look up "Pick Pen Company": this page suggests they folded in (or after?) the 1930s. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that explains it. A very famous ballpoint pen company is BIC, and I thought that pix might be from BIC. So there really was a Pick Co. Maybe BIC was named after PICK. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wow, awesome findings Equinox! --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see what you're saying about us not being an encyclopedia and if we click on adulthood not wanting to be directed towards age of majority, but I think "consent" should say "consent to sex" and pipelink to age of consent, because otherwise readers won't know what's being discussed, since "age of consent" is a fairly unusual term, or else the reference to that legal age should be removed and the other examples kept. But I'll defer to your judgement. What do you think?Leucostictes (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you should leave it be. Consent as a general term is not necessarily only linked to sex, therefore your suggestion would be misleading. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this change by you ]. An emperor is a kind of monarch, so an empire would be a monarchy. Monarchy means a form of government in which one individual is sovereign, so an emperor would usually still be a monarch. Napeoleon was a monarch, for example.Leucostictes (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Linguistically speaking, there is a difference. You're right that an emperor is a kind of monarch, although an empire is not synonymous with a kingdom. Consider word pairs: king < kingdom, monarch < monarchy, emperor < empire, dictator < dictatorship, tsar < tsardom, prince/princess < principality. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo my edit? Not all monarchies are kingdoms. And you are wrong, the Vatican is listed as a monarchy on wikipedia, which is sourced. Actually, I used to troll on wikipedia and one of my trolling edits I think was intentionally taking the monarchy part out and stating "the Vatican is not a monarchy" and they replied, "yes it is", if I remember correctly. I also read a book called Lives of the Popes and it stated the Vatican was a monarchy. I forget the author's name though. I don't know about the Dalai Lama but the Pope is definitely a monarch in the Vatican itself. The Vatican has its own criminal code, I'm very sure of. For example it was noted in Europe until recently to have the lowest legal age for sexual activity, 12 years old, because the first Pope who ruled the Vatican independently of Italy had adopted Italy's criminal code, and when Italy raised the legal age for sex to 14, the Vatican still stayed at 12 until it was raised by Pope Francis recently. The Pope has absolute legislative, judicial and executive power in the Vatican, and this is officially true, not just factually. So he fits the definition of a monarch. However, even if you aren't convinced the pope is a monarch, there are to many non-kingdom monarchies to justify making kingdom and monarchy synonyms, all kingdoms are monarchies but not all monarchies are kingdoms. Leucostictes (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to try and stay as calm as possible, so I apologise beforehand if anything I say comes off as rude. First of all, the Vatican is an absolute monarchy, but – and this is a big BUT – an ecclesiastical and elective theocracy, where the Pope is the Sovereign of the Vatican City State which he becomes the moment he accepts his election as Pope. The notion of monarchy itself is to be able to pass on the crown to your kin, therefore technically speaking, electing a leader disqualifies the notion of a standard monarchy. The Vatican City State should therefore be considered a special case. Secondly, what's your hang-up on ages for sexual activity? It has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion.

Listen, I think you're misunderstanding the second definition of monarchy – the term has semantically and historically been used in that way, hence the Shakespeare quote (you can easily substitute "monarchy" in said quote with "kingdom", and it would still make sense). Please read this, this and this. I reverted your changes, because they are not contributing to making the definition any clearer, especially considering that kingdom is already listed under synonyms. Besides, the Usage notes section quite clearly (and effectively, I might add) explains the situation, so please – I ask you one last time – don't do anything else to the entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I understand. The reason I gave the example about the legal age for sexual activity was to show the Pope is a legislator by giving an example of a law he passed in the Vatican that was continued after Italy's law changed to show he was the legislator for Vatican, not the Italian government. I was just trying to demonstrate he's a monarch. I won't change the article again, sorry.Leucostictes (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's ok. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)--Robbie SWE (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to try to change the page, but you're not correct that monarchy has to be hereditary. It strictly speaking means a government led by one individual who has undivided state sovereignty. It was coined by Aristotle from Greek words for one and state, so a state ruled by one. So passing on your crown to kin is not technically part of the notion of monarchy.Leucostictes (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

FYI, from Wikipedia: "A monarchy is a form of government in which a group, generally a family representing a dynasty, embodies the country's national identity and its head, the monarch, exercises the role of sovereignty. Traditionally the monarch's post is inherited and lasts until death or abdication. Most modern European monarchies are constitutional and hereditary with a largely ceremonial role". --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I didn't change the definition, but I noticed usage notes said monarchy referred to "nominally absolute rulers" there were some hereditary monarchy of the kind described who actually were absolute, such as the Emperors of Russia and Kings of France prior to 1789, so I changed it to "nominally or actually absolute". Leucostictes (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, it wasn't an improvement. "ominally or actually absolute" makes no sense and will only confuse people. If they want to dive into the subject they can always read the Wikipedia article. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to change it myself, but sense 3 of monarchy seems somewhat redundant to sense 1, at least to me.Leucostictes (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wales is not a principality, that entry is mistaken. Its not even nominally a principality. I posted an rfv where I quoted from the wikipedia article which states Wales is not even nominally a principality. I think that entry should either be deleted or redefined. The Prince of Wales is not a monarch or even a nobleman, he simply holds that title by virtue of being oldest or only son of the British King/Queen. It has not monarchical meaning. Do you agree with me it should be deleted or redefined? Leucostictes (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oy vey, no, I don't think that it should be deleted and I don't think that it needs to be redefined since it is the official name of Wales — Tywysogaeth Cymru, where the former literally means principality in Welsh. Stop getting caught up in technicalities cause it's starting to get a bit tiresome by now. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The definition is two sentences, the second sentence is "It requires belief in God for membership and is apolitical, in contrast to Grand Orient Freemasonry in Romance language countries." That seems encyclopedic to me. I tried abridging it but Equinox reverted me. Shouldn't this either be removed or shortened? Leucostictes (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

How many of your pages must I visit? I think, it's too much honor. Please, visit Talk:летать. Longbowman (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are placing too much importance on the comment "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". Robbie SWE did not write that. This phrase is generated automatically by the software whenever an edit is reverted. The phrase is inserted automatically to let you know where you can go to appeal the action, if you wish to appeal. We have to revert a large number of edits every day, and we don't have time to leave explanations on hundreds of talk pages. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

What about you? You're a trustworthy contributor. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:684A:69ED:4AE:562C 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thought, but I'm completely uninterested. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a friendly message to the IP would be a good idea? --P5Nd2 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Anyway, I made for the love of all that is good for the benefit of WT as a result of your minor rage. Every cloud... --P5Nd2 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@P5Nd2, thanks for the tip and for creating the entry (a favourite of mine) ;-) In all honesty I was just ranting, because I've been dealing with several anons who disregard our layout policies lately. Naturally, a friendly message is the right way to go and it's definitely the highway I ways gonna take...eventually. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robbie, FYI there have been some communications via OTRS about this page lately. Thanks for reverting it, I went ahead and protected it temporarily as well until the issues have been resolved. - TheDaveRoss 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@TheDaveRoss, thank you for protecting the page! Maybe a stupid question, but what's OTRS? Haven't seen this term before. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This page explains it all, but it is the volunteer customer service desk for all Wikimedia projects. It is where emails go if you follow the "contact us" link to the left and email Wiktionary. - TheDaveRoss 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I suspected it was something like that. I'm just surprised they didn't contact me directly instead. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robbie,

On this page you reverted the addition of a link to the quote. Please help me understand why linking to the quote would not be appropriate?

Thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by 2603:3024:181b:b000:a121:c477:961b:1c89 (talk).

Thank you for contacting me! I've honestly not noticed if we allow links in quotes like the one you added. I just figured it was some random act of vandalism, so I reverted it. I apologise for not checking first if the link was legit, I'll revert back to your change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You made a mistake in editing this page. — This unsigned comment was added by 82.81.239.131 (talk).

And what would that mistake be according to you? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You can see what you did, so I don't need to specify what the mistake was. I only need to specify why it was a mistake. Look at the etymology listed under jam tomorrow. That phrase comes from Latin iam. Therefore, your edit was a mistake. — This unsigned comment was added by 195.192.224.237 (talk).

No, it wasn't a mistake – that's not how descendants work. The phrase jam tomorrow is a pun and should not be included as a direct descendant of Latin iam. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

hello. the genders of french nouns are vulnerable to vandalism. anyone could change the gender of any word and make it look like a correction, and nobody would notice. how do you protect that please. thank you --2A02:2788:A4:F44:AD43:B0CC:F5D0:CEF 20:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The bad news is that we can't protect every French noun, because we don't want a restricted Wiktionary. The good news is that we have some excellent admins/users who are diligent and revert these acts of vandalism. If you want to help us, by all means, feel free to lend a helping hand where needed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

no, of course that would be too much and there's always room for improvement in so large a span as an entire entry. but wouldn't it be possible to somehow lock away the genders and prevent their further edition. for example, once three trusted (autopatrolled?) users proficient in french would have "validated" the gender, it would be considered "safe" and "unimprovable", so nobody could edit it. what do you think. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:4C4B:B719:1529:6D94 21:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm afraid that locking away the genders once they're confirmed in order to prevent further editing – albeit logical and positive, IMO – isn't possible from an operative point of view. Technically, there probably are ways to do this, however, I fear that if we start locking certain parameters in entries, we won't be able to set appropriate boundaries. I'm just wondering, can you provide me with examples where French genders have been deliberately and incorrectly altered? If the same user has done this, I'll be able to monitor their contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

yes, there's this one guy... jk. i dont have any example right now, fortunately. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:4094:6160:A390:B951 20:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I added citation for the text I added earlier. Sorry for not putting it up then!Markarchil (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, we tend to like citations :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please note that for Chinese entries Etymology should only include information about the origin of the term, while the box on the right provides a simple breakdown of the meanings of the individual hanzi. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Tooironic! I wasn't aware of that, but I'll keep it in mind from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excuse-me, but someone who wants to say "please make…" riskes to say «s il vous plait faites…» instead of «veuillez faire s il vous plait…»109.15.8.137 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is that you don't seem to understand how translations work around here – the translation needed here is strictly that of "please". Take a look at the other translations and judge for yourself if your contribution was appropriate. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

«veuillez» being linked to «please», please turn back «please» to «veuillez», so please restore me.109.15.8.137 21:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, not going to happen. That kind of information can be added under "Usage notes" at the main French entry, but please keep it out of the translations section. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Robbie, I haven’t another way to contact you, but I saw you edited my posts for “Issoba” and “Chukma”. I corrected the articles and my post about the history of the word “Issoba” was deleted. Please don’t change that, as it took my a while to write it.

chikashshanompa’ anompoli. :-)

Thanks!

Gerald 3gbraz3 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%BC%AC%CF%80%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82&oldid=48327422

Reverted this change even though citation to the LSJ was provided in the Edit Summary.

185.43.110.44