User talk:Robbie SWE/2018

At Iroquois you reinserted an etymology which is not accepted by any current authorities, and which is not supported by a source - and you removed two proposed etymologies that are actually sourced. You could have simply fixed the typoes instead. I suggest you read the etymology section at the en.wiki article Iroquois before you make further changes to the etymology of Iroquois.5.186.123.239 12:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bad formatting and typos are always warning flags – most vandals don't bother following our rules so I just figured that the changes were arbitrary, despite being sourced (N.B. the current etymology still looks like crap from a technical point of view). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt – I've opened a discussion about it at the WT:Etymology scriptorium to seek input from more seasoned users. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You stated to leave a message if I did not agree with the revert. It seems several people, over a prolonged period, do not agree with the definition used. Google searching finds only one source (the The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English) that supports the term being used to refer to "an unsophisticated person from the countryside" or (from an American perspective) the Welsh.

1) Since it is a word for word copy from the dictionary, it should be sourced otherwise it seems like it would be a copyright violation.

2) The definition ignores plenty of other sources that indicate that it does not necessarily mean unsophisticated people but has a more ranging meaning and linked to Liverpool (with various spellings: wooly back, wooly-back, woolly back, and woolly-back).

For example: Fred Fazakerley (2001), Scouse English, p. 29: "Woolyback: someone who isn't a Scouser"; Scouser on p. 24 as being someone from Liverpool.

The Liverpool local newspaper (The Echo) specifies the term to be what was reverted (ranging from people who are not from Liverpool, to people from the outlaying towns/scab labor etc.: link and link; the paper has a separate article that leads credence to the definition used by the Urban Dictionary: link

Other sources of varying quality, ranging from newspapers and books to various websites and comments: link, source, source, link, link, link, link, link, link, link

In summary: I was only able to locate one source that supports the page; said reference does not provide a source, and any other use on the net appears to be mirroring this site and this reference. Everything else, RS or not, states the word is connected to Liverpool and can mean anything from ranging from someone who is not from Liverpool, or is from a surrounding town; originating from 1800s scab labor brought into the city. If anything, this should be grounds to expand the article to note that the term has many more meanings that the two currently used in the article. — This unsigned comment was added by 206.74.217.62 (talk).

Are you aware that you made no effort whatsoever to use correct templates, proper layout or in any way, shape or form add dictionary content? Of course users keep reverting your edits – they come off as vandalism. I'm not contesting your desire to expand the entry – I agree that it should, however, you deleted senses that undoubtedly exist. I suggest that you bring this to the attention of the WT:Tea room. We have several users who can help you expand the entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I repeat: this is the first time I have edited this article. I merely reverted back to what others have also recognized; that the definition used is limited (and to many, incorrect). I am able to utilize the correct templates, layout etc (which apparently is your only concern) and will amend the article shortly. — This unsigned comment was added by 206.74.217.62 (talk).

(Please sign your posts!) My advice: (1) don't delete existing senses, and (2) still bring this up in the Tea room. Better if more people get a chance to chime in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re:your edit (I had noticed it, too), there is a similar problem going on at 'come' (sense 5 and usage note). Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, you're right. I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE: Sorry, don't feel obliged. I'd do it, but my edits in English aren't that good.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all! You're English is fine, feel free to contribute and I'll take a look. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your edit seemed a bit trigger happy. Please research a term before deciding how it ought to be tagged (or not). 79.67.76.47 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not a case of being trigger happy – it's more a case of you not motivating your change. I agree that Somali is more common, however, what makes Somalian offensive? I suggest you open a discussion about this in, let's say, the Tea Room (better yet, I'll open one myself). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I edited the page "General American" recently changing this:

"The form of pronunciation of the English language considered to be typical of the United States, largely derived from a Midwestern accent."

To this:

"The form of pronunciation of the English language considered to be typical of the United States, especially excluding the speech of the Southern U.S, New York, and eastern New England."

You rolled it back, and I've come to, essentially, justify my edit (instead of starting an edit war). This definition of "General American" can be found in most scholarly works on the topic, as well as in most English-language dictionaries. For instance, J.C. Wells states it twice in Accents of English, once on page 118:

"A recognizably local accent in the United States can only come from the east or the south. In particular, the accents of eastern New England, metropolitan New York, and the coastal and inland south are readily localizable as such. 'General American' is a term that has been applied to the two-thirds of the American population who do not have a recognizably local accent in the sense just mentioned."

And once on page 470:

"It is this fact that gives some residual legitimacy to the older classification of American accents as eastern, southern, and General American. 'Eastern' refers to the non-rhotic accents of (i) Boston and eastern New England, and (ii) New York City . . . 'Southern' refers in the first instance to the non-rhotic accents of the lowland south . . . 'General American' comprises that majority of American accents which do not show marked eastern or southern characteristics, including both those deriving basically from the northern speech of the Hudson Valley and upstate New York and those deriving from the midland speech of Pennsylvania."

Such a definition is also the one found in both Merriam-Webster and Collins Dictionary. American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary do not give so strict a definition, but do provide a definition which at least counters the definition found currently on Wikipedia (take special notice of the usage note in American Heritage Dictionaries, specifically stating that GenAm should not be identified with any specific American accent, i.e., the identification of GenAm with Midwestern speech in Wiktionary is incorrect).

The Atlas of North American English by William Labov, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg doesn't use the term very often, only in reference to other works which do, but it does mention this in a footnote:

"This term has not been used by American dialectologists to any extent since the appearance of Kurath (1949), but it continues to be used in Europe. The exact referent is difficult to determine, but it almost always indicates a rhotic, non-Southern dialect."

Although they do not explicitly mention eastern New England and NYC as being excluded, they do later define those two areas, in part, by non-rhoticity, which implies exclusion from General American.

Those are all the sources I currently have access to, but I hope they should be enough to convince that the rollback was in error. Thank you. RaisinBread (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you feel confident in your sources, feel free to add the info again. Just remember to add references. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Robert. Why did you revert my additions to the "slave" translations? But registered users can do it? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:C584:E40:2981:D777 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter if you're registered or not, it is simply deranged to believe that "slave" is or ever was an occupation. You can't in all honesty believe that it is an occupation? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Robbie SWE,

I would like to address the fact I am constantly being reprehended for my edits (when I am not logged in).

For each edit, I am meticulous in what I write and salvage a great ammount of time from my day to think about exactly what I am doing. Of today, I have only edited the descendants of Latin arefacio. Although I am an amateur in the field of linguistics, in my thinking, I can understand that the English suffix of the Latin facio is English -fy. In consequence, I put in English arefy as a descendant of the word. I do not know why I was reprehended therefore.

There is already viable proof that this word exists. And simply enough, there was also a Wiktionary page of English arefy made previously of someone else's doing.

If there are any other queries you have for me relating to this, I shall obligate myself in mustering enough information and research evidence to support my arguments. Also, I would like to point out that am familiar with the fact that I am getting banned nearly every time I edit, under my IP address alone. I ask if you would please contact my talk page immediately, because I am not here to commit vandalism or disruptive edits, but to give back to Wiktionary for what I learned from the website itself.

If I am malevolent, of course allot justice. But I only ask of you to please refrain from dismissing my arguments completely through banning, and voiding my edits. Please instead attempt to understand the reasoning behind my edits. Because misunderstandings like this, of course can be avoided through simple conversation. The things I post, I swear by hand, stand before adequate research. I would not do the site wrong like that.

The Wiktionary page I speak of is here, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/arefy

Please respond to me as soon as possible about this message, I am very upset about my reprehension.

With utmost respect, EgoAmbulo

'EDITS TO ETYMOLOGY APPEAL

  1. Added  3 sources of reference
     2. Added a 4th source of reference to support and affirm my argument effectively.
     3. Fixed Link to 4th source
     4. Added Image of Evidence on March 21st, 2018 (Please regard to image @Robbie SWE)  

(Please read @ Robbie SWE; as the book is free to read as an ebook on google.

The link I sent you is a link to the actual ebook itself. This is inclusively where I got my evidence from. Again, please, please read to verify.)

Year: 1849 Common Era

1. "A Copious and critical English-Latin lexicon, founded on the German-Latin dictionary of Dr. Charles Ernest Georges"

Year: 1783 Common Era

2. "Neues grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache für die Deutschen : vornehmlich aus dem größern englischen Werke des Hrn. Samuel Johnson | Johnson, Samuel"

Year: 1819 Common Era

3. "Neue vollständige und auf die moglichste erleichterung des unterrichts abzweckende Englische sprachlehre für die Deutschen"

Year: 1903 Common Era

4.The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: The Century dictionary ... prepared under the superintendence of William Dwight Whitney

Image of Evidence:

'

EgoAmbulo (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC) '-- Side question, what is the most appropriate way to reference long forgotten dictionaries on Wikitionary?Reply

I assure you @EgoAmbulo that you will be reprehended regardless if you're logged in or not if you keep doing these kinds of mistakes (questionable descendant and wrong language code; sloppiness). I'm sorry if you feel victimised and treated unjustly, but in all honesty it shows that you're an amateur in the field of linguistics. Don't get me wrong, I want to encourage you to keep learning but refrain from making dubious changes unless you have the sources to back you up.

For instance, it is a dangerous thing to claim that arefy is directly inherited from Latin ārefacere < ārefaciō. The only source provided in the entry states that the etymology is Latin arere + -fy. Basically, what you did is add an etymology not supported by the only source in the article. In other words, you've added deceiving information. If someone were to click on the source, they would discover that Wiktionary provided unsubstantiated information, not mentioned in the indicated source. It just reflects badly on the project as a whole if our sources are contradicted by the information we provide.

I am convinced that your intentions are good, but I think that you need to take a step back and contemplate why some of your contributions have been reverted. If you're interested in a discussion about descendants, please read this discussion we had a while back. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Those sources are really outdated, but if we set that aside they still don't do you any favours. The first one is a dictionary – English words and their Latin translations, the dictionary doesn't implicitly indicate etymology. The German sources basically discuss arefy as a calque, not as a direct inherited/borrowed term. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(FYI, I can't read your latest source) But that's the thing, you still can't make that statement – comparative evidence alone comes off as superficial and doesn't take into consideration the historical development of languages. Sometimes there is more to the etymology of a word than meets the eye --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Still can't read it and I'm not going to pay to read a book from 1903. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@EgoAmbulo, you've managed to annoy me into submission. Even though I'm not even remotely convinced by you sources, go ahead and change the etymology of arefy if you still feel it's the right thing to do. BUT – and it's a big but – make sure to use proper referencing (see WT:References). Anything subpar will be reverted. On another note, I'm going to follow your edits because you still seem to make mistakes every now and again. It's not personal; I just want to make sure we maintain a certain level of accuracy around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see the rollbacks on bawcock recently. Perfectly reasonable given they were an anonymous IP's first edits, with no edit summary. But the suggested change is also reasonable and cited in various dictionaries. See also: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2018/February#bawcock. It's not one I have sufficient reference material to make a call on though. -Stelio (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Stelio, thank you for contacting me! The reason I reverted was not cause it wasn't reasonable, but merely cause the anon seems to have added contemporary French terms in Old French templates (). It just looked sloppy and I couldn't decide if there was any merit in the changes made. However, provided there are references, feel free to add additional etymologies where you see fit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The erroneous use of the template {{etyl}} in lorum#Etymology displays "Proto-Indo-European", which in the context of the sentence is nonsensical. Even ignoring the fact (though relevant) that {{etyl}} is currently being pulled from use, the information it displays in this instance is nonsense, to refer to an Indo-European language as "a Proto-Indo-European language". Your recent edit to the page should thus be reverted. 129.21.145.158 23:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contacting me! I've considered it and I accept your explanation – I've reverted back to your version. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Due to the amount of vandalism that's been happening there lately, I request that you (or another admin) semi-protects the page. Thanks! PseudoSkull (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@PseudoSkull,  Done --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Robbie SWE, I have something to ask You. Just for communication (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure, go right ahead. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm user Kubura from hr.wiki. I've created this account solely for the communication with the admins. Recently I've seen that a template was redirected (template user hr) so it was giving the wrong information about Croatian speakers that expressed on their userpages their mother tongue as Croatian, not as Serbo-Croatian (as redirect did). Therefore I restored to previous version.

Also, I would like You to unblock me. Currently I'm permanently blocked on this project because of an user that had something personal with me. As You see in my block log, Neskaya unblocked me, but than the admin, whose personal grudges against me rule his behaviour, reblocked me. Ruakh again unblocked me, than the same reblocker. I simply want to be unblocked. I do not intend to participate anymore on this project, and especially I do not to engage in some kind of edit war. Can You do that for me, please? Just for communication (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is my confirmation that I am user Kubura. Just for communication (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, no can do. If you want to be unblocked you should present your case to the entire community. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, two admins unblocked me; does that tell You something? Only one and that's the one with personal grudge who (re)blocked me. It's almost eight years of the block. Long enough. Just for communication (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, it doesn't tell me anything. Follow protocol or take you grievances somewhere else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to find the way, I do not know Your protocols, so I contacted the admin for the info. Also, when unblocking me, Ruakh mentioned also user Robert (Robert Ullmann). That's three against one. On the other hand, the blocker hasn't asked the community for the opinion (strangely, he blocked me for the same thing he strongly advocated few years before that, and then he suddenly had strange shift of attitude to the other polarity). Feel free to check my edits. No graffiti, no vandalisms. Anyway, what's the protocol? Where should I ask my unblock? I thought that a talk with the admin would be enough. Just for communication (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Try adding {{unblock|}} to your old account, alternatively, create a request in the Beer Parlour. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. BTW, I am not able to post a message to Atitarev, the page is semi-protected. He reverted this template to this version which gives incorrect info about users' expression of language; that change affects about 17 users.
I do not declare my mother tongue as so-called Serbo-Croatian and I don't want that someone imposes me the look of my userpage (telling to a Croat that he/she speaks "Serbo-Croatian" is a heavy ethnic insult).Just for communication (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not addressing the issue here, but at the Beer Parlour. Regarding you block, I'm afraid I can't help you – Ivan Štambuk's initial assessment was sound and you have not provided any evidence that could sway me to reconsider. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

FYI: done. Go take a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka, looks great! Thank you for all your help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let him waste his time vandalizing my talk page. That's less time spent vandalizing actual entries. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You could protect it from IP's editing. DTLHS (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I think it's better not to, for the reason I just said above. --WikiTiki89 18:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's up to you, I just feel that you don't deserve that crap on your talk page but I see your point. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Could you create an entry for this? I noticed it through w:Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss (it occurs in a couple thousand Wikipedia articles, and appears to be a valid Romanian word).
Btw, I notice there's an accent mark on the headword line, but not in the pagetitle, of literatură. Should that mark be automatically stripped from (all) Romanian links the way macrons are stripped from Latin? It's currently not: literatúră produces a redlink to literatúră.
- -sche (discuss) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@-sche, it's  Done. I added adjective forms as well. Accents are not used in Romanian (unless we're talking about direct loans, from say French) so I don't see the point in having a headword line in Romanian entries. I guess the only reason why someone added it in the first place was to show where the word is stressed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

In certain extreme cases of prolific, stubborn and persistent IP editors, I will revert or delete every edit that has no interfering edits by others. The reason for this is to remove the incentive for harder-to-patrol edits in specialized subjects or languages, and, more importantly, to discourage the editors by leaving them with very little to show for their efforts. That means sometimes getting rid of good edits, but it works out better for the dictionary in the long run because it reduces the load on patrollers and (eventually) gets rid of a prolific source of bad edits that might slip through.

All of these are easily detected by geolocating on the IPs. I've done this for a Sky UK IP who edits Japanese and deity/magic-related subjects, Pass a Method, who geolocates to TalkTalk/Tiscali/Carphone Warehouse IPs in northeast London & south Essex, a Greek IP who makes up terms/definitions in physics and philosophy, briefly for that Finnish IP who was flooding the etymologies recently with bad guesswork, a Thai IP who adds bad templates and labels to non-Thai entries, and with Gfarnab, who's been using anonymous proxies since I blocked their home IP.

All but the last two have mostly gone away: they'll come back intermittently to see what they can get away with, but not with the huge floods of garbage they used to burden us with. The Thai one is problematic because they've never used the same IP for very long and it's hard to tell if they even know they've been blocked. Gfarnab is going to take a while: they're obsessive, they take this very personally, and have an inflated view of their abilities that's quite resistant to obvious evidence of their failures.

At any rate, I just wanted to let you know that reverting good edits in those specific cases isn't due to overlooking something on my part, but intentional and part of a strategy. I won't be upset if you don't want to go along with it- it only becomes an issue very rarely, and I don't want to interfere with the important work you do. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand completely! I figured you had a reason and it sure makes sense. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe Dana is actually a female given name derived from Daniel? (sense 3) - Amgine/ ^t·e 18:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it because it was listed as a nickname for Daniel. Feel free to add it on a separate line if you want to. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I thought they were derivatives, not nicknames. - Amgine/ ^t·e 00:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. How are you? Just noticed this edit and feel that the info in it did not need reverting.

Changes ← Go to previous editGo to next edit → Appendix:Glossary of British military slang and expressions 213 BYTES REMOVED, 6 MONTHS AGO m Reverted edits by 95.151.231.87. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.

gen

slang for genuine "Whats the gen?" Whats the true gossip?

Green Slime

Army, military intelligence personnel

grow bag

(RAF) Slang term for Aircrew SNCO on account of being made a SNCO purely due to their job. All aircrew due to their being green on the outside (flying suits)and full of sh1t

God

SWO/RSM

Scaley

(RAF) Married airmen/women living in quarters. Before the Military Salary was introduced in the early 1970s,married personnel were paid on Scale E rates, so scalies/scaley.

Scaley Brat

(RAF) Airmen's/Women's offspring Thank Robbie SWE ADMINISTRATORS

The info in red, on the edit summery page, is correct and i dont tjink it needed remverting.

Many thanks for your help. Discostu362 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Discostu362! Thank you for contacting me! Here are my comments to the edits you mentioned above:

• gen - the slang sense is not strictly military in nature and stands out amongst the other terms
• Green Slime - edits by the same anon
• grow bag - libelous; "the full of sh1t" remark prompted me to revert every edit by this user
• God - ? doesn't give an acutal definition
• Scaley - in hindsight, seems fine
• Scaley Brat - also fine

Unfortunately this appendix in prone to vandalism, so it is at times hard to decipher what is correct and what isn't. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

it is a good page and a true number. Why did you dlete it? — This unsigned comment was added by 74A (talk • contribs).

Please check your talk page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you change my definition of Occy strap.

See here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=octopus+strap&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

They are called Octopus Straps, they are not Jockey straps. Jockey strap originated from people mishearing Occy Strap and confusing it with Jock strap. — This unsigned comment was added by 122.148.82.40 (talk).

I think we are dealing with two different terms here – octopus straps are used to fasten cargo, while jockey strap is a dated form of the male athletic supporter jockstrap worn by men to support their genitals. If you have any sources that confirm your statement, I am willing to take a second look. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. You will find many people do incorrectly refer to Occy straps as jockey straps, hence my reason for editing. Perhaps you should put in a section 'not to be confused with Occy strap'? — This unsigned comment was added by 122.148.82.40 (talk).

Definitely, I'll take that into consideration and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The term flispy was not make up by me, but the the food joint Sonic. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter who made it up: if it's not used by actual people to convey meaning, we don't include it. I see no evidence of anything beyond Sonic and people mentioning Sonic. See our Criteria for inclusion. Also, our entries are case sensitive: unless people are using it in uppercase the only spelling would be flispy — This unsigned comment was added by Chuck Entz (talk • contribs).

Chuck Entz pretty much said it all really. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just recently reviewed your annotations on the edits I have made, sorry for the annoyance and confusion, and I apologize for not talking to you sooner. Again, thank you for the feedback. But, I strongly disagree with a good amount of the judgments you have made on my edits and most definitely, I would be a fool to argue this claim without any logical proof. Although informal, I formulated logical principles of Latin verb descendants based on comparative evidence seen on the wiki and via primary source. Here's my proposition, it is logically impossible, for a descendant or derivative -->(derivative, for the case that a word is *borrowed* and not inherited through an inherited language) from Latin to exist in the form of a (Latin descended prefix) + (Latin descended verb) combination if that exact combination does not already exist via Latin.

A good example is our first discussion, when I claimed English arefy was a descendant of Latin arefacere. It is evident that that the word, in its combined form, could not exist in English without the influence of Middle French arefier, and by principle, the combined verb must have descended from Middle French arefier which as well, is inherited from Latin arefacere.

That would also explain why the word arefact (hypothetical word directly borrowed from Latin arefacio) does not exist, but the word arefy does exist. Apply this same principle to the English verb amplify, which is from French amplifier via Latin amplificō . It is not the same word as amplficate because that word is a doublet that directly derives from Latin amplificō. The etymologies of resign, assign and ensign as well support my proposition. There is a somewhat lengthy article , that helps my point, on the etymologies of compound verbs of Latin descent. Not many have viewed this article in the past 200 years so I would be very happy if you considered to take a moment of your to time to take a quick skim through the pages, also please start from page 472 because I find the last 20 pages of the book support my point instintively and you wont have to spend much time reading **if you decide to**.

--EgoAmbulo (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honestly EgoAmbulo, I don't care how many dusty sources you dig up to support your changes. The problem is that you create words that don't exist (see my recent changes) in languages you don't master and you keep on making newbie mistakes. My patience is wearing thin and I'm not the only one around here who's starting to get fed up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand that I'm being menacing in respect to the wiki, I apologize, I will stop doing that. I am familiar that I do not put out my sources immediately, I assume that they are easily enough to find due to how I encounter them. Although I make calculations based on related words, can only confirm the existence of réflorir as an alternative form of French reflorer (via Italian refiorare) through Old French and not borrowed from Italian. I'll back off from getting too excited with my edits, again I apologize. My only motivation is to one day make the lingua francas as mutually intelligible as possible.

--EgoAmbulo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

EgoAmbulo, you've been blocked because your "calculations" have yet again shown that you lack linguistic rigour. Contributing in languages you don't master is precarious to say the least and the consequences are that you inadvertently end up making incorrect contributions. I do believe that you have good intentions, but the way you go about things just doesn't work. On another note, I'm truly worried that your mission statement "to one day make the lingua francas as mutually intelligible as possible" is not only impossible, but also completely contradictory to Wiktionary's ambitions. Take this week to contemplate your participation. I'll be keeping a close eye on your contributions, so please take into account why I had to hit the brakes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am asking that this edit on the bulldozer page be hidden from public view for "Promotional material." You dealt with this IP before back in May of this year, and although I can't see the edit, guessing by the size change and the tag, I am assuming it added the same link. The link points to an external website that allows users to buy a bulldozer. Inner Focus (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

SemperBlotto beat me to it :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

96.245.23.63 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Blocked, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see you have deleted my definition of 'ducket', my first ever edit ! (My dynamic IP was 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:F092:AF08:53DE:CFB9). Ducket is a valid, if obscure British English word, used both by model railway enthusiasts and at least one railway company.

The web page http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58196-what-are-duckets/ discusses if it is a term used exclusivly by model railway enthusiasts. Today I have added to the page with a link to a quotation from an official LNER report which, according the poster used the word ducket.

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129879-lner-toad-b-20t-brake-van-announced/page-2

The English Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Brake_van uses the plural form of the word, 'duckets'. If you look at the photograph at the top right of this page (of a British Railways "standard" brake van) you will see one of the duckets projecting out from the body of the vehicle.

The English Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Caboose#Cupola_or_%22standard%22 also uses the word.

The LNER Encyclopedia uses the word at https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12809 and shows a photograph of a 'Departmental 6 wheeler', in which one of the side duckets is visible.

I have found a document at the National Railway Museum (the premier railway museum in the UK, known for its research) which uses the term.

See https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-05/London-North-Eastern-Railway-Carriage-Wagon-Drawings-Lists-0518.pdf

Hornby, one of the Uk's long established model railway equipment manufacturers also uses the word.

See https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/stop-press-the-hornby-2018-range-launch

Another railway museum, the Vintage Carriages Trust: Museum Of Rail Travel uses the word on their web site.

See http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=928

The above uses the spelling 'duckett' rather than the more common (if obscure) spelling with a single 't'. A ducket is also visible in the photo on the above page.

If I was to re-enter a definition of 'ducket' I would write something like, 'A side window on a railway wagon or carriage, typically known as a brake van, which projects out from the main main body of the vehicle like an oriel window, giving the train guard a view along the entire length of the train'.

Can you please restore my edit or use something like the definition I have given above.

Thanks.

2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:B169:2D9D:7E5F:F6D5 00:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it was the validity of the definition (though none of the examples you gave here would count for our Criteria for inclusion), but the fact that it was missing pretty much everything else. Please read our Entry layout page. Although we don't often have time to give a good explanation anyway, dynamic IPs mean we would have no way to get the explanation to you: most ISPs allocate 64 bits of IPv6 per user, which means in your case we would have to choose between 1.84467440737096x10^19 talk pages that we could post the message to. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The word antarākathā is in the language Pali, not some language 'Noun'. The change from Noun to Pali for the level 2 heading was correct, and should not have been undone. RichardW57 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I re-reverted it. As a word of explanation, we get tons of vandalism where someone who speaks a non-English language changes various headers to the name of their own language. It's a pointless cliché that wasn't the slightest bit funny or clever the first (or thousandth) time and is repeated by someone different almost every day- thinking, I'm sure, that it's something brilliant that nobody ever thought of. Knowing how much patrolling of new edits Robbie does, I can understand how this kind of thing might happen every once in a while. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I apologise for the erroneous revert, I thought the change was made further down the page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please go to ro:wikt:Special:Drepturi_utilizator and give it to yourself.

... the founder of Esperanto had Yiddish as his first language. Now why would anyone go to great lengths to erase Yiddish etymologies from dozens of pages? I can think of one major reason, do I need to spell it out?

Yiddish, like English, takes influence from a number of languages - mainly German, Slavic and Hebrew. Zamenhof was far more competent in Yiddish than German, and in certain cases the word form and/or definition is far closer to Zamenhof's native language than German. — This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:140e:f303:1:1:75f1:ffc6 (talk).

Firstly, anon, you're taking the cowardly route of trying to accuse Robbie of antisemitism without outright saying it. I don't take kindly to that (and luckily you can't do it to me, seeing as I'm a Jew who speaks Yiddish). Now, to the point at hand, there are indeed some Esperanto vocabulary items best explained as derivations from Yiddish (e.g. superjaro), but for the most part, scholars acknowledge that Zamenhof took pains to make Esperanto "international" in nature, and avoid anything too particularly Jewish. For words where the German and Yiddish are equally good matches, there is little point to invoking the Yiddish when there is no specific evidence to support it. In general, we try to ground our etymologies in scholarly sources, and when those are lacking, we find the most parsimonious explanation that is in keeping with what is known about the language's history, which in the case of a constructed language is a great deal. Speculation based merely on the fact that Zamenhof was a native Yiddish speaker is simply insufficient for our purposes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it is a pretty sufficient reason to include it. Klingon, for all its alien design, reflects the fact its creators were English speakers, and that its main designer was an American (through the use of structures found in languages of the Pacific North West). While there are one or two injokes (ghoti for fish etc), the language consciously attempts to be divergent from its US English milieu, yet still manages to incorporate various anglicisms and Americanisms.

The Yiddish influence on Esperanto has been written about by people far more articulate than me. It is clear that Esperanto is mostly based on Romance languages (unlike Yiddish), but that both languages contain a lot of internationally recognised vocabulary. Esperanto is most definitely a European language in its formation and owes its origins to the Baltic region. (I detect a Lithuanian influence on its design as well, but know little about that language)

Zamenhof would have been inevitably biased by his background, and used some unscientific methods. I personally don't think Esperanto is as well constructed as Interlingua, but it is far more successful as a cultural entity. — This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:140e:f303:1:1:75f1:ffc6 (talk).

Wow! Truly wow. I've been called a lot of things on the Internet, but congrats dear anon, anti-Semite is definitely a first. I assure you that this is far from the truth – if you knew anything about me or my family, you'd apologise. As I said on your (first) talk page, provide us with proof and I'd be more than happy to revert back to your changes. If you don't, stop wasting mine and everybody else's time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Languages such as Modern Hebrew and Esperanto both have Yiddish influence because Ben Yehuda and Zamenhof were native speakers of that language, so it is natural that they would have unconscious influences from that direction. (Many later speakers of neo-Hebrew have from Yiddish, Arabic and Slavic speaking backgrounds, all of which have played an influence, despite attempts by revivalists to recreate the ancient form.)

In the same way, the Englishes of New York and London has had Yiddish influence because large numbers of Ashkenazi settled in each city. In both cases, people of a non-Jewish background use some of these Yiddish words and constructions without even knowing it, because they are so naturalised. It's not something that has even been done deliberately.

In the case of Esperanto, Zamenhof tried to source a common European vocabulary but Yiddish would have been the language of his formation and home, and the one I suspect he probably thought in when constructing early Esperanto. Yiddish was probably one of his main inspirations in the first place, as it crossed international borders, and had a bit of a magpie approach to vocabulary (as English does).

Zamenhof went to pains later to play down his Jewish background, but there are still Yiddish terms and influences. Edzino is one of the more blatant ones. In that case he actually backtracked and tried to give it a non-Yiddish etymology. But where Germanic vocabulary is concerned, there would be inevitable Yiddish influence. On some of the grammar too although that is more complex.

As for the anti-Semitism thing, it looked from here as if I am being suspected of it. I went to all the trouble of adding this content and then you delete it all for no good reason. The key point here is that Esperanto was founded by a speaker of Yiddish just as Volapük was founded by a German speaker. And that is nothing to be ashamed of. Many modern conlangs have English influences that their creators aren't aware of or have tried to retrofit. — This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:140e:f303:1:1:75f1:ffc6 (talk).

And still you have failed to provide any source confirming your "hunch", although you claim that it "has been written about by people far more articulate than me". This is not serious linguistics in any shape or form and has no place here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mate, it's not a "hunch". You're just airing your own personal opinion, which has little to do with the facts of the matter. But since you have some power-status within this website, your word is supposed to be more authoritative than mine.

But since you ask Biro's Weak Interactions Yiddish influence in Hungarian, Esperanto and Modern Hebrew mentions at least three of the words that I have mentioned. Other sources will mention more. So no it's not my "hunch" as you so patronisingly put it. — This unsigned comment was added by 213.205.241.85 (talk).

I'm not your mate and my "power-status" (if it at all exists, believe it or not, we do have checks and balances around here) has absolutely nothing to do with me reverting your edits. I'm convinced that my fellow colleagues would've done the same, because we have standards that have to be met. Read this, follow it and quit airing your bias about me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For non-English words in non-Latin alphabets why is no definition needed? 212.250.152.37 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think your contribution added any value - it didn't follow the style of the other examples and it didn't contribute to making our formatting any clearer. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply