User talk:Stardsen

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed you've been adding translation sections to Dutch words. We don't do that on Wiktionary, only English entries have translations. Could you please remove the ones you added? Thank you! —CodeCat 17:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and all the 'see also' terms you added aren't really necessary, either. We have categories for such things, like Category:Dutch pronominal adverbs. —CodeCat 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion on the normalisation of spellings of old languages such as Old Saxon: WT:BP#Normalised spellings of ancient languages. It seems that the consensus is that for such languages, the spelling may be normalised/standardised, and any other spellings may be treated as alternative spellings. This means that you won't need to add such alternative spellings to pages like Template:termx. The spelling with just v is enough. —CodeCat 13:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please read the discussion and the section on WT:AOSX about orthographical normalisation, before you continue adding Old Saxon words. Thank you. —CodeCat 18:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Old Saxon didn't have articles yet, it only had a demonstrative determiner which later came to be used as a definite article. —CodeCat 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please pay closer attention to the information you copy from other articles. Quite a lot of your Old Saxon entries have incorrect languages and pronunciation, and your use of templates is very inconsistent as well, which others then have to fix. —CodeCat 18:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

On Wiktionary, we require that all terms have attestations in real texts showing them in use. See WT:CFI. Several terms that you've added recently, such as threskan, fōlian and hullian, are not found in any Old Saxon texts according to my sources, and so they've been submitted for verification at WT:RFV (down the bottom of the page). I invite you to participate in the discussion there and to provide attestations for those terms, or they will be deleted. I would also like to ask that you check this yourself before adding terms, as it gives other editors more work to have to verify your terms and it may eventually lead to a block from Wiktionary if other editors have to check on your work too often. I also notice you've not replied to any of my previous messages... I strongly encourage you to reply, as our work on Wiktionary depends heavily on discussion. —CodeCat 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

They were shown on Proto-Germanic pages, if you want to delete the pages, do so. User:Stardsen 00:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I don't want to delete the pages... it's just that they don't meet our requirements. It would be against the rules to keep them. But I have something that may help. If you know some German, then maybe Gerhard Köbler's Old Saxon dictionary is useful to you. As far as Old Saxon terms go it is very complete, and it also notes related terms in other languages, and even Germanic etymologies (although they are not always entirely correct). It also shows when a word is not attested: a * before a word means that the word hasn't been found at all in any Old Saxon text, while a * after a word means that the word shown hasn't been found, but inflected forms of that word have been (for example, the infinitive might not be attested but the past tense could be). Terms with * before them in Köbler's dictionary are not allowed on Wiktionary, but terms with * after them are ok. The three terms I mentioned all have a * before them, though. Do note, though, that his dictionary uses both macrons (ō) and circumflex accents (ô) to mark long vowels. I'm not quite sure why he does that, but in any case, on Wiktionary we only use macrons (so ō, not ô). —CodeCat 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you CodeCat, I will be careful with * before words. User:Stardsen 00:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is this Old English or Old Saxon you've added here, because it's a mix of the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw you've been adding plural forms to Old Saxon nouns. I'm wondering though which plural form it is. Most nouns have 3 or 4 different plural forms. —CodeCat 14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You added faran and glidan on the page? —CodeCat 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

You added the wrong word again... —CodeCat 21:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it was as far as I can tell because of all the spaces you put in {{cardinalbox}} that this happened. The reason is that template names can have spaces in them, but not as the first or last character. So ] and ], the server treats them both as {{osx}}. But not so for {{osx/script}} and {{osx /script}} as the space is not the final character here! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the server also strip spaces from the arguments of templates? —CodeCat 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused too! I'm not 100% sure I'm right but whatever I did, I seem to have fixed it! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that copying over from Old English entries is a good practice (like I do with Anglo-Norman/Old French) but please check a little harder that you change the header to Old Saxon from Old English. Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you've been marking the i in io as long. Why? —CodeCat 12:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is a long-standing inconsistency in our prescribed (See WT:ELE.) structure of headings. For single-etymology L2 sections, the PoS headers are at level 3. For multiple-etymology L2 sections, the PoS headers are at level 4, with corresponding adjustments to subordinate headings. Most of us have internalized this and live with the peculiar logic. Perhaps you could, too. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

When adding etymologies, could you please use the proper etymology templates instead of writing out the words manually like you did at helsith? We have a set of templates such as {{compound}}, {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} for these situations. Could you also add them to the entries you created already? Thank you! —CodeCat 21:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you fix up the entry please, and others like it? The pronunciation isn't right and the template has parameters that don't exist. Thank you! —CodeCat 20:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is really great that you are adding so many new Old Saxon entries. For that I have nothing but praise, it is very helpful. But me and a few other editors have expressed concern that there are still some mistakes in your edits that need fixing. We can fix the occasional mistake, everyone makes them of course. But you are making edits so fast that they are piling up and it is very hard for is to keep up; and that means that while you are making new entries, other editors have to spend a lot of time to "babysit" your edits and check them, while we would rather be doing something else. Apparently, you have copied most of your entries from existing Old English entries. While this is fine, you need to be careful that you don't make any false assumptions about the meanings of certain words, their pronunciations, and also about the templates they use. Quite often (moreso before than now, thankfully), you have left part of the original Old English entry in the Old Saxon entry, which just seems sloppy. On some occasions you have also copied over mistakes that were also present in the original Old English entry. Not all of our entries are up to standards yet, so you can't assume that what you copy is correct. Always check and fix up what you copy first! (And if you are feeling generous, you could fix up the original entry you copied from too. :) )

Judging from your talk page, you have received several messages about this in the past, but you have not responded to them at all, leaving us to guess at your intentions. I have noticed that you have fixed some entries when requested, but you have not fixed any mistakes you made before that, and many of your earlier edits still need to be fixed. This gives the impression that you are not willing to stop and talk to discuss problems, and instead just cruise on without regard to the rest of the editing community on Wiktionary, which is rather worrying.

User:Ruakh suggested that we should undo most of your edits and even that you should be blocked. But your edits are gradually improving, and the entries you create are invaluable despite the mistakes they still contain, so I would rather not block you. So, after some discussion we came up with (hopefully) a better solution. We would like it if you could stop creating any more entries for now, and focus first on correcting earlier mistakes. Those mistakes include at least the following:

• Pronunciations. There is little known about how Old Saxon was actually pronounced. And even then, some of the pronunciations you have added are clearly wrong, such as the one you added to bigiotan (which you since removed, thank you!). So, to err on the side of caution, I would ask you to remove all pronunciations from the entries you have created.
• Etymologies. Some of the older entries you created still have etymologies written in plain text, rather than templates. The templates are important, because they add the entry to the appropriate categories, and also help us keep track of things and format things consistently. So I would ask you to fix the etymologies of all entries you created, so that the etymologies use {{compound}}, {{prefix}}, {{suffix}}, {{etyl}} and {{proto}}. Please make sure to check that you used the correct language code when using those templates, so that the entry does not end up in the categories of another language. Please also use {{term}} to link to cognates in other languages, again with the proper language codes. Some examples of incorrect etymologies you created are fiur, heldor, helligithwing.
• Alternative spellings and alternative forms. There is a difference between {{alternative spelling of}} and {{alternative form of}}, although with ancient languages it is hard to tell at times. An alternative spelling would be, for example, c instead of k, or ƀ instead of v. We call something an alternative form when we have reason to suspect that the difference in the spelling reflects an actual difference in pronunciation. For example gibarion and gibarian are not just alternative spellings, because they have an extra "i" to indicate an extra sound that was not present in the pronunciation of the word when it was written as gibaron. So again I would ask you to check, and if necessary fix, any entries in Category:Old Saxon alternative forms that are marked as "alternative spelling". If you are not sure if something is an alternative spelling or an alternative form, alternative form is a safer bet, as all alternative spellings are always alternative forms (but not all alternative forms are alternative spellings). One final note: when listing possible alternative spellings in the main entry, the heading should always be "alternative forms", even for alternative spellings.
• Headword-line templates. This is a point where it seems you have copied information from Old English entries without fully understanding how it works. The template {{ang-verb}}, which is used to create the headword lines of Old English verbs, has a set of parameters that do not exist in the {{osx-verb}} template. In fact, the only parameter that {{osx-verb}} has is the head= parameter. So I would ask you to fix those templates in entries so that they only use head=, not type= or class= or any other parameters. This includes bigiotan (which you fixed) but also bifithan where head= is missing. Also, if the headword is the same as the name of the entry, then you should not add head=.
• Macrons in headword lines. I noticed that in some entries you created in the past, you added macrons to the diphthong "io" (and maybe "iu" too). In Old English, there is a difference between ēo and eo, but this difference does not exist in Old Saxon, so macrons are not normally placed on that diphthong. Could you remove it in the entries where you added it?

Ruakh and I have agreed to allow you to fix these mistakes before taking any measures against you. So please take care of them before creating anymore entries. You can find a list of all of your edits at Special:Contributions/Stardsen. It would probably be easiest to go all the way to the end of that list (it has several pages) and fix your oldest edits first, as your newer entries are generally better and have less mistakes than your older ones. This will take a while to fix, unfortunately, but if you don't do it, we will have to, which doesn't quite seem fair. Once you have corrected all the entries, please let me or Ruakh know on our talk pages so we can review it. Until then, please don't create anymore entries. —CodeCat 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah it is obvious that I have still a lot to learn with templates, for the moment I will try to fix my older entries and I began to delete all the pronuntiations, I also shall fix the meanings of words but the only dictionary I have of Old Saxon is written in German so sometimes the meaning from German to English is a bit different... but still I shall clear it. I also have to learn about alternative spellings and forms, thank you for letting me fix them. User:Stardsen 00:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You can always ask in WT:GP if you have any questions or problems with templates, or ask another editor. I agree that they can be confusing, but you can actually go to the template and click edit to see what is 'inside' it. That might help you understand a bit better how that template works (if you understand how template code works in general). The template {{osx-verb}} is fairly simple, so if you are interested in learning how templates work (which is always a useful skill around here!), then you can start there. —CodeCat 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the help I think it will help me :). User:Stardsen 00:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did it really mean "to use" in Old Frisian? —CodeCat 20:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Cognotates" is not a word. —Ruakh_TALK 15:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

When you add an etymology, be sure to add an ===Etymology=== header. —Ruakh_TALK 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

FYI:

• {{t-}} means that the foreign-language Wiktionary exists, but doesn't have the appropriate entry. {{tø}} means that the foreign-language Wiktionary doesn't exist (yet). There's no Old Saxon Wiktionary, so we always use {{tø|osx|...}}, never {{t-|osx|...}}.
• the xs= parameter is no longer used, and should not be specified.

—Ruakh_TALK 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I hope you're aware that Old Dutch is not attested very well, and often in very inconsistent spelling. So make sure that you know that the word is attested (just seeing it mentioned in an etymology isn't enough) before you add it. —CodeCat 18:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

When you link to other terms using {{term}}, can you please remember to include the language code? Like this: diff —CodeCat 23:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

As I write this there were several Old Saxon entries of yours that are on the list. You seem to have the habit of putting PoS headers at level 4 when there is only one Etymology. That gets flagged as non-compliant with WT:ELE, our formatting standards. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please clean up the items of yours in the category. It has been three months. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can't, I understand barely nothing of these blimming level 4 or PoS-whatever thingies... --Stardsen (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What he means is if there is only one ===Etymology=== section, then you should write ===Noun=== instead of ====Noun====. --WikiTiki89 02:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you--Stardsen (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please take the trouble to learn from the corrections made to your entries by having items you edit automatically put on your watchlist and paying attention to the list. It is easier than trying to understand WT:ELE, which is also worth reading and understanding however. I think you make only one or two kinds of errors - but you seem to keep on making them. DCDuring TALK 03:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The suffix and the header say that it is a noun, but the definition is an adjective? —CodeCat 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Merciful can be either an adjective or a noun. --Stardsen (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

True, but it confused me, so it would probably confuse others too. —CodeCat 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's ok I put someone merciful instead of merciful only. --Stardsen (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are there really texts in Old Saxon that use the letter þ? Also, even if there are, why did they use þ for one th but not the other? wiþqueþan seems more likely... —CodeCat 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't understand what you're trying to do here. We don't move false pages to a different title, we delete them. We don't want pages to have histories for entirely unrelated words. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes but I don't know how to delete them and I don't want them on the Old Saxon wordlists^^ maybe you could help me delete them? --Stardsen (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes add {{delete}} to the page (where you're the only human editor to the page, otherwise we need a deletion debate). The ones you've already moved will be harder. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much!! For the ones that I already moved will you keep the new words I submitted? --Stardsen (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't include temp| as that's how we display the template without it categorizing in Candidates for speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, will they be deleted then? --Stardsen (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes I can find them. More importantly, how did you manage to create so many wrong entries? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've got to learn how to format etymologies. See here and if you have any questions, please ask. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem to keep mostly to yourself, I'm not sure if you kept up on the changes that have been happening on Wiktionary over the past months. A scripting language called Lua was installed, and we can now write "modules" in them. Modules are much like templates in the way we use them, but they can do a lot of things that templates can't, so we've been working on converting a lot of our templates into it, starting with the most important and heavily used ones. One of the templates we've converted is {{l}}, which creates links. In its new form, it is able to strip diacritics from words, depending on the language. For Old Saxon, that means that it could remove macrons from words when linking to them. So you could write {{l|osx|mīn}} and it would correctly link to min and not mīn, although the link would still display as mīn. So it would be the same as {{l|osx|min|mīn}}, but without the hassle of writing the word twice. This has to be added and enabled for each language individually, and it hasn't been done for most languages yet. Do you want this to be done for Old Saxon as well? If so, which replacements should be made? From what I can tell, it should only remove macrons from ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, and nothing else. Is that correct? —CodeCat 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do not create redirects for capitalization differences. DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

why?? --Stardsen (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to Wiktionary:Redirections. DTLHS (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good day to you, fellow user. You recently put in several tables of declension for Low German verbs. As with every project where written Low German comes into play, there are quite some problems with it. Maybe it would be time to gather the Low German authors in this site and have a general discussion about spelling standards? This was brought up at some point in the past, but people felt that Wiktionary should not impose a pseudo-standard onto a living language. Then again, a dictionary needs a way to represent a language. I know that -she is working on them too and I think a user called Bleifrei. Maye we could lay out rules for an acceptable spelling? I would be willing to propose a draft of the trans-dialectal phonetic situation to serve as a start point for the discussion. Korn (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good dag to di ook. Yes sorry for these Low German entries, I recently started to look at Plattdeutsch to see how it writes Low Saxon phonemes... I think the idea to gather all Low German authors to decide of a common spelling for Low Saxon/German is great, and I would be proposing my points of vue concerning Low German/Saxon^^ it's a shame so much different German- or Dutch-like writing systems exist, but none of them being official and fitting a different language^^ --Stardsen (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a bit like asking all Slavic/Romance contributors to decide on a common way to write Slavic/Romance words, stuff like whether plural present tense ends on "t" or "n", whether plural and/or diminutive nouns get an Umlaut or not, is usually seen as a language border. --80.114.178.7 22:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI: cite=1 means the article has citations, and pron=1 means the article has a pronunciation. The article nahtagala has neither. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stardsen. Can you please explain why you moved the Old Saxon entry for thrīe thence to thrīa in this revision? Please note that the entry is still written as if it were at thrie and that your moving the page left behind an undesirable redirect to thria from thrie. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been finding pages of yours where you added the temp template rather than the delete template. The temp template is just a way of displaying the names of templates instead of the output of the templates- you were supposed to copy what was displayed on the page, not the wikitext that produced it. In other words,You added: {{temp|delete}} where you should have added: {{delete}}

I hope I don't need to tell you not to copy the "nowiki" parts...

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pursuant to a number of discussions, the various Dutch dialects of Low German were unified into "Dutch Low Saxon", while the various German dialects of Low German were unified into "German Low German". The erstwhile macrolanguage header "Low German" is no longer used; please use either "Dutch Low Saxon" (code: nds-nl) or "German Low German" (code: nds-de). Thanks, - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is completely stupid. Why call Low German "German Low German"?? I guess "Low German" already mentions "German", no need to say it twice it just looks awkward^^ the general language is Low Saxon, when spoken in Germany call it Low German or Plattdüütsch as you wish and when spoken in the NL call it Dutch Low Saxon... French is spoken in Belgium, so what?? Call French from France "French French", as opposed to "Belgian French"?? A little bit more of thinking is expected on that subject, you can't really say "German Low German" without laughing and I think such indecision/stupid in-urge-decided gateway solutions are obstacles that prevent Low Saxon dialects from being considered seriously and respected. No wonder then, why there are scarcely only 50 Low Saxon or Low German entries on this site, most of them following at lest a dozen of different writing styles, and why people who tried to improve that situation like me give up quickly. This isn't just my opinion, this is logic. --Stardsen (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are no really satisfactory options- I think the present setup is a reasonable compromise between the linguistic realities, the sociolinguistic realities, and the way our site handles lects, even if it has its problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What does hep mean (on your user page)? It looks as though we might be missing a French slang entry! Equinox ◑ 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Same old mistake. Please fix it. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stardsen,

I translated a song of Evanescence from English into Old High German. I wondered whether you want to take a look into it and correct possible mistakes? That would be much too kind of you :)!

Greets from Germany HeliosX (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi HeliosX

Thanks for your translation, it is by the way a great idea to translate into Old High German, a rather underremembered language (like Old Saxon) comparared to the amazing popularity of Old English still nowadays! And for this I feel respectful towards you! Your translation is very good, using a lot of vocabulary. I only could see a few small mistakes ;)

• line 3: Wīt untar album mīnum unti einōtin mīnemu
• line 5: (Dāra furi) āno dih zuo ātamōn(ne)
• line 8: Ih ni trūrēm furi dih - negation was before the verb
• line 11: (a detail ;) I would rather see an inversion from zuo dir to dir zuo, this is also typical of Old Saxon and Old English) Alo stīgūn leitent dir zuo
• lines 12 and 13: zuo wesanne and zuo liggenne with old dative endings added to infinitives, also present in Old English and Old Saxon after preposition tō; however, all three languages tended to make this old dative ending disappear, zuo wesan and zuo liggen were thus also possible ;)
• Ih giloubu daz diu minna unsih duruh (dën) tōd sehan kan
• Dār ist wītuobili furi zwēna unti ih ni trūrēm furi dih
• Du ni bist suntaringon

I was very impressed by the style of your poem, the clever use of vocabulary, all the mistakes I saw were only tiny mistakes or details, I must say this is very impressive :D May I ask, are you going to use this translation for something? --Stardsen (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much in turn for your nice words :)! Yes, it may be that Old High German is a bit underrembered but however I don't mind ;D. I'd rather help it be more remembered :). And thanks a bunch for your constructive correction, it really helped me nontheless still I have a question: is the term minna reserved to romantic love? If so we are obliged to use liubi cuz in this song the familiar love is meant.

No, actually not. It's just for myself, and I think that I also won't sing that as on this songs very many childhood memories of mine are saved and I want them to stay there, if I listened to it they were replaced with the present time, do you know this feeling too?

Greets HeliosX (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello again Stardsen :),

I translated another song into Old High German and I wondered if you could check it again :)! It would be really glad if you could check it! I actually translated the song in both genders and I added "or him" after "her" in the original lyrics :).

Greets from Germany HeliosX (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi HeliosX and sorry for the late, I didn't go often on wiktionary this month :/ Here are a few mistakes I saw:

• daȥȥ du inan odo/odar sia minnōst?
• zuo sagēn(ne)
• ekkorōdīgo blintēr odo/odar blintiu wesan
• mih zuo sëhan(ne)

Really well done, impressive, I couldn't have done that good in Old Saxon!! Oh and here is a site that provides a free-content dictionary for most ancient Germanic languages: hope it'll help you, it helps me a lot!! Greetings from France :) --Stardsen (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You added an unattested descendant to *razdō for Old Saxon. Do you have a sourced Middle Low German or perhaps a borrowed descendant (in Scandinavian, Frisian, etc.) which clearly points to its existence? Leasnam (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

fyi, i've removed it for the time being Leasnam (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please don't write the inflections in plain text like you did at vörbikamen (I already removed it). Use a template to show this information instead. —CodeCat 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can't edit the template thing, seems far too complicated, especially since the introduction of that module thingy that is unworkable with^^ --Stardsen (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't always need modules to create templates, let alone use them. The template {{head}} is made specifically to format headword lines and it's not so hard to use. You can basically write this: {{head|nds|verb|past|(put past form here)|past participle|(put past participle here)}}. As you can see, all the unnamed parameters after the part of speech ("verb" here) occur in pairs, the first saying the name, then the second giving the actual form. You can also group alternative forms together using "or" as the form name. The documentation of {{head}} should help you further. —CodeCat 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please include some explanation of why you're requesting deletion? The {{d}} template is for obvious, non-controversial cases, and there's nothing obvious about deletions in a language few of us know much about. When someone suddenly marks large blocks of their contributions for deletion, the natural interpretation is that it's being done to make some kind of point having nothing to do with the entries themselves- so some explanation is required to let the admins know that you have a reason for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I based myself on the really well-done Old Saxon dictionary ] to see which entries were attested in Old Saxon and which ones I had mistakenly thought to be real. Sorry for not letting explanations when I deleted them, I'll leave some when I further will do. --Stardsen (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that's reasonable, since you added the words yourself. Next time do something like this: {{d|mistakenly added}}. --WikiTiki89 17:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the indication, I'll follow your advice --Stardsen (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's worth noting that Köbler is sometimes wrong, e.g. on WT:RFV#uton it was pointed out that he marks Old English uton as unattested, but it is in fact attested. If you ever see him put an asterisk beside something and you think "huh, I thought for sure that was attested", it's worth checking Google / Google Books (you may be doing this already). When I say "checking Google" — obviously random websites aren't acceptable citations, but they might transcribe/cite manuscripts that are. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I'll follow your advice --Stardsen (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I made some changes to the entries you created and edited in the last few hours. Could you take note of what I changed (replacing '']'' with {{m}}/{{term}}) and apply this to any entries you create in the future? —CodeCat 15:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks, I'll do it! --Stardsen (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ahoi, min gooden mann. Wi mööten wol man snakken. Man ik hold et upp ingelsk, dat all dat läsen können.

• 1. I don't get the 'no documentation' tag. If I made a procedural error, please explain.
• 2. Sass is a horrible basis for Low German entries. From what it looks to me, it only deals with a very unrepresentative dialect confined to parts of the north sea coast.
• 3. Variation of endings does not go in the thousands, what I entered is pretty much the entire extent.

Also, please don't misinterpret my curtness as rudeness, I just try to keep things concise for overview. _Korn (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

If one of the verbs in Champenois is spelled "ètre", then how come "être" is used for the name of the template {{roa-cha-conj-être}} while the form "étre" is used therein? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will clear that ;) the real form is "ètre" Stardsen (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, I noticed an error in the template {{roa-brg-conj-re2}}. (Also, I think it's time, that you broke your personal talk page down into archived parts, just like I did.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why was this marked for imminent deletion? If you can explain, I will delete the page. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just saw the Dutch text on you user page. This:

Hep! Ik voel me erg geïnteresseerd voor Indo-Europese talen en ik probeer aan WikiWoordenboek bij te dragen zo veel als mogelijk in verschillende talen. Ik heb onlangs aan het Oudsaksisch en Germaanse talen gewerkt, maar ik ben momenteel bezig met Keltische en Italische degenen.

would be more perfectly rendered by:

Hoi! Ik ben erg geïnteresseerd in Indo-Europese talen en ik probeer zo veel als mogelijk aan WikiWoordenboek bij te dragen in verschillende talen. Ik heb onlangs aan het Oudsaksisch en Germaanse talen gewerkt, maar ik ben momenteel bezig met Keltische en Italische talen.

←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm intrigued by the etymology, because as far as I know kroes cannot refer to any type of berry. Is it related to kruisbes, kroesbes, kroesbei (“gooseberry”)? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes exactly, it's Middle Dutch actually, the etymology is the same as groseille in French. --Stardsen (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stardsen ! I am having trouble locating Old Saxon hregera or regera in other sources. Would you mind please supplying where you got this from ? The form of the term looks out of line for what would be expected. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have solid sources for your etymological entry for the Bourguignon prône? I've just added the etymology for French prône, which I'd found in both Larousse and le Trésor de la langue française.

And along those lines, il me semble étrange qu'un nom bourguignon provienne d'une forme conjuguée (la première personne du singulier du passé simple) d'un verbe français.

Hope you can help me reduce my confusion.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, in this case the verb prôner (in French, in bourguignon, the ending of the infinitive turns -ai, so prônai) comes from the noun prône (prosne or proisne in Old French). You can find some more information on the etymology here : https://fr.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/prône#fr

About the inifinitive ending in bourguignon, this can cause confusion with the French passé simple 1st p. Sing. ending. As soon as the XIVth century, Bourguignon texts in Old French started to write -eir the infinitive ending for 1st group verbs instead of regular -er. With the loss of the -r in the pronounciation and the opening of the diphtong, this resulted in the -ai ending that is typical for Bourgogne and Franche-Comté (where it is however -aie).--Stardsen (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please don't recreate the entire table for each verb/conjugation you want. Instead, create one table that you can fill in the forms with using parameters, then reuse that table for all the other templates. —Rua (mew) 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please don't revert frantically (I've seen on your talk page other people complaining about that) and just don't intervert with Norman if you know nothing about it, Oïl languages or Romance languages. It's simply impossible to have one template for all verbs, there are variants and exceptions everywhere. For example you deleted (deleted ! what is that ?) the template for all 3rd group Normand conjugation verbs, that is 200 verbs. Not clever really. --Stardsen (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What I'm asking has nothing to do with knowledge of Norman, it's a general principle that applies to inflection templates in all languages. I deleted the template because it was yet another copy of the exact same table, it contained errors that I already had to fix in your other templates, and it was not used for anything. Now you have recreated yet another copy, with those same errors. I will delete any new copies of the table, until you create it the right way by reusing the table in a separate table template, rather than copying it over and over. I would be lenient with new users but you have been Wiktionary for 5 years by now, so you ought to know how it works. —Rua (mew) 17:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What errors then ? The problem is that now, all the content is lost, meanwhile modifying the templates would have saved the content. --Stardsen (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

diff. I have had to make this fix with every Norman inflection template you made, because you copied the table code all the time. There should be only one template containing the table code, and then other templates should call this template to provide it with the forms in each cell. Then, problems with the tables only have to be fixed once, not every time for every copy you made. —Rua (mew) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I realise now that I've treated you really badly; I've been under a lot of stress lately and I took it out on you, then felt really bad about it afterwards. I'm sorry for that, I should not have done that. To make it up to you I've created a separate table template, {{nrf-conj-table}}. This template isn't meant to be used in entries, it's only intended as a helper template for other templates. I left out the compound tenses, including the past imperative, because they seem to be formed the same way for every verb, so there isn't really a need to include it for each verb. I've modified {{nrf-conj-allaer}} to use this new template, so you can see how it works. All you have to do is provide a form for every one of the parameters in the table, and it will appear in the correct place. This way, the table itself, and all the styling and layout, is in one template and does not have to be copied all the time. You can reuse it for as many verbs/templates as you like. I hope this example is clear so you can apply that to the other templates. Again, I'm sorry for blowing up at you the way I did. —Rua (mew) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Forgiven, I treated you badly too, sorry for that. it's true that I could have done it better and it's more clever to have one template for all verbs, thank you for pointing this and for the work you've done ;) I'll check all the other templates to unify them and will do the same for other languages as well. Sorry for my harsh answering and no problem ! --Stardsen (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you're doing this with Gallo templates too now. A lot of the table code is duplicated. Can you use the same principle here as well? Also, I'm not sure why you're putting messages on the template that there is documentation on the talk page. We have special documentation pages for that. —Rua (mew) 21:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

For the Burgundian term paige, is the plural form really pages or simply paiges? Thanks for answering, if you respond. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was paiges, I corrected. Thanks for seeing that. --Stardsen (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, Starry! :) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now I found what could be another hiccup, in the entry feille. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that was another, thanks ! --Stardsen (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome; also, I made a proposal for Franc-Comtois. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have ignored this message. Could you please try to use standard formatting? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are still ignoring this and creating entries with poor formatting. Is there a reason? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

What errors ?--Stardsen (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

In recent entries, you still aren't using {{IPA}}. Look at achteur. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and I shouldn't ?--Stardsen (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, you should. Think about machine-readability and semantic markup. Fay Freak (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could you pease give a link to Old Saxon blaian / waian, I unfortunately didn't find them http://www.koeblergerhard.de/aswbhinw.html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110232349/html ПростаРечь ПростаРечь (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=motian&oldid=21283037 ПростаРечь (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, if I may request, please check my edits for this because they're probably wrong for years (and now) haha, merci. For example with chevau, where did you get the info to transcribe /çᵊvo/ for South Morvan like that? Very fascinating. Any resources super appreciated. ^^ Sigehelmus (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply