User talk:UtherPendrogn
Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It 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.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
- Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
- Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (
~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp. - You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.
Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!
You need to look at how the other entries in each language are done, and you need to pay more attention to details. First, though, read the links I've provided so you know what you're doing and we don't have to spend as much time cleaning up after you. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. UtherPendrogn (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Language codes
I reverted your edit to Module:languages/datax because 1) A simple check of our List of languages or Category:Aquitanian language would have shown that xaq was already a valid code 2) No one should be adding language codes without discussing it with the community at an appropriate venue such as WT:BP, WT:RFM or WT:GP. 3) You shouldn't be editing the Module:languages data submodules at all, since they're used by millions of entries (it's only by a complete fluke that it wasn't edit-protected in the first place).
It's not enough to be able to figure out technically how to do things- a wiki like this is a community, and major changes like this should discussed to make sure you have consensus. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, sorry. Thanks for reverting it. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If you're contesting the term's existence, why do you even create an entry for it? —CodeCat 17:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- What? How am I contesting the term's existence? @CodeCat UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you're going to add Lepontic terms, add them in Old Italic script, not the Latin alphabet. Also, where is
{{xlp-decl-noun-o}}coming from? —JohnC5 17:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)- What do you mean, where is it coming from? And it's silly to put things in Old Italic. I have given the Old Italic form on the page itself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- For one thing, we have Lepontic inscriptions in Latin, Etruscan, North Italic, Old Italic and Lugadno scripts. I'm using the one 2600000000 people use. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every one of those except Latin is encoded under Old Italic. —JohnC5 19:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will use the Latin Script. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, what are your sources for that declension? Also, we put entries under their original script, as with Gothic, Glagolitic, and many other dead scripts. —JohnC5 19:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except Old English is not in Futhorc, Old Latin words are not in the Old Latin script. Plenty of Proto-Norse languages are not in their original script on Wikitionary. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The documentation is there. Why don't you lay off? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean to come off as overbearing, but if I must, I shall be. You have a recent track record of creating unreliable or inaccurate entries. I'm just doing the due diligence to ensure that correct information is added under the correct entry titles. You yourself have been creating entries with the
{{rfv}}template at the top, which either means you aren't even sure of what you are doing, or you are very careless. Neither of these options inspire confidence. —JohnC5 19:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)- I know what I'm doing. Lay off. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Uther, don't be rude. You're speaking to editors with extensive experience in ancient languages, both in general and with respect to their treatment on Wiktionary. If you continue to make bad entries while ignoring what people tell you and being extraordinarily impolite (as you have been to Angr and JohnC5), you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- They're destroying my work. Besides, it's very much debateable whether they should be under an OI or Latinised form. JohnC5 was peddling his opinion as a rule. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- We're filtering the good parts out of the information you submit to Wiktionary and deleting what is not usable. That's not destroying your work, that's just doing what good editors are supposed to do and are perfectly entitled to do. —CodeCat 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Good parts"? I'm not sure what to say to that. For one, nothing I've added so far has been kept (or at least, not without hot debate), to be honest. Actual entries in Tacitus and Matasovic's dictionary are being DELETED. I'm fucking losing my temper against this idiotic shit that could be handled so much more efficiently than just deleting things behind my back without warning. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not our fault if you have no clue. First of all, please read the text at the bottom of the edit box: once you click "Save changes", it's no longer solely your work. Other editors have the same rights as you do to add to, subtract from replace or delete the entries. This is a wiki, so if you don't want to irrevocably yield control of your contributions, you're in the wrong place.
- Secondly, this is a reference work, so "sort of right" won't cut it. Just about every entry you've created has had serious flaws that have to be fixed. If you can't handle people doing things to your entries, you're in the wrong place.
- You have very good command of the letter of the references, but you're missing critical context- I'm guessing because you haven't been exposed to it yet. For instance, you've given Tacitus as a source for an Old English entry, but Tacitus died centuries before Old English even existed. You also don't seem to have much background in historical linguistics, which is really a prerequisite to properly using the reference material. For instance, a proto-language is a theoretical construct that summarizes the results of applying the comparative method to a group of related languages in an attempt to deduce what their common ancestor might have been like. Goidelic languages such as Gaulish and Irish are not descendants of Proto-Brythonic. Individual Goidelic languages may contain terms that were borrowed either directly or indirectly from individual Brythonic languages, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Yes, there are entries in Category:Irish terms derived from Proto-Brythonic, but there's already one entry in Category:Irish terms derived from Proto-Sino-Tibetan, and the potential for more. Your edits are a strange combination of advanced knowledge and complete ignorance of very basic information, and you tend to go straight from data to detailed conclusions without going through the necessary intermediate steps, overlooking details along the way.
- Finally, it's hard to tell if you're a very precocious child or an adult who simply acts like one, but a wiki is a community, and you have to interact with other contributors. If you're going to keep pulling the same "How dare you question me- I know everything!" routine while repeatedly demonstrating that you don't, you're not going to last here very long. You've been telling people who have degrees in subjects you've just been dabbling in that they don't know anything. You've been acting like Wiktionary is your own personal property and you can do anything you want. It may not seem like it to you, but people have been very patient with you. If you continue to abuse that, and if you continue to refuse to learn how to do things right, I will block you myself- if any of a dozen other admins doesn't beat me to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Good parts"? I'm not sure what to say to that. For one, nothing I've added so far has been kept (or at least, not without hot debate), to be honest. Actual entries in Tacitus and Matasovic's dictionary are being DELETED. I'm fucking losing my temper against this idiotic shit that could be handled so much more efficiently than just deleting things behind my back without warning. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- We're filtering the good parts out of the information you submit to Wiktionary and deleting what is not usable. That's not destroying your work, that's just doing what good editors are supposed to do and are perfectly entitled to do. —CodeCat 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- They're destroying my work. Besides, it's very much debateable whether they should be under an OI or Latinised form. JohnC5 was peddling his opinion as a rule. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Uther, don't be rude. You're speaking to editors with extensive experience in ancient languages, both in general and with respect to their treatment on Wiktionary. If you continue to make bad entries while ignoring what people tell you and being extraordinarily impolite (as you have been to Angr and JohnC5), you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I know what I'm doing. Lay off. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean to come off as overbearing, but if I must, I shall be. You have a recent track record of creating unreliable or inaccurate entries. I'm just doing the due diligence to ensure that correct information is added under the correct entry titles. You yourself have been creating entries with the
- The documentation is there. Why don't you lay off? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except Old English is not in Futhorc, Old Latin words are not in the Old Latin script. Plenty of Proto-Norse languages are not in their original script on Wikitionary. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, what are your sources for that declension? Also, we put entries under their original script, as with Gothic, Glagolitic, and many other dead scripts. —JohnC5 19:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- For one thing, we have Lepontic inscriptions in Latin, Etruscan, North Italic, Old Italic and Lugadno scripts. I'm using the one 2600000000 people use. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean, where is it coming from? And it's silly to put things in Old Italic. I have given the Old Italic form on the page itself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you're going to add Lepontic terms, add them in Old Italic script, not the Latin alphabet. Also, where is
I spent a good five hours researching Lepontic script to NOT make a mistake. CodeCat decided that it was the same as Old Italic (it's not) and now my page has been deleted and innacurate information is being presented. I linked to both scripts but CodeCat dodged the proof and went on trying to delete it. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do find it a bit humorous that after 5 hours of research, in the entries for kośiom, Kośiom, iśom, and Amaśilu you gave the transliterations 𐌊𐌏𐌆𐌉𐌏𐌌 (koziom), 𐌊𐌏𐌆𐌉𐌏𐌌 (koziom), 𐌉𐌆𐌏𐌔 (izos), and 𐌀𐌌𐌀𐌆𐌉𐌋𐌖 (amazilu) respectively, as opposed to the correct 𐌊𐌏𐌑𐌉𐌏 (kośio) (𐌊𐌏𐌑𐌉𐌏𐌌 (kośiom) appearing to be unattested), 𐌉𐌑𐌏𐌔 (iśos), and 𐌀𐌌𐌀𐌑𐌉𐌋𐌖 (amaśilu). You also see to be using (often unattested) masculine accusatives as lemma forms instead of attested masculine nominatives. I'm just sayin'. —JohnC5 05:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I find it humorous that as a "linguist" and supposedly one who has ANY authority on Lepontic, you don't know acute s is shown as 𐌆 and not 𐌑. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
RFD removal
Have you read what the {{rfd}} template says? Do not remove the template until the RFD discussion ends with a consensus to either "keep" or "delete". If you continue to remove the template, you may be blocked. —CodeCat 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's obsolete, the form is not reconstructed and does not require descendants. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not for you to decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Who, then? God? UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, we have a process, as outlined at the top of the Requests for deletion page. Everyone has their own opinions about the merits of rfds, so letting everyone decide the outcome without following any process would just be a mess. As obvious as everything seems to you, others disagree. This is a wiki, and you can't always have your way. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to act accordingly- tantrums and insults rarely work with adults. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- If being taken seriously means people destroying my articles, no thank you. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- They're not your articles, they're Wiktionary's entries. By posting them you agree to the licence terms, which gives us permission to edit things however we wish. —CodeCat 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- How more narcissistic can you be? So they're not MY articles, but they are YOURS? Give me a break. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Read the licence terms, which you agreed to by submitting edits to Wiktionary. They're listed at the bottom of the page and also right above the "save" button whenever you make an edit. —CodeCat 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Never said they weren't. But it's VERY telling you said "us" excluding me. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Look, this is an awful way of conversing. Can we go into an IRC maybe? UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Never said they weren't. But it's VERY telling you said "us" excluding me. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Read the licence terms, which you agreed to by submitting edits to Wiktionary. They're listed at the bottom of the page and also right above the "save" button whenever you make an edit. —CodeCat 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- How more narcissistic can you be? So they're not MY articles, but they are YOURS? Give me a break. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- They're not your articles, they're Wiktionary's entries. By posting them you agree to the licence terms, which gives us permission to edit things however we wish. —CodeCat 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- If being taken seriously means people destroying my articles, no thank you. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, we have a process, as outlined at the top of the Requests for deletion page. Everyone has their own opinions about the merits of rfds, so letting everyone decide the outcome without following any process would just be a mess. As obvious as everything seems to you, others disagree. This is a wiki, and you can't always have your way. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to act accordingly- tantrums and insults rarely work with adults. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Who, then? God? UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not for you to decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The Beer Parlour
Please stop posting rants at the Beer Parlour. The Beer Parlour is for topics that concern everyone at Wiktionary. Your rants only concern editors of very particular languages. You should discuss these things at individual users' talk pages, or at the Tea Room if it concerns one particular word, or at the Information Desk if you are asking about how things work at Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 16:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care. These people are destroying things and putting false words on the site. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you care. You are disrupting the Beer Parlour. The Beer Parlour is not the place to complain about these things. If you cannot hold yourself back from posting things in the wrong place, then you will be blocked again. --WikiTiki89 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'll stop when people stop raping the Lepontic Lemmas. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you care. You are disrupting the Beer Parlour. The Beer Parlour is not the place to complain about these things. If you cannot hold yourself back from posting things in the wrong place, then you will be blocked again. --WikiTiki89 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'll ask you once again, please post your questions to the Wiktionary:Information desk. --WikiTiki89 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Desctree is a "smart" template that automatically takes descendants from one page and puts them on another. That way, the two are always kept synchronised and there's no duplication of information. It's still a bit wonky though, it doesn't work on entries with multiple descendants sections for example. That's why I've used it for links to Brythonic entries but not yet for Old Irish ones. We will probably want to do that in the future, once the problems in the templates are fixed. —CodeCat 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Right, thanks. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
hnefatafl
Hello. I was going to delete Template:table:hnefatafl... but I restored it. The table seems to be in the middle of being created from a table of chess pieces. Feel free to carry on. If you'd like, I can help you if you tell me what are the names of the pieces without me having to read that whole Wikipedia article. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't interfere if you don't know anything about it. There are only two pieces. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Was the game called "chess"? If not, it probably shouldn't say "chess". Did the pieces look exactly like the modern chess king and pawn? If not, you should use images of what the pieces actually looked like. To be honest, I don't think this template is particularly useful, you'd be better off just listing the terms in an ordinary "See also" section, and include images of real pieces of the game at the entries for the pieces themselves. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Was the game called "chess"? If not, it probably shouldn't say "chess". Did the pieces look exactly like the modern chess king and pawn? If not, you should use images of what the pieces actually looked like. To be honest, I don't think this template is particularly useful, you'd be better off just listing the terms in an ordinary "See also" section, and include images of real pieces of the game at the entries for the pieces themselves. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't leave entries with module errors. If you can't get a headword-line template like {{la-proper noun}} to work, just use {{head}} with the appropriate part of speech. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
"Replace them with the correct form".
I did. These are not of PIE origin. They're baby talk. —CodeCat 15:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Matasovic says otherwise. And I've yet to see baby declense "tatos" correctly anyway. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to WT:ES. —CodeCat 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you? You're the one who has the BOP. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits are disputed. That means a consensus is needed for them to stay. WT:ES is where you may find it (or may not). —CodeCat 15:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- You disputed them, you should defend YOUR opinion, I shouldn't have to defend mine. This is like being shot and then arrested for being shot. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- You were the one that added something that wasn't there before, so the burden of proof is on you. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- You disputed them, you should defend YOUR opinion, I shouldn't have to defend mine. This is like being shot and then arrested for being shot. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits are disputed. That means a consensus is needed for them to stay. WT:ES is where you may find it (or may not). —CodeCat 15:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you? You're the one who has the BOP. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can find minor variations of mama meaning mother in languages throughout the world, and not because of borrowing or inheritance: babies go through a well-documented sequence of sounds in their babbling as their ability to control their speech improves, with labial sounds appearing very early, and parents are the focus of their attention at that age. It's really a sort of onomatopoeia, and thus very problematic as far as etymology goes.
- Take it to WT:ES. —CodeCat 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes the relevant sounds are affected by sound changes, so you can tell whether the forms are inherited (as in English father from PIE vs. papa). In the case of m next to a vowel, though, there aren't any sound changes. While you can't prove that inheritance didn't occur, anyone's opinion (including Matasovic's) is about as valid as a coin-toss, so a statement one way or the other isn't useful information. I'm not as sure about "tata", which is from a later stage of babbling and much rarer, but the same principals apply. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Removing rfv, rfv-etymology, rfd, etc.
Once a matter has been taken to one of the forums for consideration, you are not allowed to remove the tag from the entry until the discussion has been closed. You may believe that your addition of information on Norse mythology at the etymology for go to hell settled the question, but that's not for you to decide. Feel free to defend your edits in the discussion at WT:Etymology scriptorium#go to hell, but be prepared for the possibility that people may not agree with you. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- So if I slap an rfd on thousands of pages, you'll be FORCED to debate every single one? UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, just forced to block you. Equinox ◑ 18:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- But not block other vandals. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- And block other vandals, which he does all the time. " an rfd on thousands of pages" would be a clear demonstration of bad faith and intent to disrupt things, worthy of blocking and mass reversion. Fortunately, that doesn't happen. I said "has been taken to one of the forums for consideration" for a reason: there's a difference between sticking a template in an entry and actually starting a discussion in a forum.
- I posted this myself because I had serious doubts about the methodology behind the etymology, and there has been extensive discussion on the matter, including the matter of Hel in Norse mythology. My point has been that, while it's plausible that pre-Christian Old-English speakers may have known of the goddess and even had positive beliefs about her, the etymology made several unsupportable assumptions in the assertion that the phrase "dates back to Old English, where it literally meant to go to Hēl, who was the Goddess of Hell (also called Hēl). It was not an insult".
- Since all but a few fragments of the OE corpus were written by Christians after the adoption of Christianity, there's surprisingly little direct evidence about the gods and goddesses in Old English beliefs- there's only one reference I know of that might refer to the goddess, and it's ambiguous. Hel as a goddess is well attested in Old Norse writings, so she might have been part of the Old English pantheon- or she might have been forgotten and only the place remembered. Who knows? At any rate, I've yet to see evidence of the phrase being in use "dating back to Old English", and all of the ancient uses I've seen so far are of variations on the modern, negative type.
- If you have any evidence at all relevant to its use in Old English and its meaning back then, or want to otherwise make your case, feel free to join the discussion. No consensus has been arrived at yet, and there have been points made on both sides of the issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. I do have evidence found in both Beowulf and on a Saxon stone and would be happy to provide them once I'm unblocked. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you have any evidence at all relevant to its use in Old English and its meaning back then, or want to otherwise make your case, feel free to join the discussion. No consensus has been arrived at yet, and there have been points made on both sides of the issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikitiki89, CodeCat is in the wrong here, not me. I was only undoing her edits, despite her having seen my evidence and completely disregarding it. It WAS discussed and ignored. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- It takes two to edit war. It doesn't matter who had the correct facts, you both behaved wrongly. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- What was I meant to do, let her keep on adding misinformation, despite her threats to have me banned? A discussion was had, where both JohnC5 (and also technically Anglom, since he added the pages in the first place) agreed, but that discussion was willfully ignored by CodeCat. I'm going to have to assume Template:bad intent, whatever she says. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I only saw JohnC5 asking for more information, I didn't see him agreeing or disagreeing with anything. But feel free to post some links to the discussions you are referring to. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- He said "never mind", which presumably means he realised that what I was saying was correct? I'm not sure. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan#Vandal UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I actually have no idea what he meant by "never mind", but if that's the only discussion you can refer to, then that happened after the edit war and is completely irrelevant with regard to your block. PS: I don't feel the need to respond here any further. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikitiki89: For reference, I wanted Uther to provide evidence from the attested reflexes for the reconstruction (Welsh, Breton, Welsh to PB), not from inter-protolanguage evidence (PC to PB). When no such evidence seemed forthcoming, I gave up. I do not have sufficient experience in the matter of PB to make this determination. —JohnC5 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- You'll have to ask Anglom. He made the words, I just created the pages. Also, you asked for that in a very roundabout manner. I didn't get your question at all. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikitiki89: For reference, I wanted Uther to provide evidence from the attested reflexes for the reconstruction (Welsh, Breton, Welsh to PB), not from inter-protolanguage evidence (PC to PB). When no such evidence seemed forthcoming, I gave up. I do not have sufficient experience in the matter of PB to make this determination. —JohnC5 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I actually have no idea what he meant by "never mind", but if that's the only discussion you can refer to, then that happened after the edit war and is completely irrelevant with regard to your block. PS: I don't feel the need to respond here any further. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- He said "never mind", which presumably means he realised that what I was saying was correct? I'm not sure. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan#Vandal UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I only saw JohnC5 asking for more information, I didn't see him agreeing or disagreeing with anything. But feel free to post some links to the discussions you are referring to. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- What was I meant to do, let her keep on adding misinformation, despite her threats to have me banned? A discussion was had, where both JohnC5 (and also technically Anglom, since he added the pages in the first place) agreed, but that discussion was willfully ignored by CodeCat. I'm going to have to assume Template:bad intent, whatever she says. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- It takes two to edit war. It doesn't matter who had the correct facts, you both behaved wrongly. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
*ni
If you add the other Breton words again, I will RFV them. Spare us the trouble. —CodeCat 22:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- They are literally attested, added by YOU yourself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Very well... —CodeCat 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are deleting attested forms. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's for RFV to decide, now. It's your move. Attest or see them deleted. —CodeCat 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Funny how it only works one way. You really are unpleasant, and too much of an egotist to ever admit you're wrong. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I care for the integrity of the dictionary and the reliability of the information presented in it. —CodeCat 23:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You refusing to admit that those numbers had barred i's is proof enough that that is a lie. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why would I have to admit that? There's no evidence to the contrary. —CodeCat 23:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Basic PC > PB sound changes, which I offered as proof several times. Stop lying. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- And here I hoped you'd stay civilised. Never mind my attempt then. —CodeCat 23:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Basic PC > PB sound changes, which I offered as proof several times. Stop lying. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why would I have to admit that? There's no evidence to the contrary. —CodeCat 23:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You refusing to admit that those numbers had barred i's is proof enough that that is a lie. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I care for the integrity of the dictionary and the reliability of the information presented in it. —CodeCat 23:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Funny how it only works one way. You really are unpleasant, and too much of an egotist to ever admit you're wrong. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's for RFV to decide, now. It's your move. Attest or see them deleted. —CodeCat 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are deleting attested forms. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Very well... —CodeCat 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is you, Uther, who are the unpleasant egotist. You call us crazy bastards who need new eyes to stop us RFDing random shit and raping the Leontic lemmas with our insane, ignorant holier-than-thou complexes — and then you have the gall to say that nobody else gets hounded like you do. If you are totally unable to collaborate with other human beings, then set up your own wiki and don't let anyone else join. Equinox ◑ 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You should learn how to actually operate an efficient wiki and not a fuckfest. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- CodeCat's confidence here isn't since they think they're right (they admitted they can't even find the forms), only since they know I'll be overruled despite being right. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
{{head|ang|proper noun|head=Grēcland}} should do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- And
{{m|ang|Grēcland}}links to ]. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)- Thanks. Is this entry correct then? Abeodan UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Can someone stop Victar?
@Angr, Anglom, CodeCat, JohnC5 He's started butchering entries by adding butchered Latin forms like *Urboɣen and quoting some unsourced paper written by some random person. It seems someone else pointed out he was wrong (I think? The whole discussion was bizarre) but he just responded with "-_-". UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're ignorance is complete if you can say Anna Morpurgo Davies is "some random person". --Victar (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- You just called at least seven and a half billion humans ignorant. Also, thanks for not denying what you're doing is essentially vandalism. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox Blocking me but not the vandal who called me ignorant? You insulted me yourself, going to ban yourself? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hypocrisy
@Equinox Blocking me but not the vandal who called me ignorant? You insulted me yourself, going to ban yourself? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Victar is just approaching the level of block-worthy conduct. You, on the other hand, have been practically living there for long periods of time. It's great that you're interested in reconstructed languages, and you certainly have considerable skill with them, but this is a wiki, not a personal vanity project. You constantly try to assert ownership, assume bad faith, adopt a battleground mentality, gratuitously insult people, edit-war, and generally behave like a spoiled child who's stayed up past bed-time.
- Also, your interest in the subject isn't matched by a corresponding attention to detail or commitment to accuracy- you're very sloppy, you jump to conclusions, and you refuse to listen to those who point out problems with your edits. You have far too high an opinion of yourself and very poor judgment when it comes to others: your comment "Apologies if I trust the linguist who has been doing this for two years rather than you, a vandal", is really ironic, given that you've been treating Angr like an ignorant newbie- and he's a linguist whose been "doing this" on Wiktionary for over a decade.
- You seem to think that someone with no background in a very complex and difficult subject can master it completely and flawlessly in a short period of time by reading through a few reference works, and that everyone else should take the assertions of such a person as fact without question.
- While you've added a lot to the reconstructions, the unnecessary work for others who have to clean up after you and the bad feelings from your unrelentingly negative and disruptive behavior are making it look more and more like your contributions are more trouble than they're worth. If you keep this up, at some point the community as a whole is going to come to that conclusion and you'll end up being blocked permanently. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a high opinion of myself at all, and I don't pretend to be a linguist. I've- several times, now- called myself a "translation monkey". I look at changes and apply them to the words. I'm always happy for my edits to be undone or superceded if it's justified. CodeCat was wrong on the barred i's and has refused to admit it. I've "edit warred" about three or four times. Three or four too many, but Victar has decided to make it his hobby.
And my additions aren't valuable, they usually are incomplete or superficial. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Renard Migrant had a similar experience to mine today ONCE and he just gave up. He's a valuable member who has been here for years. Imagine how I feel. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that calling us all scum (and other insults; see my comment above) stops you from playing the "I feel so bad!" card. I really meant it when I said you should set up your own wiki if you can't stand other people, more so if you think ours is a "fuckfest". Equinox ◑ 00:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's not YOUR wiki, it's a communal one. Says a lot that you used the possessive there. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- A factual observation: persistent repeated incivility like that which you have been producing recently will lead to further blocks. Note that I am not an admin. Admins have been very tolerant of your incivility so far, but the patience is probably gone. I hope that you can tone it all down and become a respected contributor. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's not YOUR wiki, it's a communal one. Says a lot that you used the possessive there. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you can become that too. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
UtherPendrogn (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
- It appears this block was fair. I've not been paying close attention to everything that UtherPendrogn does, but it seems Chuck Entz is correct in his assessment. For the record, User talk:Wikitiki89#She's started again. is one recent discussion in which UtherPendrogn insulted others and claimed to be fixing Reconstruction:Gaulish/Uercassiuellaunos but was in fact repeatedly breaking the entry by engaging in an edit war. This backs up the notion that UtherPendrogn should improve on their attention to detail and commitment to accuracy; the italicized terms were used by Chuck above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because she was and IS wrong. I am the one paying attention to detail and accuracy there, she is persistig in an error. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- As someone who has watched these debates over the past while, I cannot find only one situation in which CodeCat might have been wrong, though evidence was not provided on either side. Uther, on the other hand, has been demonstrably wrong about the Lepontic alphabet, Lepontic lemma forms, edit warring to preserve a module error, and the creation of unattested proto-forms or proto-forms that cannot be reconstructed back to a certain proto-stage. Also, in response to Dan's advice above, Uther again was rude for no reason. I really appreciate what Uther is trying to do, but this is a pattern whether (s)he will admit it or not. —JohnC5 19:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I provided EVIDENCE of barred i's only happening if the xt is preceded by an a (I've stated this three or four times and am now tired of doing so). Otherwise, it would become a normal i. It is CodeCat who refuses to listen to this, and there are several ordinal numbers which are just simply false right now. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Her being wrong once does not outweigh your pattern of errors. —JohnC5 20:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I provided EVIDENCE of barred i's only happening if the xt is preceded by an a (I've stated this three or four times and am now tired of doing so). Otherwise, it would become a normal i. It is CodeCat who refuses to listen to this, and there are several ordinal numbers which are just simply false right now. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- As someone who has watched these debates over the past while, I cannot find only one situation in which CodeCat might have been wrong, though evidence was not provided on either side. Uther, on the other hand, has been demonstrably wrong about the Lepontic alphabet, Lepontic lemma forms, edit warring to preserve a module error, and the creation of unattested proto-forms or proto-forms that cannot be reconstructed back to a certain proto-stage. Also, in response to Dan's advice above, Uther again was rude for no reason. I really appreciate what Uther is trying to do, but this is a pattern whether (s)he will admit it or not. —JohnC5 19:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because she was and IS wrong. I am the one paying attention to detail and accuracy there, she is persistig in an error. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- It appears this block was fair. I've not been paying close attention to everything that UtherPendrogn does, but it seems Chuck Entz is correct in his assessment. For the record, User talk:Wikitiki89#She's started again. is one recent discussion in which UtherPendrogn insulted others and claimed to be fixing Reconstruction:Gaulish/Uercassiuellaunos but was in fact repeatedly breaking the entry by engaging in an edit war. This backs up the notion that UtherPendrogn should improve on their attention to detail and commitment to accuracy; the italicized terms were used by Chuck above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course not, but it shows she's unwilling to accept being wrong. I was wrong about the Lepontic lemmas, though did not think reconstructing names that had Irish cognates would be an issue. I suppose those cognates magically sprung up on the isles and in Gaul by sheer luck, with the correct sound changes from Proto-Celtic. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Victar
@Anglom Victar mocked me, insulted me based on an article he hadn't even understood. I tried to protect the articles and got banned. Sorry. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
"I" page vandalised
@Chuck Entz, I've noticed the page for the pronou "I" has been vandalised with expletives.
"=====Synonyms=====
- (vulgar, slang) my ass, m'ass
- muggins, yours truly"
UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Block review
UtherPendrogn (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
- Hello, man. (your gender is "unspecified", but Uther is defined as a male name) Nobody here is a "little shit". Please remain civil. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- As a direct consequence of the language used in this unblock request, I have extended the length of Daniel's block and removed Uther's access to his talk page, as it seems to serve as a means of harassment now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I support both the block extension and the removal of access to their talk page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Uther has emailed me the following message: Hello Metaknowledge, I regret harassing Victar and continuing the harassment on my talk page despite my ban. I would like to appeal sincerely this time. The block already in place seems to me to be a reasonably short one considering this user's history of insults and aggressive interactions with other editors. The evidence of sincere regret for past actions will become apparent once Uther resumes editing, but for now I have decided not to shorten the block. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Uther now emails me thus: I would like to ask you to reconsider. While a month may seem short, it isn't for me, and I have some interesting words I would like to contribute to further our understand of Proto-Celtic. I have already explained my reasoning. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Appeal
UtherPendrogn (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
- For anyone following this case, a CheckUser investigation concluded that User:ÞunoresWrǣþþe, who engaged in personal attacks against multiple users, including racist elements, is likely the same editor. Given this sockpuppetry, under no conditions should this user ever be unblocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)