User talk:Djkcel/2020

Reconstruction:Latin/lausa

I would have thought you would have known by now, but {{bor}} should only be used at the start of an etymology, never further down the chain of descent (see {{borrowed/documentation}}). Also redirecting the word to a completely different entry is bad form. --{{victar|talk}} 02:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Clean up your mess at Old French losenge, because that Proto-Celtic form (Proto-Celtic *lausā (“stone”)) was borrowed from your very own words. How ironic that you come to yell at me for borrowing your own contributed knowledge. I acknowledge that it should have been {{der}} over {{bor}}, was looking at the Gaulish form while typing that. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Did you even look at the diff? What are you not understanding? --{{victar|talk}} 02:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

When you said "redirecting the word to a completely different entry is bad form" I'm assuming you meant *lausā >> *līwā, but that's what your edit on losenge did. I know {{der}} should have been used. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand the {{bor}} vs. {{der}} issue now, if you didn't before. I hear where your coming from on my edit 4 years ago, yet that was done because the entry was moved; regardless, that wasn't the best way to go on my part either. Please try and use some comprehension though, instead of blindly copying entries. --{{victar|talk}} 03:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tauro

This entry has been sent to RFD, and it has many fundamental problems. We cannot reconstruct PIE items based on so little evidence, which as the entry itself acknowledges, may not even be inherited, and the sources used in the entry are not up to scholarly standards. I see that you have been warned before about many aspects of your etymological editing, and yet continue to make entries like this. I have to ask you to stop creating reconstruction entries altogether. We do not have enough knowledgeable people to look over and check your contributions, and catch all the problematic ones. In general, please do not make edits to etymologies without referencing standard etymological works (please ask if you are unsure). This is your final warning. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: To be fair, I proposed this root over at the tea room about a week ago and nobody responded. I figured the lack of opposition meant that it was ok for me to go ahead and try my hand at the entry. Was that not the right place to ask? Perhaps the scriptorium would have been better?

If you're asking me not to create any more PIE reconstructions, you can be sure that I won't be because it's not worth this kind of backlash when a perfect term isn't created (by the way, that's the first PIE entry I've ever tried). However, I've recently created several Proto-Celtic entries 1 234 that seem to have been welcomed. I use Leiden and OED for most of my stuff. When in doubt, I'll ask. DJ K-Çel (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Absence of response doesn't mean approval (and yes, the ES would've been better). As for Proto-Celtic, I'm afraid I don't know anything about it, so I will ping some people who can tell you whether these are indeed up to standards. @Mahagaja, Victar, Mellohi! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Proto-Celtic entries look fine, not least because they all seem to have been taken directly from {{R:cel:EDPC}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Entries like *dawnā should not exist though, with only a single descendant, especially when their etymology is questionable. Such instances should be left to etymologies. --{{victar|talk}} 08:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Entry formating

I've seen you add entries in manners when they shouldn't be done, forcing me to fix them; some you haven't repeated, yet I liked to bring a few problems to this discussion. Recently you added Proto-Germanic *hartą as *harta-, which shouldn't be done; all entries are to be created in the nominative singular. Furthermore you added it as a feminine noun despite Kroonen saying it's a neuter noun; the "n." stands for netuer not for noun.

Also, don't add Gaulish nouns ending in "-us" as Gaulish; e.g. *brikkos unless there is evidence that the nouns was a u stem; most "Gaulish" -um, -us and -o nouns are in fact Gaulish noun borrowed into Latin and adapted to a Latin declension.

And don't forget to order the Celtic descendants as:

• Brythonic:
  • Breton:
  • Cornish:
  • Welsh:
• Irish:
• Gaulish:

𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I may have been following Leiden's headwords and formatting a little too closely. I'm now realizing that when Matasovic says "Briccus [PN]" he is actually referring to an attested Latin borrowing, not a Gaulish word. I'll refer to your guidelines for any future entries. DJ K-Çel (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On February 28, I warned you that some of the reconstruction entries you were creating were not up to our standards (the ones copied directly were okay, but you could not determine for yourself which ones were fine and which were not). On March 11, you created the reconstruction entry mentioned by Holodwig that blatantly failed to match our standards, which would take less than a minute to check, and contained a basic error. Pursuant to my warning above, if you make any such errors in reconstruction entries or etymologies from now on, you will be blocked. Your best course of action is not to create any reconstruction entries any more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

bor in Dutch etymologies from Old French

Hi, I recently noticed your update of the etymology of Dutch moeras; thanks for that. I do have a small request though. In that etymology and a few other ones you have used {{bor|nl|fro|}}. However, {{bor}} is used for direct borrowings, not those that have been mediated by other languages. Terms in Dutch that derived from Old French are practically always passed on through another language, be it through Middle Dutch, Middle French (and perhaps subsequently modern French) or a third language. So {{der}} is usually the one that should be used. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dubious sources (again)

These are your sources for this totally dreadful PIE etymology, a book from 1825 and some personal website? Really, Djkcel, has nothing set-in on using respectable sources? Can you please, pretty please, stop with the onomastic etymologies? They're dubious enough without junk sources. I've asked you to start using inline sources so we can know what suspect element comes from what suspect source, but you haven't taken to that advice either.

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole, but resolving RFEs shouldn't be some fill-in-the-blanks game at the detriment to the quality of the project. @Metaknowledge --{{victar|talk}} 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Out of respect for your request, I'll take a break from onomastic entries, or at least ones that require some digging. In return, can you at least please assume good faith and understand that I'm trying to help and not be a "detriment?" Hostility and excoriation does this place no favors, either. Just once I'd like to have a civil exchange with you so that it can at least be productive. It's never happened.

Regarding the etymology, I honestly thought it was fine (not feigning ignorance here). I paraphrased Antonio's etymology of Aeculanum (did you read it?), where he cited the listed source of Ribezzo, listed some possible cognates, and maintained a cautious tone that it was only possible. What was so wrong with that? I've read here that just because a source is old doesn't mean it should necessarily be discarded.

98% of my sourcing has been more precise recently as well. I try my very hardest to use the ones with templates only, but if they don't have one, I list a page number. But sometimes, like in Antonio's case, he doesn't give a page number to refer to, so I can only list the source itself.

Just curious @victar, what do you think some of my strengths as an editor are? I'm genuinely curious, so I can at least have something to build upon.

Also, in case Metaknowledge wants to weigh in with judgment - you asked me to stop creating reconstructions on March 12th and I've since honored that request. The issue in question is now placenames. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Djkcel, I lack patients with you because I try and get you on the right track with your edits, like using outdated sources (3 years ago), and then step away to find you at it again a month later. I can recognize some efforts being made, but when another user has to bring up how you're using {{bor}} wrong again after I just brought it up with you in January, it's very frustrating. Your etymology truthfully has some kernel of value to it and I cleaned it the best I could, but no one with any basic modern understanding of PIE would reconstruct *aikwo-. Again, I'm not trying to be callous, but since you asked, in my opinion, you're a jack of all trades, master of none. Just as an example, you could gather up etymological source martials on Greek and Latin and focus of Greek borrowings into Latin. Filling in RFE for every language is going to get you in trouble pretty much forever. --{{victar|talk}} 03:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Lingo's message above was regarding an edit from December 16th and your message came on January 14th. That's why I just thanked him for the edit and decided not to make any more out of it. But I see what you're saying and they were both unfortunate mind slips by me.

I appreciate your blunt honesty and candor all the same, and I'm going to think a little harder before choosing which pages to edit. DJ K-Çel (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 05:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

So what's your game plan? --{{victar|talk}} 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: Source edits and apparently not trust any information already on Wiktionary? I didn't add *hūzijō to Old Saxon huria, it was already there. And it wasn't in the desctree at *hūrijō yet. I was just listing cognates. If *hūrijō isn't related to *hūzijaną, why does the former link to the latter?

I haven't been making any reconstructions since I was asked not to, but there's still a lot of red lemmas. DJ K-Çel (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with piecing things together from sources you don't understand is that you end up repeating the mistakes and stupidity of others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you given any more thought to specializing in an area instead of working at random? --{{victar|talk}} 16:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And the random continues. --{{victar|talk}} 01:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Djkcel, Online Etymology Dictionary is definitively not a good primary source for PIE etymologies. --{{victar|talk}} 01:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Did, um, did this not land? OED is not a good source for reconstructions. Please stahp. --{{victar|talk}} 06:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, did not land, so I'll repeat. OED is not a good source for proto etymologies. Most of these general dictionaries are regurgitations of Pokorny. Follow the sources. --{{victar|talk}} 03:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you're back to onomastic etymologies. Fun. --{{victar|talk}} 05:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

क्रम

At क्रम (Sanskrit krama) you introduced an etymology claiming a derivation from PIE *gʰredʰ-. How do you propose to derive krama from *gʰredʰ-? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I've added the three sources for that etymology (I usually source, not sure why I forgot with that edit, sorry). The problem is that Rendich compares क्रम (krama) with Latin gradus, equating Sanskrit k with Latin g, r with r, a with a/e, and m with m/d, but he uses an outdated Pokorny root *kram (“to move”), whereas I instead used Vasmer's and de Vaan's more accepted root *gʰredʰ- (“to move, step”). Rendich also compares Latin gramen (“grass”) but I think that's from a slightly different root *gʰreh₁- (“to grow”). DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that etymology is embarrassingly impossible, and illustrative of why people should stick to languages they actually know, including authors who like to ramble on possible cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 03:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The Franco Rendich guy does not seem like a very reliable source. I have removed all etymologies citing him, as they all seemed rather crappy; some had been removed by others already. Speaking of which, Djkcel, please only work with reliable, academic, and preferably recent sources... — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Friesa etymology

Are you sure this was borrowed via Latin? (Why would it be?) Anyway, the Latin cannot be from Frisian, as it is attested from the beginning of the millennium - way before Frisian (and indeed even West Germanic) was distinct from Proto-Germanic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 06:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, was just going off of OED's entry, which says:

from Latin Frisii ‘Frisians’ (from Old Frisian Frīsa, Frēsa) + -ian.

Though I now realize this may be referring to Frisia in the modern sense... DJ K-Çel (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Frisia is a borrowing from Latin, although even that term can still not derive from Old Frisian. So I am mystified by the OED, perhaps the parenthetic text works differently here and is not supposed to suggest that the Latin derive from the Old Frisian. Either way, that doesn't work chronologically. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"I am scolded by admins on here way less frequently than I used to be"

hahahaha I know mate. Thanks for moth bean. Equinox ◑ 00:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Inline sources

Again, can you please try and use inline sources for your etymologies, like in this case? I have no way otherwise if knowing if the item you added to "Further reading" is to with the word itself, the etymology, or or neither. You've ignored the request many times now. Why is that? --{{victar|talk}} 22:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sup. Forgive my ignorance but I was never too familiar with what inline sources meant, and w:References doesn't seem to have any info. (maybe we can refer to Wikipedia: Inline Citation?)

Anyway, does that simply mean you attach a reference to an etymology/descendant using <ref> so that the ref appears as a superscript, on which you can click to bring you to that specific reference? I'm fine doing that. But, on *datlā, I did refer to the book, headword and page number. Were you just wanting to see it under "References" instead of "Further reading?"

While we're on the subject, in the past I've cited Kroonen, OED, Beekes etc under "References" only for someone to come along and change it to "Further reading." I think Rua may have done it a few times. Is there a consensus on when to use what? thanks in advance. DJ K-Çel (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As for "lease try and used inline sources for your etymologies", this is not Wiktionary standard; it is one of multiple practices. In case of any further doubt, we may start a Beer parlour discussion to see whether editors want to establish a recommendation in that direction.

My experience with the English Wiktionary is that there are too many editors asking people to follow non-existent standards, often standards that I find unreasonable. Luckily enough, we have a mature voting process that can sort out where consensus actually lies. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would be happy to make user signatures like those of the original poster illegal; alas, I am not a supreme legislator of the place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Djkcel: Correct, inline sourcing just means, as you say, using <ref>{{R:cel:EDPC}}<∕ref> after that actual information you're citing, which then is called up under References using  <references />. I only use Further reading is the content does not cite a reconnection or etymology, usually cognate lists. --{{victar|talk}} 15:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

{{PIE root}}

Only use this template for actual roots, not just any PIE term. —Rua (mew) 08:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Basic dictionaries

Djkcel, I can't stress this enough again, basic dictionaries like Online Etymology Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary are not good primary sources for etymologies, especially reconstructions. They're often based on some pretty outdated work. If it's a Proto-Germanic reconstruction, use a body of work that specializes in Proto-Germanic. --{{victar|talk}} 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks and bad reconstructions

Djkcel, edits like this demonstrate you are lacking in understanding of how PIE entries are formatted, but more alarmingly, in how PIE functions. How can **dhu̯ēk-, as you format it, derive from *dʰewh₂-? Proto-Germanic also seems out of your comprehension, as seen here, were you derive the adjective from the deadjectival verb (I'll let that sink in), which despite being under Derived terms, you still manage to misformat the link to. Then you go on to and create a bad redlink to PIE **swī-k-. A really important tenet of the project is that you never create redlinks to pages that should not exist. Have you ever seen a PIE entry formatted like **swī-k-? I've said this to you now probably over a dozen times: if you're unfamiliar with a language, stay away from it, especially reconstructions. You're going to get yourself banned. --{{victar|talk}} 16:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I can only assume Pokorny's u̯ is equivalent to our w. I've seen his roots converted similarly elsewhere on here. But for roots that shouldn't be lemmas, I can use double ||, such as

Proto-Indo-European *insert-root-here. DJ K-Çel (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If that's your only comment, clearly most of what I said went over your head. --{{victar|talk}} 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You asked me to inline source, I started inline sourcing. You asked me to use tr= for non-English translations, I started using tr= instead of ||. You asked me to stop using AHD and Online Etymological Dictionary, I stopped using them. You asked me to stop editing place names and I stopped doing them (well, at least the really obscure ones). You asked me to stop making reconstructions, I stopped creating them. Now you're asking me to use double || for PIE entries that shouldn't exist, which I acknowledged. Would you also like me to acknowledge the difference between a deadjectival verb and an adjective? The confusion arose from Kroonen and Pokorny using the verb for their entries, whereas Wiktionary tends to use the adjective as the lemma. Fine. I'll add it to the list of cardinal sins not to commit.

As for the question: How can *dhu̯ēk derive from *dʰewh₂? don't shoot the messenger bra DJ K-Çel (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point (to be fair, Victar didn't exactly make a clear point in his litany above). The point here is that you cannot simply be the messenger here. You have to make choices, from the banality of notation to the finer points of reconstruction, and you need to be able to assess etymological claims critically. If we were just simple messengers of all the reconstructions we found, our PIE would be an inconsistent, garbled mess. Instead, we try to match the latest scholarship as coherently and faithfully to evidence as possible.

PIE is very complicated, and that's why I try not to touch it — and even I know that Pokorny is outdated and not to be trusted. It's above my pay grade, and that's okay. I certainly find lots of other things to do around here that are more in my areas of expertise. I'm not saying that you can never edit PIE again, but if you want to, you should read some books on it first (we can offer suggested reading), so you actually know what you're doing. And if you don't want to have to read a bunch of books, then that's a good sign you should step away from making edits related to PIE. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Meta. Please excuse any disjointedness above, for this is me. Djkcel, your reply hit the nail straight on the head; you can't simply hide behind the excuse of "I'm just copying what's here". You need to be able to analytically parse what you're reading, otherwise you're just contributing to the problem, not the solution. --{{victar|talk}} 20:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Djkcel, you just went and created two invalid PIE links, **wi-tero- and *wi. Did you not understand the above? --{{victar|talk}} 05:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, copied that from sense 3 of wither but was a little too hasty on the trigger. I'll fix the root on that page too. DJ K-Çel (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, just copying stuff isn't good enough. I wish every link on Wiktionary were perfect enough to copy, but critical assessment is required. We can't keep warning you: you need to change your behaviour, or else you may be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your Proto-Iranian reconstruction redlink is not valid and neither is your reconstruction in the etymology of *sīnā. Can you please stop reconstructing proto languages you have no clue about? --{{victar|talk}} 20:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How about you take a look at the came from? I know you're going to spout a bunch of bullshit about not copying links from other pages, but you should at least know that it's not my reconstruction. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 20:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

    It. Does. Not. Matter. It's your signature on the edit and you're responsible for everything within. That fact that you think that's "a bunch of bullshit" is why your edits are unwelcome. --{{victar|talk}} 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

    What made you think that a noun with an "r" was the source of an adjective without any "r", when there's already a Persian descendant with an "r" (کمر‎) on the same PIE page? It doesn't matter where you got the parts if you use the wrong ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

    I added a more probable etymology here and cleaned up your etymology here. --{{victar|talk}} 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• So it looks like you're just going to continue doing whatever you want? @Metaknowledge, Chuck Entz --{{victar|talk}} 05:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I want you to try something. Instead of indiscriminately reverting and leaving belligerent messages saying nothing other than "I don't like anything that you ever do," please try writing what exactly was so wrong with, say, the edits to kjúklingr. It was reliably sourced. It used a root that the source specified (and was already in the RFE), and it listed a possible relation with Old English cocc. I put these things in the edit. What was so wrong with that? Just as you always accuse me of making "the same mistakes," I've been patiently asking you for years to Assume good faith; I'm just trying to help. Reversion sprees and general snark along the lines of "you suck" in edit summaries are not conducive to a collaborative environment. If you reasonably tell me what you don't like, I do listen. (The list of things you've asked me to do has grown over the years and to this day I'm still following most of it...I should write that list down). Also, patience and amicability with others makes them much more likely to work with you (I know I'm not the only one you talk down to, I've seen your interactions with others). I'm trying to work with you, but please work with me in return. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's just it, Djkcel. I do assume your edits are "in good faith", which means you think there's nothing wrong with your edits, and that's the whole problem. How about this, Djkcel: you try and list some things wrong your edits to kjúklingr and *kahhattjan. --{{victar|talk}} 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Uno reverse card. Well, let's see...

• For *kahhattjan, I see that you removed Leasnam's etymology for this root, which is what I had used. He usually writes great etymologies and that one looked fine to me, especially since Kroonen suggests that *kahwu could related to *kewan- (“to cry”). Maybe they're different, but the part about it being onomatopoeic certainly couldn't have been wrong. Fine, no more (blindly) copying from other pages. Primary sources only.

  @Leasnam definitely isn't infalible. That etymology on ceahhettan is also from 2012 and I think we've all improved since them, in both understanding and sourcing. But yes, "no more copying from other pages" is the key takeaway here. --{{victar|talk}} 22:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• For kjúklingr, I think it was probably the root. Etymologiebank's entry for kuiken, connects the Norse word to *kiuk-īna-, calling it a shortening of *keuk which is imitative. I now realize that *kiuk-īna- could be a West Germanic formation, but Etymonline also says that the Norse word is from *kiukinam (I swear! see the link). Also, both Etymologiebank and Etymonline cite a possible connection with Old English cocc (modern English cock) and call it imitative, which I also included. So my only deduction can be that you don't think *kiuk-īna- can become kjúklingr, and that the root should instead have been something like *kiuk, *keuk. By the way, feel free to DM me on Discord if you ever want to have quicker conversations, unless you're wanting these exchanges to remain public. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 20:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  We don't reconstruct PG as roots, so yes, the root. See my etymology on the page now. You also said in the kaag discussion you were going to null out reconstructions you didn't know how to lemmatize. --{{victar|talk}} 22:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Where'd you copy these etymologies from? Roots don't have accents, for one. --{{victar|talk}} 03:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the accent over the e (é) in the PIE root? Proto-Germanic *danjō was on German Tenne, and the PIE root is Pokorny. The PIE root is also found on Ancient Greek θέναρ (thénar), accented on there too. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't accent roots. Read WT:AINE. If you don't know how to reconstruct a language, don't. Period. --{{victar|talk}} 03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything above applies also to Proto-Semitic. --{{victar|talk}} 22:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your block

You were warned about onomastic entries (earlier on this page), and agreed to take a break from them. In general, there have been many discussions about how to identify trustworthy sources, assess those sources critically, and avoid introducing mistakes into Wiktionary. However, this edit indicates to me that you have taken none of this advice to heart. On a basic level, the problem is that the content you added is wrong, and marks a return to your pattern of adding dubious onomastic etymologies. (And as a minor aside, you cited a Latin verb in the infinitive form, rather than lemmatising it the way we do on Wiktionary (along with most dictionaries), which shows disregard for standard formatting practices.) More fundamentally, however, this shows me that you are still making no effort to distinguish trustworthy scholarly sources from random claims on the Internet. Your reference was to a blog post on Eupedia, which is simply ridiculous to consider as a source. And even if it had been from a scholarly source, you should still have questioned whether a major river far from the Roman heartland would have a purely Latin etymology, and wondered how the sequence /li/ could magically convert into /g/.

This has been going on for many years, and yet you are still resistant to learning or improving, even when the basic correctness of your additions, and thus the reliability of the dictionary as a whole, is on the line. I hope that you use the duration of this block to do some soul-searching about whether you actually want to be a help here, or a hindrance. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Obama Wikipedia DJ K-Çel (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This gave me a chuckle — looks like you already knew what my response would be. But no work is infallible, so the point about thinking critically is never going to go away, no matter which sources you avoid. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Djkcel/2020,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

kaag

Djkcel, your edits to Dutch kaag were pretty misguided. You don't seem to understand Germanic sound changes and didn't take the time to analyse the veracity the semantic changes. @Lingo Bingo Dingo pinged you on Discord to fix your etymology, but your new edits were nearly just as bad. Much like with PIE, you don't appear to grasp Proto-Germanic case endings, and therefore shouldn't be creating redlinks to their reconstructions. (Nor do you seem to know what a doublet is.) Again, not trying to be a jerk, but it's hard not to when it's so systemic.

I also want to bring your attention to this discussion, which, in the latter half, talks about using a new templates called {{dercat}}. Instead of me following you to delete the PG entry links in etymologies all the time, perhaps you can start using this template instead. Thanks.

--{{victar|talk}} 19:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for submitting your feedback to the R&D department! Your concerns have been processed an- OK enough of my dumb bullshit onto the etymologies.

kaag: let's be very fair here, my source said:

...ofri. kāch (nfri. keech, Noord-Fries kuuch); alle ‘buitendijks land’, < pgm. *kaugi-, *kauga-.

...oe. cǣg, cēg, ne. key) (which is from *keguz)

...keg(ge) ‘wig’, en zie verder → kegel. (which is from *kagilaz)

..Op grond van deze moeilijkheden, tezamen met de beperkte geografische spreiding, concludeert Boutkan (1998) dat het woord een ontlening moet zijn uit een Noordwest-Europese substraattaal. (screw it, it's a substrate!)

OK, so I think you're saying that: 1) Roots like *kaugi, kauga should be grey, not red (these roots don't have standard wkt. case endings); 2) instead of linking to the Proto-Germanic roots of the cognates listed, just mention the cognates? e.g. cǣg, kegel 3) yes I know what a doublet is (cloak and cloak, due and debt, etc), mind-slip sorry.

@Djkcel: Sounds reasonable. If you don't know how to add the case endings to PG terms, nulling them out as links, like *kaugi- and kauga-, would be better. Please remember to keep the trailing dash though. Adding possible cognate reconstructions is fine, it just could have been less messy. --{{victar|talk}} 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

etymology chains: yes, I did see that discussion and you and I are actually in agreement (that it should only go to the closest blue link, or blue link whose lemma actually exists). For new etymologies, that is what I do (e.g. here). But for etymologies who already go to gem-pro or beyond, I leave them there, just because I don't want to upset any others by undoing work they've already done. I want to point out to you that many times you've thought I was adding in gem-pro and beyond to etymology chains, when all I was doing was adding missing gmw-pro to the middle (such as your response to this edit, etc.), while the other stuff was already there. If I'm doing a new etymology I'll try messing around with your new template.

But yeah, I agree with you that the overly long chains make the etymologies look cluttered. A bit off-topic, but so do the absolute glob of cognates that seem to pervade many of the English etymologies. Like, look at thou or plat for god's sake. Blech. Thanks, see you around.

DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 23:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Djkcel: Cool. I would appreciate then if instead of this you do this. Yeah, if they have a direct common parent entry linked, I'll just delete any cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

frk in {{dercat}}

As I tagged in the edit comments, please don't include frk in {{dercat}} unless there is a reason to reconstruct a Frankish form, i.e. not on every Dutch entry, as you have been doing. --{{victar|talk}} 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

👍 Makes sense, will keep it in mind going forward. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)