Last modified on 19 May 2014, at 17:51

User talk:Lysdexia

Return to "Lysdexia" page.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

μέθυEdit

May I ask what the point of this was? We don't have an entry for μεθυ. If you'd like to request the entry be created, there are other routes to do that. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See "What links here" for these terms. What are these routes? Lysdexia 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm not quite following you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The routes you spoke of.
Oh, duh. :) Sorry. Requested entries should go at Wiktionary:Requested articles:Ancient Greek. But don't worry about it for this one, I'm already working on it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see we both took a crack at it. :) However, there were a number of formatting problems. Why don't you take a look at some of the changes I've made and see if we can't get this figured out. First of all, I wonder if you might be muddling Greek and Ancient Greek together here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we don't do entries for romanizations of Greek. methu has been deleted and your changes to thu have been reverted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "we"? Other pages link to romanisations, and your deletion of methu broke its link from the amethyst- entries. Your edits are obstructive and disruptive; unless you can show me policy for your stark editing, don't wipe mine. Lysdexia 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What about? This doesn't explain your deletions.
Huh. I guess we don't have the "No romanizations policy" written down. Sorry for wasting your time. On Wiktionary, policy is a bit less formal then it is on Wikipedia. Not everything is written down. Rest assured that it is a policy, though. Within minutes of your edits I had two administrators asking me about those. Here is a link to the discussion where it was decided. I'll have to include that in AAG when I get some time. Also, if you can access IRC, it may be more efficient to have the discussion there. We're at #Wiktionary. Otherwise, I'll be keeping an eye on your talk page if you have anymore questions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent editsEdit

You may have noticed that a number of your edits have been reverted (some by me). I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but quite a bit of it is incorrect. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Otherwise, I advise a bit more caution with whatever sources you're currently using. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you prove they're (what bit?) incorrect first instead of revertere? Lysdexia 11:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. κρίνω (krínō) isn't related to English hear, which is from PIE skeu-. ὑποκρίνομαι (hupokrínomai) does not mean "I do carry under" (which is confusing on top of incorrect). Additionally, it does not mean replication, but rather reply. Finally, you've changed a number of verbs to archaic (or even Old English forms), which in no way helps our readers, but rather confuses them. I am going to revert again. I must insist that you leave them until you've convinced someone of their merits, or I will have to block you. I'm sorry to take such a strong-arm approach, but I cannot leave these entries in the state you've put them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, the -ing forms of verbs are called "present participle" by convention here. "Gerund" may also be an appropriate term, but changing to that would require a great deal of community conversation, and cannot simply be done haphazardly. In any case, they are certainly still verbs. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You didn't prove they were from skeu-, nor the other. Your assertions are not proof! reply was short for replication and must be in the same -io declension. Is such convention descriptive or prescriptive? Lysdexia 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

inflection templateEdit

If you would, can you get a bot to go over the declension tables so the cases are betterly ranked as vocative, nominative, accusative, dative/locative, ablative, genitive? instead of the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, vocative, locative. The former is by person—the ranks as they are are uncanny, unless they are supposed to fall by the word order in a clause? If so, then locative or vocative is always the first word, then ablative, and so on with nominative the last. Can you write me a statement with all declensions of verbum? Lysdexia 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the standard order as they appear in most English language textbooks, and we have chosen to follow that order. Nominative should definitely be first as it is the lemma form for nouns and adjectives. I am not sure what you mean by "Can you write me a statement with all declensions of verbum?"; it is only second declension.
Please do not use archaic English to translate entries. We wish to use modern English for translations, not English of the 19th-century and earlier. Also, please do not remove spaces as you've been doing. They are supposed to be there, and will be re-inserted by bot. You don't need to get into an edit war with the bots. --EncycloPetey 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the order was chosen, but it doesn't answer my proposal. Nominative (or first-person) may be first, but the vocative (or imperative) is the nouhth. Sorry, I mean class for your declension, and declension for your inflection—write the sýntagm for verb-.

What in the hell do you mean—where is the policy on what kinds of words one may not put in entries? And why are spaces supposed to be there? Lysdexia 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what "nouhth" or "sýntagm". mean either.
Please see Wiktionary:AGF#Advice to newcomers. If your primary purpose here is to push your edits on the community while ignoring the advice of the experienced, then you have violated policy. No further argument from policy will be offered. If you choose to wiki-lawyer rather than learn and contribute, then you should find another community elsewhere. whose purpose is arguing. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Information deskEdit

You'll find that we have a tendency to get rid of anything which isn't helping build a dictionary, like your comments at the Information desk. I suggest you leave it be. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion is vandalism. The section and other abdictionary comments are still there, and you didn't answer me in the section above. I find editors and admins on here and Wikipedia with special interests like to suppress information against them, and conspire at ease. Bring the warrant or policy, or I'll revert. Lysdexia 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand the situation. We are not the police. I do not need a warrant to revert your edits. My only special interest is building a dictionary, and, yes, if your edits don't conform to that interest, then I, and other admins, will conspire against you. If you persist in reverting the edits of more experienced editors, you will quickly find yourself blocked. Please desist. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, the whole section in question was off-topic. I removed it. —Internoob (DiscCont) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to follow this site's policies, of which there are each for mainspace, rooms, and blocking, and admins are the police here. Do you own or lord over Information Desk, or write for its pròtocol? You still cannot tell me what where allows you to revert over my entries outside the mainspace. Lysdexia 02:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither me nor Atelaes violated policy in removing that stuff. Here on Wiktionary, there are not as many formal policies as on Wikipedia. Practices are established by informal consensus. Users can take this kind of action if they feel that the comments made were too disruptive to the community. That's been the de facto policy for a very long time. —Internoob (DiscCont) 03:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

-iaEdit

Please do not delete topics of current discussion. --EncycloPetey 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion, and it belongs on -alis. Lysdexia 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked (again) for your disruptive edits. There is a discussion that has not been closed; I looked at it. You have again chosen to replace understandable translations with obsolete counterparts. Your edits are disruptive and your refusal to believe the information you have been given or abide by community norms leaves no alternative but blocking. --EncycloPetey 05:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-icaEdit

Hello again. It seems like whenever we meet, we're always bumping heads. I've reverted your edit to -ica. The masculine singular form is considered the lemma format here, and so is what should be referenced in that statement. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What in the hell do you mean? The plural of -icus is -ici; the plural of -icum is -ica; the plural of -ic is -ics. Lysdexia (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So it is. Clearly I didn't think that through properly. I have restored your edit. My apologies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

γεEdit

I'm having a little difficulty with "huh" as a definition for this word. Could you possibly use huh in a sentence in the way it's used as a definition for γε? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Usually huh as intensifier is broader and covers a string of words:
Huh—this sucks. means the same as Wow, does this suck.
huh as assent marker (don't know the term) in interrogative works the same as yes or right:
You knew that, huh?::You knew that, yes? Lysdexia (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess I've never heard the word used like that. I would interpret the "huh" in your first sentence to indicate recent realization, not general intensification, and would not consider it equal to the "wow" variant. Additionally, I'm not seeing such a definition at [[huh]]. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

λέχοςEdit

In English, the word "lair" does not mean the same thing as "couch" or "bed". --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In English, it does, but maybe not in Einglish. Lysdexia (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't follow the link the posted. I assume you mean that there is an obscure, archaic, or obsolete meaning of lair that is the same as "couch, bed", but if so, then it isn't a meaning most modern speakers of the language will be familiar with. I do not know what you mean by "Einglish". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Put in something for the library card. What is obscure? Einglish is what you speak, instead of English. Can't you tell the vowel is off? Lysdexia (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see that I might as well be talking to Humpty Dumpty. I won't bother posting comments to you in future; I'll just block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I'll contact another admin to block you for this when there was no provocation. Lysdexia (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Or you could stop wikilawyering and speaking in circles. I don't understand any more than EncycloPetey seems to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I gave my citation and he refused to check it. My block note above is "Disruptive edits: continuing to add obsolete translations against multiple warnings; see salveo, arguo". I gave no obsolete translations, and there is no policy against my edits whether specific or generic. EncycloPetey acts against me on his own and there was no consensus to block me. He chooses to block me rather than learn English, which he seems to shun or scorn. Lysdexia (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You are twisting the facts. Both and EncycloPetey and I are not able to view your citation. The relevant senses of hale and bewray are obsolete or archaic, and you did add them as translations on the aforementioned pages. Both he and I are native English speakers. He is not on his own; Chuck Entz (talkcontribs) and I agree with him AFAICT. No consensus is necessary, per local policy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
He was instructed how to read the link; you can do the same. What do you mean by obsolete?—it's some illicit jargon these admins made up (Then they break AGF.) to forfend these accurate entries which I owe to their sharing of a root both in spelling and meaning, and still there is no policy against these. They help the reader learn where a word comes from, what the same word is in cousins of English or in English. English has been dead for 1000 years, so ye are not. This Einglish you only understand is the sham. Where does Chuck agree? Lysdexia (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
And many dictionaries agree with me. Admins so ignorant and abusive of English don't belong on here. Lysdexia (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, we don't have OED accounts. Don't ask me to define words; just check the entry. We don't need a policy against them to revert. Chuck reverted one of your edits, I believe. But you can ask him yourself if you wish by emailing him. AGF, incidentally, is also not policy. I still don't comprehend your cryptic comments regarding 'Einglish'. Moreover, calling us "ignorant and abusive" is something of a personal attack. I'm going to try not to respond much more, if at all, to this thread. If I were you I would just wait for a week. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
One needs no OED accounts. Put anything in the library card field! Or look at other dictionaries. How about a policy to block? There's nothing on me. Which edit? The world speaks Einglish now, not English. This screen is full of nonEnglish words. Lysdexia (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

RevertedEdit

Why making it harder to understand? [1] JamesjiaoTC 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That was rude. It's not harder nor softer, but if it's touher for you, you could use the dictionary again. Trains do not travel (< travail < trepale); one travels on foot or by oar. Lysdexia (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We use standard English at Wiktionary. You seem not to have grasped that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's standard English. Lysdexia (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Trains travel. I suppose next you'll be saying it's impossible to breathe air because breathe is Germanic and air is Latin/Ancient Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the same sort of game you're playing that got you blocked before. Please contribute instead of proliferating obscure, archaic, or obsolete words where more commonly ones will do just as well. And please cease edit warring. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Mglovesfun, the statement "breathe air" is not incorrect. The origin and meaning are two matters. Whereas trains don't travel. Whether trains travel or not should not bear on my edit which is [more] accurate. Metaknowledge, the blocker admin had committed libel against me when he said I used obsolete terms. If he'd only go to the problematic term, he'd find a set of entries which are not obsolete. I undo entries when they are inaccurate, wrong. So nobody would care if I put "goes" instead of "fares" but not if I put the latter trip term as it's in English and not in perverted Latin. Lysdexia (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I have never blocked you; calling me "the blocker admin" is excessively rude. You seem unaware of what libel actually is, and your wikilawyering is only hurting your case. I spoke only the truth and have diffs to back to it up. If you continue to edit disruptively, however, even after being told to cease, I will block you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I never said you were the blocker admin! See, you can't even read: "Metaknowledge, the blocker admin had" not "Metaknowledge, the blocker admin, had". A block message goes under public indictment. He didn't follow the 3RR and wouldn't hear my case. He was easily disproven. Lysdexia (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I was going to make a perfectly reasonable argument but you'll just ignore it. So I'll level with you, stop being a dick and you won't get blocked, ok? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't ignore anything. What about AGF? and the policies admins ignore? Lysdexia (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
WT:AGF doesn't say to assume good faith blindly, just when it is reasonable to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't admit to any mistakes. The project is for accurate entries, not non-obscure ones. I follow etýma. Lysdexia (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia. Please stop wikilawyering. 3RR doesn't exist here, and AGF is for new editors, not ones like you with a track record going back years of questionable editing and blocks. You can use whatever language you want in your personal writings, but this is a dictionary, and we are trying to provide a resource for a wide range of English speakers. Accuracy and clarity are both necessary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet my edits were accurate and clear. I don't know what wikilawyering means and it doesn't exist on Wiktionary; how eironic. Lysdexia (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

gaslightEdit

No, "who" is not a singular pronoun in that sense: you can't say "The person's name is John and who is 8 years old." Also, singular "they" has existed for many centuries and been used by many famous writers. It's fine. Equinox 17:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course I can say it; you did. If you bother to look at the entry for who, in any dictionary, you see it is substantive besides relative. Whether writers pervert case (1 = 2) doesn't mean it's correct or fine. Lysdexia (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Linguists operate in a descriptive, not a prescriptive manner; language does change, and the change is driven by writers and speakers. To call it a "perversion" is absurd; see for example Fowler's Modern English Usage on this topic (which is a century old but still agrees with me, not you). 2. When you wrote "who", you must have meant "he/she". "Who" in the way you used it in your edit is not even remotely standard: it would sound wrong to anybody. Ask on WT:TR if you need confirmation from other editors. Equinox 18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A word that describes two things should be forgone for a word that describes one thing. It is also standard in some dialects to put the opposite of the intended word (bad for good; nice for well; stupid for fine) but that is still wrong. When users are infamiliar with a word's etýmon and disrespect other words, the language can only decay. It doesn't matter how things sound; the meaning is most important. Lysdexia (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Again: we are a descriptivist dictionary, like every modern dictionary. You will have to get used to it, or create your own personal dictionary elsewhere; but people do not actually speak and write your way, so it would be of little use. Equinox 11:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

TrollEdit

I think you are a troll, since you registered user name Lysdexia (a pun on dyslexia) to edit a dictionary. Your diff was reverted, and justly so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This was my IRC and WWW ekename until it became too common and I went with alysdexia. If you make all of your decisions on such superficial prejudice I recommend you not edit here. I do not troll ever; I am brutally frank and soothful and back up anything I do. Your slur breaches AGF. Why are you even here? Lysdexia (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you the owner of W:User:Lysdexia? That user was blocked over there for abusing one or more accounts. Here is an old version of talk page over there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The claim was that my edits there were also trolling, which is libel. I made/make corrections; the ignorant userbase who don't understand the details of English, Latin, etc. revert them; then I undid the reverts with explanations in the edit summary; then with their GIGO attitude didn't understand those summaries either and summarily undid those and got dirty admins to conspire agains me. The further explanations on my talk page were ignored. Lysdexia (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you the owner of W:User:Lysdexia? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The account is indefinitely blocked but not banned. The talk page has been locked not after abuse of the unblock template but after I made defenses after the template didn't convince them. Lysdexia (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology as a standardEdit

Re diff: Etymology is not a standard by which to judge spelling and word choice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about spelling? What I meant by "attested" was that a dictionary has senses for each of the words I edit in and they agree with the comparisons with other words; their origin is a guide that the relation holds. Lysdexia (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I find your second sentennce unintelligible; in any case, origin of words is not a guide to their semantics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And in that vein, viruses is a perfectly legit plural. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Where? The origin of words is a guide, the guide, the only guide to semantics; whoever coins a word gets to say what it means [and doesn't], not the malliterate/illiterate offspring of the generation that coins. viruses is the English plural of a Latin word where the Latin plural was virus. I rather use viria as a plural of virion/virium. Lysdexia (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of obscure terms in definitionsEdit

Regarding diff: Use of obscure terms in definitions shall be avoided. A definition is intended to state the meaning of an unfamiliar term in familiar terms, or as familiar as possible. Dictionary definitions are not the place through which to make obscure or obsolete words more used; that has to happen outside of a dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't say this; it says to list a set of terms that one can understand the entry by. Lysdexia (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

2 week blockEdit

I previously stated that if you continued on your current path it would result in a block, and this has now come to fruition. I have no interest in arguing with you about how etymology relates to semantics, nor what direction the English language should or not should be taking. You still have the option of becoming a productive editor, should you wish it. If not, your next block will be a month. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You would not answer me what problem you had with my edits. Your abuse and disruptive edits are in violation of NPOV: User_talk:Chuck_Entz#compensation. Chuck has admitted to his mistake on error which you blindly revert. If you do not do the same I'll contact other admins to suspend you. Lysdexia (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Transclude to Wiktionary:Vandalism in progressEdit

Atelaes (talkcontribsdeleted contribspage movesblock userblock logactive blocks) and EncycloPetey (talkcontribsdeleted contribspage movesblock userblock logactive blocks) are ultraconservative English-haters who revert glosses and bully and block the user, me, who adds them. Their NPOV violations are linked at User talk:Lysdexia#2 week block and thereabove. Help:FAQ is exactly the standards I follow where one section tells the editor to use OED and other dictionaries for verification. When I tried to post a OED link to prove my edit to the entry sense, EncycloPetey said he didn't get OED and couldn't read the link; therefore he wouldn't consider my edit and block, even if one can access OED.com for free if one enters anything in the library card field. Atelaes has picked on me the whole time where at last he's reverted a legitimate edit after I had a talk with another admin, Chuck Entz, and blocked me for two weeks after I had another talk with Chuck on another word where I stated my case where he and the other admins or editors all break the NPOV policy and that the policies agree with my edits and disagree with theirs; however, Chuck has not answered and I did not revert this word. These two editors bring a hostile work environment to this project and misrepresent its policies and my edits. Lysdexia (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)