Reverted changes

Hi, I just tried to correct some reconstructed data I found (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/so%C4%8Diti), I got a code error, and before I was able to find what the error was, you reverted my edit. Would you like to tell me why? I have referencess based on which I made the correction.

Also: what would be the Old Polish language code? The template was not able to process the one given here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_Polish_language

You mistyped it, it's zlw-opl and not zwl-opl. But I also reverted it for another reason, namely that people have in the past removed words just because they don't think they exist in their own language, when further examination shows that it actually does/did, just very rarely. I wanted to guard against that happening again.

The proper way to challenge the existence of terms is at WT:RFV. It's not usually used for entries that haven't been created yet, but it should be fine to use it to verify/challenge the existence of any term, whether there is already an entry or not. After all, a general rule is that if a term is shown to be invalid, it should have no links that point to that entry either, as such links can never be valid if the entry will never exist. So you can use that to challenge the validity of the link.

I have been reading the dictionary by Derksen cited as a source. I am also a native speaker (and a linguist) and I noticed that that particular dictionary has not been proof checked by someone eith better background in Polish. Thus, I checked both wsjp.pl, that is a dictionary by Polish Academia of Science (our highest authority in ant type of science and humanities), and haven't found it. Then I went to sjp.pwn, which is the biggest commercial ditionary, and none information was there, in Doroszewski's dictionary neither (that is a standard for modern Polish before 1990). Google search linked me to Old Polish dictionary https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/M._Arcta_S%C5%82ownik_Staropolski/Soczy%C4%87, where the word is still used. I wrote that in change description.

I guess I should just add paragraph below as a justification then? It's my first contribution, so I want to get it right.

Yes, what you wrote is good for WT:RFV. You don't have to provide a super strong justification, as RFV assumes terms don't exist until it is proven they do. If nobody else has proof, the link can go.

Thank you for your kind and swift asistance.

I noticed you added the {{RFV}} template to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sočiti. But you are not asking to verify the existence of *sočiti, but rather of soczyć. Since that page doesn't exist yet, you don't have to put the template anywhere, you can just start a discussion on the RFV page.