Open main menu

Archives:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note
Please add new messages at the bottom.

Contents

WelcomeEdit

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

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

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

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)



unprovenEdit

Hi can you please clarify why you rolled my edit on unproven back? I think "not proved" is logically precise but not sufficient. It does not provide enough for a general reader seeking a definition of "unproven". I'd like to understand if I am missing something here to ensure I don't waste my time or yours with any future edits. Thank you.

I think you're reading something into the meaning that isn't really there. The original meaning of "prove" was "to test", and this form seems to have retained more of that meaning than the positive form has. For much of its usage you could substitute "untested" without changing the meaning. For instance, an unproven treatment is simply one that hasn't been shown to be effective. It may, in fact, be very effective, but no one has taken the steps necessary to prove it.
To put it another way: you're saying that something is unproven because there's no reason to believe it. I'm saying that there might be reasons, but as long as those reasons haven't been put to the test and passed, then it's unproven. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Interface editorEdit

Hey Chuck, can you hook me up with some interface editing rights? Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

CUEdit

Hi. Is א. א. אינסטלציה (talkcontribs) one of our old friends? Per utramque cavernam 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Not even the same continent, and nothing else matches, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't like much what I'm seeing, in any case; @Vahagn Petrosyan, what do you think of this and this? Per utramque cavernam 22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam, I can't evaluate. I can't read these scripts. --Vahag (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Every time I open the 'recent edits' page, I see you doing battle with the forces of gibberish, vandalism and chaos generally. Thank you so much for your work! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information nowEdit

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

  • There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure wikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency wikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

URGENT: Only 3 weeks left to sign the new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic informationEdit

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

  • There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure@wikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency@wikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

URGENT: 2 weeks left to sign the new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic informationEdit

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

  • There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure@wikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency@wikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)'

Changed images in archivesEdit

I appreciate your concern, but there are other aspects you need to think through. E.g. there is never a guarantee that an image in an archive wouldn't be changed – it could be changed in place (i.e. a different version re-uploaded), replaced with a redirect to another image, etc. There are basically many possibilities like this. So since there is no guarantee of permanence assigned to any included elements (images is only one of these types – other common type is templates), there is no reason to not actively substitute another suitable (and essentially identical for its purposes) image, esp. when there's a housekeeping being done on the images in the Commons. Cherkash (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're trying to orphan an image so it can be deleted or something like that, say so. Improving the quality of an image that was part of a discussion a decade ago isn't a valid reason to change an archive- and that was the most obvious interpretation of your edit summary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

vandalEdit

I don't know how to deal with these-- [1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's okay. We deal with that all the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

laneEdit

@Chuck Entz: What is the point of having German Low German Lane (lane), when just "Low German" is the norm, please? Kind Regards. Andrew (talk Andrew H. Gray 19:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Low German isn't the norm at Wiktionary. We have German Low German and Dutch Low Saxon as the default with plain Low German reserved for some odd cases where it isn't possible to pigeonhole usage into one or the other. Yes, there are a few editors who are vehemently opposed to this, but that's the decision that was reached, and that's how most of our "Low German" entries are organized. You can't just unilaterally change that by editing a single entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; I understand that now and am very sorry for wasting your time; the rules are the rules! Kind Regards. Shall copy your message on my talkpage as a warning. (talk Andrew H. Gray 08:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


Re: bagelEdit

You rolled back a change to a link to go to Etymology 3 of the word "bee" which is the one relevant to bagel's etymology, in which usage it means ring. I'm not sure why. Darthkenobi0 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Darthkenobi0 Because it's never a good idea to link to such things. This is a wiki- you have no control over what other editors will do with the other page. They could rearrange the etymologies, or add or remove one, after which Etymology 3 will no longer be the one relevant to your etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, I'm new on Wiktionary. Would something like an anchor tag perhaps be appropriate then? Darthkenobi0 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, {{senseid}} seems like it should work. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe I did it correctly but if anyone would like to double check it would be appreciated. {{SUBST:User:Darthkenobi0/Signature}} (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

errorsEdit

There are 874 of them. They will go away. There was a longstanding bug in Module:parameters that I fixed. Some Lua rules we need to propagate:

  1. NEVER DIRECTLY SIDE-EFFECT A TABLE PASSED INTO A FUNCTION. INSTEAD, CLONE IT FIRST.
  2. NEVER MODIFY A TABLE WHILE ITERATING OVER IT.

Benwing2 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This revert: Etymology of ca:fangEdit

Do you think the etymology is incorrect or do you see formal(ist) obstacles to adding it?—This unsigned comment was added by 95.115.1.78 (talk) at 08:40, 2 March 2019‎ (UTC).

You left all the parameters set for an Italian entry (language code "it") so that the templates added the entry to categories starting with "Italian terms derived from...".
When you do anything with templates, you should click "Show preview" and go to the bottom of the preview where it lists the templates and modules used. Open the ones you're working with in separate tabs and read their documentation to make sure you're putting the right values in the right parameters. Also check the categories at the bottom of the page. If you have something wrong, fix it and click "Show preview" again, then when it's right, you can click "Publish changes". That should help you catch embarrassing mistakes like that, and, as a side benefit, it reduces clutter in the revision history.
I always preview before saving, because I know from experience that there's a good chance that I'll overlook some detail and have to fix it anyway. Previewing makes me look like I know what I'm doing, even when I don't remember how to use a specific template- I put it in there, preview it, and then tinker around with it until I get it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
So you chose to vandalize valid information because you were too lazy to fix some formal mistakes that should be easy to fix? If you want this to be a wiki with participation of as much informed people as possible you should rethink your policy. 77.2.117.151 12:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It's easier to revert clearly mistaken content than it is to go through and vet that content and make sure it's valid. The only vandalism, if that, was the original mistaken edit -- ripping out mistakes is not vandalism. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
There was no mistaken content. The etymology was correct. By reverting the edit, User:Chuck Entz eradicated all the etymological information on that word. That looks like vandalism to me. You may think that the correct use of templates and categories is more important than the actual information on a word, and therfore prioritise it over a whole etymological section. I consider templates and the like helpful tools for obtaining some of that information and therefore merely ancillary. By the way, your colleague MGlovesfun called the same mistake made by Leasnam a minor thing: [2]. So it seems to me I´m not alone with that opinion. Have a nice day --95.118.6.90 09:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "blue"Edit

"Indonesian" (Bahasa Indonesia) is really a standardized variant of the Malay language as much as "Malaysian" (Bahasa Malaysia) is, thus putting the Indonesian entry as a "offshoot" under the Malay one is correct. Why was my edit reverted back?

Sincerely,

a native Malay speaker from Malaysia.

Anumengelamun (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Because that's not how Indonesian is handled here. In spite of its history and the similarity of the two languages, we treat them as separate. You certainly have good reasons to disagree, but it has been discussed more than once (the Beer parlour is the correct forum to discuss the matter) and it's been left the way it is- it isn't because no one was aware of what you're saying. Changing things unilaterally here and there just makes them inconsistent. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I really appreciate the comprehensive response (that, plus telling about the "Beer Parlour" thing - sounds like a pretty neat discussion spot), thank you!
Anumengelamun (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Redlinked taxonomic names in categoriesEdit

Because Special:WantedPages is crammed with unwanted and neglected pages it is no longer useful to me as a supplemental way of finding wanted taxonomic names. (There are more than 5,000 pages that are "wanted" 16 or more times, so a redlink with only 15 "wants" won't be displayed.) Over the last year or two(?) I had discovered that your welcome creation of wanted categories had led to redlinked taxonomic names on the category pages. Please let me know about any redlinked taxonomic names that you use on category pages, at least if there is a convenient way to do so. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The spelling in South KoreaEdit

"이" solely by itself has no specific meaning unless specified by its underlying hanja or derived from context. I deleted the words that are left blank. In the past, there were many words that start with ㄹ(L(or R)) and ㄴ(N). However, now, if you look it up in the Korean dictionary, there are very few words that start with L(or R) or N because it has all changed to ㅇ(ieung). This was done in the period of Japanese colonization of Korea in 1933. Bonus: Note that 李(Lee or Li) is pronounced differently in the world, especially in South Korea. 李 is Pronounced Li in China and Ri in North Korea, but in South Korea, it is pronounced Ee(or I). However, South Korean 李 use "Lee" as their officail English name. Why is this? This was done in order to match the sound with letters. Think of famous celebrity name, such as Saorise Ronan, which is pronounced Seer-Sha, but they did not changed the spelling of surname, because it's historical. Their ancestors have used it for hundres of years, so although their name is pronounced differently to how it's written, they preserved it. There are many other examples, like Amanda Seyfried, Carlie Hunnam, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Charlize Theron, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Chloë Sevigny, Ralph Fiennes, Martin Scorsese, Demi Moore, Famke Janssen, Gotye, Ioan Gruffudd, Joaquin Phoenix, Julianne Hough, Matthew McConaughey, Mia Wasikowska, Milla Jovovich, Phil Keoghan, Rachel Weisz, Sade, Shia Labeouf, Zach Galifianakis, Jung, Descartes, Nguyen and so on.. However, South Korean 李 decided not to preserve the original spelling of surname, which should have been "리(Li)", but decided to changed to Ee(이). This can be proved by the fact that 李 in China is spelled 'Li' and in North Korea it is 'Ri' and even South Korean 이(Ee or I) use 리(Lee) as their official English surname. The change of spelling was done in 1933, which was Japanese colonization period, and it not only affected the surnames, but the language system as whole. 李 pronunciation in South has started to change from Ni(니) to Ee(이) from early 19th century, so they changed the spelling of surname in 1933. Was this the right thing do? Probably not. This is was done in the Japanese colonization era, and Japanse tried to abolish the Korean surname system(창씨개명) and try to implement Japanese surname system instead. So although 李 can be pronounced as Ee(이), surname spelling of 李 should not have been changed Ee(이), as you can see from Saorise Ronan and Nguyen examples. It is not clear why orthography of 李 turned into "이" instead of "리". Sincerely, Park. —This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary- "should" is irrelevant. If a particular spelling has ever been used, we have to have coverage for it. You can label it as obsolete, proscribed, or whatever, but it's not enough to say "it was a mistake- we don't do that any more". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

South Korean orthorgraphy of "이" is a mixture of 리(L/R), 니(N) and 이(Ee or I) sounds. That is why there are many '이' sound words. Only applicable in South Korea. In North Korea and China, they are all separated into each sound. Also, I filled in the blanks. Sincerely, Park. —This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

@211.198.112.251: There is no need to overwhelm editors with long discussions. You have removed multiple hanja readings from (i), which are also synonymic/alternative forms to (ri) or (ni). You can't remove the readings from the South Korean form if they exist, are valid and are attestable. You can enhance by providing proper labels or use redirect to a more standard form. E.g. we have entries for both South Korean (, yong, “dragon”) and North Korean (, ryong, “dragon”).
Etymologically, the North Korean form is apparently closer to the original Middle Chinese (MC lɨoŋ) and it appears in both South and North when it's in the middle of a word (as a compound), e.g. 공룡 (恐龍, gongnyong, “dinosaur”) (even if "룡" [ɾjoŋ] is now pronounced "뇽" [-ɲjoŋ] in this position. However, we have to provide the real usage, regardless of our political views or history. Please see how our Korean entries are made. Korean has an entry for , which is linked to both (ri) and (i). @TAKASUGI Shinji. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Takasugi, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? Some of the parts of hanja(이) were intentionally left blank, so I just deleted them. However, I recovered it and filled in all the information. You can check the history. Sincerely, Park.—This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

@211.198.112.251: The last comment was not made by User:TAKASUGI Shinji but by me, I called him to get his attention, since he is also involved. You can't delete "blank" hanja (definitionless), if they are valid. You have mass-deleted them in this edit. I have signed my post and you can see who says what, if you pay attention. You have to sign yours too with ~~~~.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I recovered the deleted parts and filled out all the blanks.This part was intentionally left blank. Hopefully, it helps. Sincerely, Park.—This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

OK, thanks. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@211.198.112.251: I have corrected your edit to use the proper transliteration and capitalisation in diff. We are using the Revised Romanization, so it's "ri", not "Li" at the beginning of the word. The transliteration is automated in 95% of cases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The pronunciation of initial rieul had been already lost when the romanization was changed to reflect the real sound. As Chuck said above, it is not a focus of Wiktionary whether they should be 리, 니 or 이. You can only say that they were written 리 and pronounced 니 but are now written and pronounced 이. (By the way, if South Koreans want to restore the old orthography, they can just do it.) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

if notEdit

Why would you delete or revert my entry in if not? Osbri (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Because you were simply wrong: if not doesn't mean or. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking if not might mean "or maybe" or it might be a conjunction. What would you think if not is? Osbri (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

iskąą ánaagodzįįhłEdit

How was iskąą ánaagodzįįhł not usable? It's great for translations. I'm Chriicahua myself and thought it would be nice to include more Apache on wiktionary. see you tomorrow exists in English, why not in Apache? —This unsigned comment was added by 2600:1700:94A0:2720:C4D9:9941:8981:CB60 (talk).

See the Entry layout page. Your language header isn't the name of the language (see the list of languages). There's no headword template, and thus no categories. Everything's misspelled. I wouldn't know about the entry name or the definition, since I don't speak any of the languages in question. All of that is fixable, but I had to get your attention before you cranked too many more of these. If you make entries that don't take twice as long to fix as it takes to create them in the first place, I won't delete them. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Curious about certain anon editing patternsEdit

I'm back from my hiatus, albeit in a limited fashion. I'm picking up loose threads, and noticing a lot of page histories like for ペルー or 月読 where an anon that geolocates to Vietnam is engaging in similar editing patterns to Fumiko. I feel (perhaps unjustifiably?) that she might be not logging in as a way to obfuscate her edits.

Do you have any thoughts or advice on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

See also ハンバーグ, where we also get an IPv4 address. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't use the checkuser tool except to prevent/stop vandalism, violation of rules, and other things that harm the site. Simply not wanting to be recognized isn't, by itself, anything wrong. If it were being used in bad faith to get away with something that wouldn't be allowed, that would be different. As for my thoughts about whether it's the same person- I don't know enough about Fumiko's edits (aside from the temper tantrums, of course) to have the slightest clue. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's quite clearly the same person. —Suzukaze-c 02:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you edit my entry on "a la"Edit

Is it wrong that I added the Spanish part? We use that phrase in Spanish too. —This unsigned comment was added by Rolando 1208 (talkcontribs).

Adding a Spanish section is fine, but not removing a significant chunk of content from the English section without explanation. Feel free to add back your Spanish content (assuming there's nothing wrong with it- I haven't checked). If you disagree with part of the English entry, there are ways to challenge it- don't just delete it. Chuck Entz (talk)
Return to the user page of "Chuck Entz".