Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Chuck Entz


Please add new messages at the bottom.


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)


That IP

Hey Romanophile, congrats on passing your RfA here. I just wanted to let you know that I mass-reverted the contributions of the vandal here, but pages he created still exist. Not sure if you've found this yet, but Special:Nuke can very quickly clean those up.

Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Though, some of his contributions seem to be fine. I typically just mass rollback since it denies them the recognition of seeing their work stay, but if some contributions are good and you feel they're worth keeping, let me know. I'd be glad to go back through them and undo the appropriate reverts. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC) @lbd83.134.147.65 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

ileftNOTE@romanophile,TRACELESLYDISAPEARED<nogudbehavior4admin:(( 07:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Re ^Edit

Hi, I didn't ping you, but I responded to your message on my talk page. See w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger for some history. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow reply. You may be right that it's a different person, actually. That's interesting regarding the style of communication as well. If you think that they are editing in good faith, and they aren't being blocked on other projects, then I'll stop globally blocking the IPs and we'll see what happens. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


. SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:perpetuüm mobile ‎(Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)evnlesowithboiler template

furthr15:23 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:ad perpetuum ‎(Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox);alfsegat<idoNOTadthoz4fun,uno.. log); 15:17 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:chef's knife ‎(Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP)

(Deletion log); 15:16 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:tegoedhoudertje ‎(Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox) 15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

btw:ta4urefets,apreciated!Edit 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hen's teethEdit

You rolled back my edit of hen's teeth without explanation. My edit was perfectly valid, your rollback looks like vandalism.

David.Boettcher (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, your edit was in good faith, and I have no reason to believe the information was wrong. The problem is that a dictionary is about words and phrases, not about subjects. For our purposes, it's enough to know that the term came from the fact that hens have no teeth. Anything else is beside the point, and gets in the way of the reader who just wants to know what "hen's teeth" means. The fact that they use the grit in their crops for the same purpose as teeth is interesting, and sounds like something that would be good in an encyclopedia article- but not in a dictionary.
I'm sorry I didn't have time to leave you a note, because you deserved better. Unfortunately, we only have time to look at new edits when they're made, and any problem gets lost among our 5 million entries if we don't deal with it on the spot. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


If you continue to vandalize articles, like you are on Gerhard , your account will be disabled and your IP will be blocked. Do NOT do it again. This is your FINAL warning! 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds serious. - TheDaveRoss 17:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just another idiot anon, who can't be bothered to read the instructions, and then gets upset with editors editing.
@Chuck, thank you for your cleanup efforts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah Chuck, stop your perpetual vandalism. Equinox 18:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Your effort at self-discipline is commendable, and admonishing yourself does save me some typing, but I have my doubts as to whether you'll take your warning as seriously as you should (nobody listens around here, even to themselves). :-) Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)



21:14, 18 January 2017 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:bedied (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)@lingo bingo dingo213.49.48.43 01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


What is meant by "eating ulcer" in the seventh definition? ZFT (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See this explanation. It's probably rare or obsolete, nowadays (I've certainly never heard of it before), but the term does exist. At any rate, it has absolutely nothing to do with "annoying". If you see something that doesn't seem to make sense, you either remove it or ask someone about it (the Tea room is probably the best place to post such a question). Mangling it and leaving it for dead just makes the confusion worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


1.hedunspeakNL2.obvjesly,w/cieio-morgengav-lbd(nevncodcatwe=colaboratin(soDEL=UNelpfl,sai19:11 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:uitverkoop ‎(Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)@CIeio, Morgengave, Lingo Bingo Dingo62.235.174.135 19:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

nmor(theySERVPURPOSuno<komunicate~entryz:((20 January 2017 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:rui (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)

05:19, 20 January 2017 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:ziekteverwensing (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)<hadUX+q:ow2ad(asHEDWORDnoinit.. 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, what is happening here is that @SemperBlotto has deleted a couple of talk pages where this anon in question, who afaik writes in a highly abbreviated shorthand due to a nasty case of repetitive strain injury preventing them from easily writing words in their entirety, had been discussing some Belgian Dutch terms (one of them I participated in). Presumably the pages got deleted because at first glance these comments look like gibberish, though they can be parsed without too much difficulty if one can be arsed. From what I can tell this particular anon got blocked in the past, but their current contributions seem valuable and in good faith, so perhaps a more tolerant approach could work better. — Kleio (t · c) 22:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTusrfrendlyEdit<ilearntENmyslfDAHARDWAY,usin(shity)bux,n'nop,thisaint'elpfl2learnrs:((@metaknowledge, CIeio62.235.174.135 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What really isn't user-friendly is the way you write. I can't understand what you are talking about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

this=DEFlECTINthepoint;noned2RIDEONMYDISABILITY:(( 15:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

i'lelaboratbitsinsbroutup:USR<MAINpp,EDITRS=talkpp;idunabr.onMAINas,wel=DIC,spelinstandedetc(inded,USRfrendlinesdue!;talk=COLEAGEDITRShu genralyKNOW~myRSI(me1DEKADher),soREAZNBL(i=nomakinKRUKDargumnt+abovboard!)acomodatn=due(remembr:GERMANYblokdWMFonce(2dayz ibliv)4noadhern2locaLAW(blp-probs>THENalasudnSWEPINCHANGES(policyetc;now,PROGRESIVsocietyzvANTIDISCRIMINATRYLAWZ2(wichaply2WMF2,novirtualrealy;icantrigr thozregulatnzinUS(v.ard4me,a.cozicantrite/typmuch),iDOcanherinEurop,uno(esp.sinsi=bak.

ps:emotionalystunted<DEL,samaplyz(NOdunbyM.KN(wotisawfromit,gen:ps.ENTITY,MORthanjusOPsmh ivNObenblokdyet,iltakdadasPOS.SIGN(ivben@BP,genstmywilrealy,dramabox(wel,SUMdoso..:| 09:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:chloorkip (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the S<hedunc.aldaNLentryzitakpartin??icantakakount'genifdad'elps.. 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


dey=NOadminz,socantread. . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:bollekestrui ‎(Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty<nthenthisBOILRPLAT,gah!: please us@CIeio, Lingo Bingo Dingo

nactualywasment4ppl~SBhuno~SPORTSsai62.235.178.189 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Autopatroller" nominationEdit

Hi Chuck, thanks for your nomination at Wiktionary:Whitelist. Mihia (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's more for the patrollers' benefit than anything else: it saves us time wasted by looking at edits that we already know are going to be without problems. But you're welcome, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Please explain your removal of my edit to Cosmos. —This unsigned comment was added by Rp2006 (talkcontribs) at 15:48, 2017 January 26 (UTC).

  • I think you may have edited the wrong entry: the entry for the sense you added is at cosmos (lowercase). — Kleio (t · c) 17:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry... did not know Wiktionary was case sensitive! (Wikipedia is not.) Have to change the wiktionary links I just added for Cosmos to cosmos! Rp2006 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks... that will come in handy! Rp2006 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You deleted my edit then gave Zero reason for doing soEdit

Regarding the article for "belabour". I'm sure i am not the first one to feel degraded that you have such power to instantly place the burden of proof onto the other person. However just by luck it happens to be true... i am in fact just some idiot. You won & i hope you agree it's "case closed". Now, addressed toward anyone else who is wondering why i'm not diplomatically sounding like a team player: This particular note of mine was worded in an unusually high-voltage manner for good reasons that i will happily stand by North Alabama 000 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!Edit

A barnstar for you!

This barnstar is awarded to you for your excellent contributions to Wiktionary! Thank you very much!

</noinclude> Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


Root entriesEdit

Regarding my edit on Lua error in Module:ar-utilities at line 234: "ح‎‎", the third letter in the root "س م ح‎‎" should be a single letter.: do you think root entries should be excluded from the category (in this case, Category:Arabic terms belonging to the root س م ح)? Now that I think about it, it's sort of redundant since the root is already listed at the top. Module:ar-utilities can be modified to do that. — Eru·tuon 05:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, thank you for adding so many |nocat=1 parameters! I don't know how you're finding the entries that don't belong in the categories; it seems like wizardry to me. Or maybe there's a tool I don't know about? — Eru·tuon 05:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No wizardry- I just looked for non-Arabic scripts and non-entry namespaces. As for your question: every root entry should have a link to its category, whether in the entry itself, or at the bottom. In the entry is better for general users, but at the bottom is easier from the point of view of guaranteeing that all entries have them. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


I think that your rollback is an error. The etymology comes from the Collins English Dictionary. --Delarouvraie 🌿 14:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously. If there had been typos, I'm sure they would have been included, too. You need to learn how to do a Wiktionary etymology, and not just regurgitate bits of other (copyrighted) sources. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please, check the meaning of the word "welcome". Delarouvraie 🌿 08:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Delarouvraie: Please also understand that Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. The editor base here is much smaller, and we must quickly and efficiently patrol a large number of entries. This often means simply reverting problematic edits. Content copy-pasted from other copyrighted sites is not allowed here, so the quickest resolution is simply to revert any such addition. This isn't personal, it's procedural. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • May I also point out that the user's signature does not conform to WT:Signatures? —JohnC5 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5. My addition comes from a printed dictionary, the Collin's. If a give the complete ref (page, issue date, publisher), would it be possible to restaure it ? I also was looking for the template for langages. I'm a contributor to the French Wiktionary. We are not allowed to create theories (i.g. for etymologies). Is it the same here ? If yes, how is it possible to give any information, without inventing it and without copying it from a sourced book ? Delarouvraie 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we fix this?Edit

It's been a merry chase, but @CodeCat and I have probably been fending of this "Errors (Missing informations)" user for a while now. The user always has slightly different addresses like:
2a01:cb05:8231:a600:3550:718d:ec4c:6d46 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)
2A01:CB05:8231:A600:F1C4:A9A2:DD59:B3D1 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)
2A01:CB05:8231:A600:A173:1D1:7505:A269 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)
2A01:CB05:8231:A600:4413:A68A:EBA9:7403 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)
and so on. The user is devilishly close to being correct but does not listen to reason and causes great annoyance. Is there something we can do about this? —JohnC5 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

An abuse filter could block edits with that exact summary, but the user might well learn to use a different one. Equinox 13:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess my two questions are whether there is an easy way to monitor all contributions from 2a01:cb05:8231:a600:****:****:****:**** addresses or, if worst comes to worst, block all those address for a little bit just as a deterrent. —JohnC5 21:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a bunch of different IPs that like to use similar messages- "Added content", "Fixed typo", etc. Is there some menu somewhere that they get them from? It seems odd to me. DTLHS (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, those are fairly common and innocuous on Wikipedia. I do see a few good edits with those edit summaries on Wiktionary from time to time as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a sysop-only option in the Wiktionary:Per-browser preferences labeled "Adds a CIDR Range Contributions check to Special:User contributions" that lets you use wildcards in the search box there, so you can search on "2a01:cb05:8231:a600:*". It adds a line of text to the Special:Contributions page at the last minute, so you have to wait for the page to finish loading before you click anything, and it doesn't work on every browser (sometimes you can force it by clicking "User contributions" on the sidebar, but I haven't gotten it to work on Microsoft Edge).
As for blocking, I always use at least a 65-bit range block for IPv.6 addresses, because it's standard practice for ISPs to allocate everything within that range to a single user. In this case you would block "2a01:cb05:8231:a600:3550:718d:ec4c:6d46/65" (the last 4 16-bit numbers can be anything within the same range, such as "2a01:cb05:8231:a600:0:0:0:0"). Of course, this person has used a number of IPs in the past, as well as the Inkbolt account, so they obviously know how to get around such blocks. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was worried about that. It's just quite annoying always having to check these things. Thanks for the info. —JohnC5 22:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW (slightly off-topic) some vandals now use long strings of emoji (the ones that show up as coloured pictures). Should be relatively easy to detect as a likely vandalism sign. Equinox 19:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for recreating entriesEdit

I'm sincerely asking you to recreate entries about latinised Serbo-Croatian names, before I, BrunoMed will be unblock. The entries satisfied all criterias of inclusion and they are well documented:

Thank you! -- 15:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello! Yes, I think that the rollback is an error. "Recce" comes from OE "reccan". For further evidence see Bosworth's A Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon Language, p. 54r & 54v, it shows various compound words containing "recce", all derived from "reccan". I can't find any source corroborating the claim that it comes from a contraction of F "reconnaissance".-- 14:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC

Further evidence: G. Stephens' (Trans.): Two leaves of king Waldere's lay, a hitherto unknown Old-English epic, p. 82: "RECCE, 42, 3 s. pr. subj. of RECCAN, to reach, stretch, endure, last".-- 14:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You're ignoring a millennium of language change and a huge difference in meaning just because of a coincidental similarity in spelling. The usage quoted shows that recce is interchangeable in meaning with reconnaissance, the first syllable of the OE word sounded like modern English retch, and you haven't explained why there's no trace of usage for recce in the centuries since OE evolved into Middle English- unless you're suggesting that modern soldiers got it from Bosworth-Toller. I'm sorry, but that's just nuts. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no source claiming that it derives from "reconnaissance", while we have at least three sources which trace it back to "reccan". I'm not saying that the "reconnaissance" hypothesis should be utterly excluded, but that both possible etymologies should be pointed out.-- 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(Still me, 193.etc.) Here you have the conjugation of the verb RECCAN. It is RECCE in indicative first person singular and in subjunctive first, second and third person singular. Maybe its not relevant, but default Microsoft Office English Dictionary gives "to recce" as a general equivalent of "to explore".-- 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Definition of recce


Origin and Etymology of recce

by shortening & alteration

First Known Use: 1941

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That refers to the noun meaning "reconnaissance", not to the verb meaning "to explore". It is possible that there are two etymological lines, one "recce" deriving from "reconnaissance" and another "recce" deriving from "reccan".-- 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The OED also says recce comes from reconnaissance: "< rec- (in reconnaissance n.) + -y suffix6. Compare earlier recco n., recon n.1". — Eru·tuon 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict...) The noun → verb shift in usage patterns is so common in English that folks talk about "verbing a noun". This is another such instance.
As another data point, Cambridge lists the same derivation. The senses there more clearly overlap with the "explore" sense you mention.
Alternatively, Oxford's entry derives the noun sense from reconnaissance and the verb sense explicitly from reconnoitre.
In terms of historical development, just about any Germanic-based OE term with double-c pronounced as /k/ shifted in spelling to ⟨ck⟩. C.f. Old English þicce → modern English thick, Old English hnecca → modern English neck, Old English flocc → modern English flock, and even Old English reccan → modern (albeit rare) English reck (despite an indicated /t͡ʃ/ pronunciation of the ⟨cc⟩ spelling -- @Chuck, is that correct?). So this hypothesized Old English recce → modern English recce derivation is exceedingly unlikely just on the basis of the spelling, unless the modern language were borrowing it directly from OE sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


maybe fix that?

My only objection was to the unnecessary removal of content, not to any grammatical issues. Feel free to fix the grammar without removing content (unless the content is factually wrong, of course). Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

IP's problems with custom background and certain input fieldsEdit

Sven has left a message on my talk page that he can't view the content of edit summary fields and subject fields any more. He uses a custom black background. Any idea about where the problem might lie and on whom to contact? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Two quick favorsEdit

Hey, could you perhaps do me two quick favors? 1. Unblock Bennyben1998, Ostrich1985, and Chuck E. Cheese the Handsome. 2. Admit that Germanic and Celtic languages are more alike than Slavic languages. Thanks! :) (Cutie Kitty (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Cutie Kitty)


Hello Chuck,

I do think your rollback of my edit was in error. Why did you do it? -- Evan Rye (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My main objection was the lack of a headword-line template, but I also mistakenly thought that the adverb section was duplicating the entry at lik. I see now that entry had only an adjective section (which is very similar in meaning to the adverb- hence my confusion). Feel free to put back the adverb section, but with the proper template(s)/formatting. I'm not sure, but it might be better to have a separate etymology section for the adverb, since it seems to be derived from the adjective lik rather than coming from the same Old Norse adjective that gave rise to that adjective. I don't know that much about Norwegian, so I'll leave it to your judgment. I've left our welcome template on your talk page so you have links to the information you need. Sorry for the error. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. Your note about the etymology makes sense and I think everything's now been formatted correctly. -- Evan Rye (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for the useful info Chuck Entz! Tezamen (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Philoxenia revertEdit

Hi, I noticed your revert. It's because you feel that the word in Greek should be its own article, ("φιλοξενία") right? It's a very rare term in English, that's why I thought it should be merged in there. Discuss-Dubious (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read our Entry layout page and our Criteria for inclusion: our entries are strictly arranged by spelling in the correct scripts of all the languages. That means that Ancient Greek (which we treat as separate from [Modern] Greek), can never be on the same page as English. We have over 5 million entries, so combining terms like that would just make everything impossible to keep track of. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous response. I understand, and instead, have added a link between articles. Discuss-Dubious (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clement JonesEdit

Most pages shouldn't be moved, ever. Is there a way we could automatically restrict pagemoves to admins only for, at the very least, all basic English words? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Automatically, no. Abuse filters have access to the the names of pages being moved, but not the content. There's an abuse filter that stops a lot of content-removal vandalism (I won't go into detail for obvious reasons), so now the vandals are adding redirects and moving pages. Basically, it's not possible to completely prevent this kind of thing- the goal is to slow them down and drain the fun out of it as much as you can.
One thing we can do is just protect pages when we visit them for other reasons. I already make a point of protecting any page I delete that's inherently unsuitable for an entry. I did that for a while, but didn't keep it up for long. That way the vandals don't get the satisfaction of disrupting our routine, but we slowly, but surely remove the obvious targets.
Another possibility might be to temporarily grant admin privileges to a bot and have it go through and protect the basic vocabulary categories. I don't know enough about bots to be sure whether the software allows it, but it might be worth checking into. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, here it is: mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ Could do that for CAT:English basic words, and that would certainly be useful. Who wants to run this? @DTLHS? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It's possible to do, but I don't know about the utility. Just because we protect the first most common thousand words doesn't mean a vandal won't just move on to the 1001st. DTLHS (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Also there is this option. DTLHS (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Wait, can IPs move pages? I can't remember, but I feel like the pagemove vandalism comes from logged-in users. Would we restrict pagemoves to autopatrollers? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge:, I'm not a patroller, and I heavily rely on this feature, especially when I make page spelling mistakes — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 08:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, can I please become an autropatroller? (If you let me, you'll get a pleasant surprise!) — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 05:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The procedure is for one admin to nominate, and another to approve, so I'm not about to do anything on my own. As for nominating you: I'm not qualified to assess most of your edits, but the pattern seems to be lots of routine, good edits interspersed with a few appalling lapses in judgment. As much as I appreciate the good edits, I can't ignore the bad ones as far as autopatroller status goes. The whole point of making someone an autopatroller is saving patrollers the trouble of checking edits we already know are always going to be good. I don't know that in your case. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW check this out [1] What do you reckon? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As Chuck notes, autopatrol status is something that people earn over time, by establishing a consistent track record of constructive and non-problematic edits.
Also, I'm confused why it matters to you? Autopatrol status is a status, not a privilege or rank, and it only affects whether other editors see a marker on edit histories indicating that a given edit might need review. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert on deus ex machinaEdit

I made the edit to fix the list numbering, not sure why you reverted. Jc86035 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


You say liklik means small. I think it means electric. I study ants. The people of PNG call Wasmania auropunctata the "liklik anis." I believe this follows the common name for W. auropunctata used in much of the Pacific: the electric ant. I have a flyer about W. auropuncta from PNG entitled "Lukaut Long Liklik Anis Nogut!!" I can send a copy. In a quick scan I saw that the word for accordion in liklik box, which sort of fits. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I don't remember discussing this, especially since I don't speak any of the indigenous languages of Papua New Guinea. Perhaps you were thinking of User:Metaknowledge, who has taught himself a bit of Tok Pisin, which is what this seems to be. I suppose it's possible that liklik is derived from electric, but you would have to have some kind of evidence- we're a reference work, so guesses are a bad idea. Knowing Metaknowledge, I'm sure he got the information in the liklik entry from a reliable source.
As it is, I think referring to Wasmannia auropunctata as small would make perfect sense, since they are pretty tiny- they make Argentine ants look like mastodons by comparison (I believe that one of their common names is "little fire ant"). Occam's razor would suggest that we don't really need to look far afield for an answer when we already have a pretty decent one at hand.
By the way, if I remember correctly, the "electric ant" common name comes from the intensity of their stings, which supposedly feel like an electric shock, though it might also refer to the peculiar attraction to electrical wiring/equipment that some ants have (I think that applies more to the Rasberry crazy ant, but I haven't done much bug-related reading in a number of years). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this is bizarre. I don't think my entries have ever been questioned by a rogue entomologist before. Obviously, the entry is correct as is. And I'm actually going to get a chance to practise my Tok Pisin this summer, so I'm hoping I can brush up on it a bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert on SchaghticokeEdit

There should be a live link going to Rensselaer County, New York rather than to Rensselaer but for some reason the link failed.RichardBond (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that this is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, so we don't have an article on "Rensselaer County, New York" (nor do we want one). After a recent vote, Rensselaer County is technically allowed according to our Criteria for inclusion, but people are still debating about whether that's a good idea or not. At most, such an article would only deal with "Rensselaer County" as a term in the English language and not have any information about the place itself. You can link to Wikipedia's article by either directly wikilinking to it using the "w:" prefix, or you can use the {{w}} template with the name of the Wikipedia article as the first parameter. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass reverts and removals without proper discussionEdit

d1g (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to say that водолей is made by removing the suffix from лить. I disagree with that, it is made from the imperative of лить (лей). Also, I don't think that -∅ is meaningful, even if лей was made by removing the ending from лить. —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
1. I didn't. What suffix "лить" can have?
ть is a verbal inflection, not a morph, isn't?
2. 1079 describes alternate vowels (и-е, а-е, и-е, null-е)
example with лить — лей-ка, водо-лей-Ø is straight from the textbook
3. I'm still not sure whatever it is -о- in вод-о- or simple truncation водо- d1g (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't support the use of -∅ suffix. Even if it were to be used, it should be agreed on in a broader discussion. It affects not just Russian. Templates, categories should also be considered. The transliteration should be suppressed to avoid -∅ (-∅) (currently shown in brackets).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I missed that message.
@Atitarev we need a morphology section where multiple analyses (competing or historic) of the word could be presented.
Could you stat a discussion about it? I don't know other languages with such feature. d1g (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What should we do with -∅Edit

How should we express this phenomenon for those Russian entires? — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 01:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not for me to say. I only intervene in clear-cut, obvious cases or when a decision has been made in the proper places. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos we should discuss morphology section once somewhere else, see above, not at this talkpage. d1g (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

pound sandgo away?Edit


I see that you removed "pound sand" from the list found at Wikisaurus:go away. Why is that? One of the two senses is specifically labeled as a "dismissal". --Barytonesis (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend to stay on topic in any situationEdit

You're simply wasting your and everyone else time pointing general statements "you don't know everything; please be careful; you may or may not be wrong" instead of actual advices.

I had section about "my edits in etymologies" at my user page, but you decided to discuss professors and professional linguists here and to overstate a lot about "my edits".

I would absolutely okay if you say that my edits should be placed elsewhere and doesn't belong to etymology section.

If you need an example what conduct you (everyone) should follow, please take an example from WikiTiki89 (diff=42664328) d1g (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't have a section for showing all the morphemes of a word, and we don't need one because we don't do that. Also, you are starting dozens of discussions in various places, which is very annoying. Please try to keep this entire discussion in one place and not start new ones. --WikiTiki89 12:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Dominus entryEdit

Hello. I see that you undid my edits to the Latin Dominus entry. Not a big deal, but I'd just like to point out that my edits were not irrelevant.

1. In Christian usage, "Dominus" is not synonymous with "God the Father" (as the entry currently states). "Dominus" can refer to "God the Father", the first person of the blessed Trinity, but it can also be used in reference to the other two persons as well. More often it's used in reference to the second person, Christ. Strictly speaking, "Dominus" refers not to the person but to the nature. It is for this reason that a usage note must be given, explaining that while the three persons can each be referred to as "Dominus", that it is not a correct Christian usage to refer to them collectively as three "Domini" (this was explicitly condemned in the Athanasian Creed; no Christian writer ever used it in that way, and I'm not sure any writer at all ever used it that way).
2. Also in Christian usage, "Dominus" appears in the Vulgate in place of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (similar to the Jewish practice of vocalizing the Tetragrammaton as "Adonai", "my Lord"). This usage is distinct from the first sense though there's obviously some overlap.
3. In Christian usage, "Dominus" can also be used as an honorific title for God (Jesus in particular), e.g. "Veni, Domine Jesu" "Come, Lord Jesus." (Apocalypse 22:20). Again, similar to the other two senses, but distinct.
4. In translating from the Latin into English, "Dominus" (especially in the second sense) was often translated as "our Lord" in older (i.e. Medieval and Renaissance) Christian texts. This is a historical fact and I figured it was worth mentioning, though I don't think scholars these days would ever translate "Dominus" into English as "our Lord".

If you'd like to re-implement my original edits then go ahead, but I'm not going to try to make this into an edit war. 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sub parameterEdit

Before you start changing them all, I hope you realize that the new subst parameter works differently from the "old" sub parameter. Better to hold off on changing them until the discussion I just started at Module talk:usex is resolved. --WikiTiki89 12:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been clearing the module errors from someone else's earlier goof, so I thought I would take care of those while I was at it. I'll hold off. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue is resolved. --WikiTiki89 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Basic decencyEdit

Hey, Chuck, I picked you at random from the list of admins. In this, last post there, I'm being told to take my medication. That is, and I say that with all musterable restraint, uncalled for. I've been waiting for some admin to tell him to behave, but nobody seems to come by. Can you like tell him to show some propriety? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was way over the line, but it was a parting shot that didn't seem likely to be repeated. At the time, I felt like responding to it would have kept the dispute going. Better to let it die a natural death and sink into obscurity than to resurrect it (see Streisand effect). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I see your point and I have thought about the situation. First of all, it's not part of a dispute. There is no dispute. He never disputed anything, he wasn't provoked or involved in some argument. He's just seems to dislike the principle of RFV and take it as a personal offence, and his reaction to that is teenage insults. I disagree that you should get a free pass on inappropriate behaviour just because you do it at the end of a conversation. If that were the case, I might just the same change my signature to Well, that's done, you cunt. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Please explain your revert at mob#Verb ver. 42778089. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

wrong rollback: instanciatedEdit

I think you should not have rollbacked this. I've re-edited the entry. Cœur (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi Chuck, you reverted my edit on the Dutch "zeveraar". Any problem with it? Driveler is, in my view, the closest (actually perfect) translation, as both drivel and zever refer to saliva as well as to nonsense. By the way, the text citation is funny, but may not be the best illustration of the usage of the word. Cheers Riyadi (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of an English translation in the definition line is for the readers to understand what the word means, not to check off boxes in a semantic checklist. The sense of drivel referring to saliva is so archaic as to be pretty much obsolete for most speakers, who are only really familiar with the noun sense referring to nonsense. For them, your addition will just look like an odd way to say "speaks nonsense". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


See my changes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Not fully awake, but unable to leave those entries uncreated. I was planning to go over them later and fix things. Thanks for the help! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Move protect at Citations:blackEdit

Understandable why you did it, but out of curiosity, what incentive caused you to make such an action? Theoretically you could do this with hundreds of other well-established English citation pages, but in this case, there never seemed to be any problems with users moving that particular Citations:black page? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing special about that particular entry. If you look at my contributions, you'll notice I protected about 80 other pages at about the same time. There's no real downside to adding move protection for well-attested entries, except the time it takes. There's never going to be a reason to move any of them, and anything to drain some of the fun out of the game is worth the time. You can't stop them completely, but you can waste their time and make vandalism more of a chore. The nice part is that you only have to do it once, so a little bit here and a little bit there adds up over time. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

sense stubEdit

Just so you know, now I edited Module:utilities to allow {{sense stub}} to categorize pages that are in the Help namespace. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps I shouldn't. I'll revert that I guess. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


The ragù is of three types: "ragù di carne" (or simply "ragù") containing pieces of meat, "ragù di pesce" containing pieces of fish, and "ragù di vegetariano" containing vegetables pieces.
Ragù di pesce and ragù vegetariano are both related terms of ragù.

DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Hey. Why did you protect this page? --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Will anyone ever need to move it to a new spelling?. I figure the longer it takes for a page-move vandal to find an unprotected page, the less fun it is to be a page-move vandal. Having a bot do it would be a waste of resources: there's an abuse filter that prevents anything large-scale, so it's not a huge problem. I don't spend a lot of time on it, and I make a game out of so I don't get bored. I'll probably never protect everything, but I don't have to. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
A game, huh? We could make it into WT:FUN. I can't see much uptake by the community, though. Speaking of games, it'd be nice to have some games for non-regular-users to play on this website, to make the place more lively and fun. In fact, a few of the ideas in Category:Wiktionary fun stuff could probably be made into some interactive games for everyday guys. Personally, I know nothing about coding or whatever to get this started. I just like playing games. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
“Why not?” Are you freaking serious? —Born2bgratis (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
We're only talking about move protection. I think you'll agree that there's zero chance that any non-admin will ever need to change the spelling for this entry. I wouldn't do edit protection except to stop someone who's actively vandalizing the page, and even that would be short-term and as low-level as I could get away with. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi Chuck. Can you comment on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Category:Chordates? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


I've created this appendix to help understand what external databases can provide useful information for taxa. (I'd forgotten about some of the sources.) It is a bit of a stub now.

I think I'd like to convert it to a sortable table and put any detail in the documentation for each template. the sort fields would include range of coverage (Biota, Mammalia, Hydrozoa, etc), whether there were translations, English vernacular names, etymology, classifications, type data, useful reading, images, copyright info.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you had about how it might be improved, as well as any corrections, additions, etc. DCDuring (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacksEdit

I think you'd better stop these cheap personal attacks on me. If you have an issue, be a man and use my talk page or something. It's becoming tiring over the years. Like your, "This may have started out as an anti-CodeCat grudge reflex- a rather annoying ethical blind spot in someone who takes great pains to be ethically correct- but in general I don't like the idea of wrapping large blocks of text in templates when it's not absolutely necessary." What's that? I want to get rid of {{def}}, so I started a vote, and when that it did not help, I naturally started RFDO. What does that have to do with CodeCat other than that they created the template? Do you think that I run around, seeking out things that CodeCat does so that I may oppose them even though I actually like them? Guess what, I really do want {{def}} gone. Give me a break. And if you really insist on criticizing me on occassons that should really be about the substance at hand, here {{def}}, please do me a favor and name me as the person concerned rather than "someone".

I thought unfounded speculations about bad motives of other people were considered personal attacks, and were discouraged at Mediawiki projects. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversions in "left radicals"Edit

Any reasons why my water and heart left radical edits are undone? I'm already experienced in editing articles. Thanks, 23:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Because your formatting was all wrong, leading to module errors elsewhere on the pages, your etymology didn't make sense for a radical, and treating a radical as an alternative spelling of a regular character seemed to me like a really bad idea.
First of all, having a numbered etymology means that you have to nest everything within that etymology section by adding a single "=" on each side of the headers to make the headers one level lower- not two levels. It's also an exception to our usual rules about what level each header is, so we try to avoid using numbered etymology sections whenever possible- you should never have an "===Etymology 1===" header unless there are other etymology sections in the same language section. Never use an "===Etymology 1===" header unless there's also an "===Etymology 2===".
Secondly, radicals aren't words, they're elements of the writing system. Yes, they can affect the meaning and the pronunciation of the characters, but they aren't used by themselves as actual words- though there may be characters that are written the same, those aren't radicals and the radicals themselves aren't characters in the same way as something like .
Third, you got other things mixed up: I'm not sure what 立心偏 is (the name of the glyph?), but it's not the primary spelling of . One could make an argument for the character , though I would disagree for the reasons I gave above. In English, one would give the names of the letters in the word Asia as "capital a ess i a". That doesn't make a an alternative spelling of "capital a", nor does it make s an alternative spelling of "ess". Given that the radicals are a very basic, elementary part of Japanese, the fact that we don't have entries for any of the things you linked to should be a big red flag. The category "Pages with module errors" at the bottom of the page should have been another clue that something was very, very wrong.
I'm sure there are a number of other problems with your edits, but I don't have the time nor the knowledge of Japanese to explain them all. I have a degree in linguistics and I've made almost a hundred thousand edits, including creation of a couple of thousand entres in the 6 1/2 years I've been here at Wiktionary, and I don't feel comfortable editing Japanese entries except to correct obvious errors or vandalism. You need to learn more before you make these kinds of edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I was aware the module errors on the "Chinese" heading above the "Japanese" heading after the edit(s). Would be better if I edited the whole page so those errors can be clearly seen; thanks for the tip(s). The "alternative spelling" is the actual kun-reading in kanji, according to the Japanese dictionaries. Will be more careful regarding errors next time.

2602:306:8054:B620:310D:73C0:8315:3D0E 11:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter requestEdit

Could an edit filter be created to stop edits like Special:Contributions/計猥訂 and Special:Contributions/ It's a known puppeteer. —suzukaze (tc) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

They do look distinctive enough to avoid false positives, but I may not get to it for a day or two. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c I haven't forgotten about this, but I'm not great with regexes, especially in languages I don't know. Could you email me (so the vandal won't see it) a regex that will capture all and only this type of edit, when applied to the wikitext? Just the regex- I'll add the abuse-filter syntax. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
\[\[:w:ja:天皇制廃止論)\]\]\[\[:w:ja:天皇制廃止論\]\] should work (it's just the wikilink with special symbols escaped). —suzukaze (tc) 23:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


I reverted this change. I don't remember whether a name is sufficient reason to hide the change, not how to do it. DCDuring (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I just did it. Strictly speaking, you only have to hide it if it's libelous, but I like to keep any personally-identifying information out of our edit histories, just in case. I also like to hide what I call grafitti, but that's just me. As for how: you should have "change visibility" links all over the place. Just select the appropriate edit, click on "change visibility", and set it to hide the text of the edit (and the summary, if the bad content shows up in the edit summary, even as a section header). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to remember how to do it right next time, but my memory often lets me down. DCDuring (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback errorEdit Reverted edits by If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page. Um yes, this is my fault. I added a comment some edits back, but while I was typing the page had changed. So I copied+pasted my response to the changed page, but accidentically copied too much and duplicated the message from Pedrianaplant. had been very nice by removing that erroneous duplication. Already fixed it myself. (doesn't seem controversial to me) For reference, this is the edit where I accidentally duplicated that line: W3ird N3rd (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It would have been tidier if you had given me a chance to revert myself, but let's not add this to the list of 427 (note: not to be taken literally) subjects that you've talked to death, followed by talking their poor, battered corpses into thousands of smouldering fragments, and finally by talking about the fact that you've been talking about them, which will eventually lead to the universe collapsing under the sheer weight of verbiage into a singularity and blinking out (though perhaps I'm exaggerating a wee bit)... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I figured while typing I would save you a few clicks and put this message here anyway so you would still know this wasn't vandalism by

But thanks for clearing this up.

I'm sorry I snapped at you- I was tired and grumpy. For what it's worth, you've made a lot of good contributions, but it's hard to ignore the ill-considered quick responses, weighing in on subjects you don't know, explanations of explanations, and just general filler that have gone along with them.
You need to learn to do your thinking before you click "Publish changes". It may not seem like it, but there are a number of times this week when I clicked "Cancel" after working a on a message for a good while because I was too tired or didn't have enough time to do the subject justice, or because I did some checking while I was composing the message and discovered I had misunderstood something. You seem to be compelled to say something about everything, whether you truly have anything worthwhile to add.
Also, the large number of fiddly little corrections tells me you aren't previewing and proofreading your messages enough beforehand. I look for typos, check if my wikitext and links work, and just generally go over everything to make sure my message is saying what I want it to say before saving it. Being able to talk at length on any subject isn't all that impressive, it's being able to say just as much in only a few words and to get it right that's impressive. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Barely, if at all, an improvement.
I had a nice (short, just a few lines) reply written. But your advice is nothing new to me, so that's gone. Because it tried to explain things, with reasons. Which you don't like. So let's explain nothing and just say what I want to say:
You understand nothing. Nearly all of your assumptions are wrong. I blame myself - for thinking you were nice. That was by far the biggest mistake I've made here.
And despite that, I thank you. Thank you. For setting me free. W3ird N3rd (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't respond to this right away, because it's too easy to just add fuel to the fire. I don't know if you'll ever read this, but, for the record: I apologized for my epically tactless outburst above because I shouldn't have said any of it. What followed was not an attempt to excuse what came before it, but a sincere attempt to give you some advice. I do try to be nice, but my main priority is being honest
I may have erred in the diagnosis, but there was definitely something amiss in the way you were participating in the forums. There was a definite busy-ness about it, as if you were unable to leave anything unanswered or un-commented-on for even a minute. For instance, commenting on how you thought maybe an English-language show might have used an expression, but you weren't sure because you were only paying attention to the Dutch subtitles, added nothing to the discussion except verbiage. Then there were the innumerable corrections and explanations. Like many regulars here I read the forums by going through the diffs from the oldest to the newest. You single-handedly doubled the time spent to keep current.
In retrospect, it looks to me like you were far too emotionally invested in your role here. Regardless of my faults (I certainly have my share), if it requires an action by someone else to "set [you] free", something's seriously wrong. The fact that you were talking about something that people work on in their spare time, rather than love or marriage or some other major life choice, makes it all the more obvious. Even if I had been perfect in my responses, the mismatch between what you were putting in and what one could reasonably expect to get out of it would have led to trouble eventually. Good luck, and I hope you get things straightened out. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
"For instance, commenting on how you thought maybe an English-language show might have used an expression, but you weren't sure because you were only paying attention to the Dutch subtitles, added nothing to the discussion except verbiage."
I (still) think I've heard Alan say it and I had searched all the English subtitles for all episodes of all seasons, so you're just making stuff up. If Alan said it, the subtitles may have skipped over it or translated it to "Thank you". Being a show many people have seen, there was a fair chance that if he really did say it, someone else would remember in what episode or at least what context so I could track it down, which would result in a citation.
Putting your poor example aside, I won't say I have no personal flaws. Nobody made it clear (or has been too subtle about, or I overlooked it) I was commenting on too many things. I thought I was doing people here a favor by providing new angles but thanks to your outburst, I now know this was not the case. And this way, it also saves me the time of doing any more work on the dictionary. I just don't care anymore and there's no way to fix that. There's no need for any kind of apology because I'm not even mad. I'll be passively checking my watchlist for a few days to see how some ongoing cases develop, but after that you shouldn't expect any response. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
So he's becoming a little obsessed with Wiktionary and it's all getting to his head. I've been there too. Personally, I find W3ird N3rd's persistence to be kind of amusing, to say the least. This user is quite a character. When I first saw WN I thought it could be another Wonderfool sock or another troll. It became clear that, though WN might be blunt, sarcastic, very tied to their opinion, or obsessive, I definitely believe the user means well and is contributing meaningfully. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with all of the above, but I suspect they've left for good. I certainly didn't mean to drive them off, and I wish they could have learned to not burn themselves out for nothing and to take things in stride. Even so, it may have turned out better to have brought things to a head here and now rather than letting things slowly get worse and blow up in more painful and ugly ways later on. Not that I'm congratulating myself- an admin shouldn't say things like that. Ever. I was trying to keep my annoyance in check until I could figure out how to tactfully ask them to ease off a bit, but I just lost it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
They? Them? How many people am I? I've always found this an odd way of averting the he/she conundrum. I don't really care if you say he or she, those are just words. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. While I may appear to be tied to my opinion, I'm always open to hearing arguments why I should change it. People often get confused when as a result of that, I actually do change my opinion. As rare as love and compassion seem to be, at least there's no shortage of misunderstanding in the world we live in.
I found the link to your old user page very amusing. It's quite relatable. Except for the last line maybe, but perhaps that's just because I'm Dutch. It describes really what I meant. This site could have been an addiction, but for the forseeable future (if ever) it won't be. It's like having to smoke the entire pack when you get caught. With any luck, you'll never touch another cigarette in your life. All it has to take is one bad experience early on. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


I notice that the apostrophe is missing from the headword line. Is that a mistake? —CodeCat 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'll have to look it up when I get home re: the glottal stop, because this is a loanword, but there's no way the headword should be different from the entry name in that respect. Accent marking is the only real reason I used the head parameter- IIRC, everything else is the same. Thanks for spotting that! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Your revertEdit

Hi! I respectfully disagree with your revert of my recent edit to de minimis non curat lex. The reason for the edit was that each word in that phrase is a Latin word, not an English one. Although some of the words have English definitions, those have nothing to do with their meaning in the phrase. I thus changed the template to create links to the Latin forms, as they would be of significantly more help. For instance, in english lex means "To perform lexical analysis; to convert a character stream to a token stream as a preliminary to parsing", while in Latin lex means a law, which is the relevant sense in the phrase. I therefore request that you either change it back or give me permission to do so.

Thanks, Tamwin (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

{{la-phrase}} should only be used for Latin entries. Since this is an English entry, {{en-phrase}} should be used. —Rua (mew) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi there. I can't figure out the meaning of this word on the French Wiktionary. Any idea? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's some kind of sled, apparently from a trademark [2]. Equinox 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

fremsome and fremdlingEdit

Hi there. I don't understand your reverts. Perhaps I had put them in the wrong place? Anglish4699 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The GodleyEdit

revert why?

The term you're looking for is simply a capitalized version of godly. Any adjective can be used as a capitalized title, so I would question whether we need an entry for "Godly". That issue aside, the Puritans didn't call themselves Godley (with an "e"), but Godly (with no "e"), so your edit was simply a mistake. This was especially obvious since your quotes used the spelling without the "e". Please pay attention to what you're doing. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


I changed the definition link from "on the contrary" to "on the contrary". It would be helpful for you to explain why you object to this but not "inasmuch as" as seen in the second definition instead of rollbacking without an explanation. 93 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread your edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WTF, Chuck?Edit

Restore my page at once. This word has garnered international attention.

A single, random error isn't dictionary material, and we're not here to make fun of anyone, whether they deserve it or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

mut reversionEdit

yo wtf dude why did you revert all the edits on mut? Which one was problematic? There's gotta be a more precise way to do that. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you even have to ask that question speaks volumes: Just looking in the edit history at the diff for the edit I reverted should have told you all you needed to know. I don't understand how you could make such a massive change in multiple language sections without even previewing your edit. If you had, I think the module errors saying "Proto-Albanian is not an ancestor of Serbo-Croatian" would have been a dead giveaway that something was massively wrong, namely that you changed the language codes in the Albanian section from "sq" to "sh".
I don't revert your edits to be difficult or officious, but to get you to stop and look at what you're doing. Please be more careful. 21:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I just figured you would have changed that specific part about the Albanian entry instead of the whole edit. I need to stop editing while drinking lol. I guess I'm trying to get through this as fast as possible and rushing sometimes. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


(Moved from wrong talk page.) Hi! I noticed you removed a large portion of information on the entry. I realize that you do not trust the content, as you mentioned, and I thank you for your due diligence. However, you can ask about any points in the entry I created, or better yet you can research them and find that everything is accurate. If you are unable to verify the information, please let me know. Otherwise, please revert your edits. Thanks a bunch! Mtsuzuki (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I was the one who removed the content, which was inappropriate for a dictionary. Please see our Criteria for inclusion. We don't include references to individuals, and we're very restrictive about commercial entities. Please stop trying to use Wiktionary to promote your company. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Sorry for posting on the wrong page, and thanks for the link. I see that individuals are sometimes included under a Wiktionary entry, like Martin Luther here, Luther. Or Barack Obama, here, Obama. So what exactly qualifies a person to be added into a Wiktionary entry? There are actually a few people with the surname "Gieschen" that have made news quite often in the past and at present. And as for a company, I see that there must be attestation by either widespread use or by permanently recorded media. So what qualifies as widespread use? And does 3 independent instances spanning a year guarantee inclusion in the entry? Thanks in advance for any direction! Mtsuzuki (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Just following up. The Criteria for Inclusion definitely helps, but I've still got those questions above. Thanks! Mtsuzuki (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


Is it me or there's a shitload of vandalism today? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7DF5:AB5A:1984:61E 23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

solus rollbackEdit

I think special:diff/47588764 was in error. That was a real quote. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That was a real quote, but it was in English, with just the single Latin word. There's no point in giving a Latin usage example that's not an example of Latin usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

gaytarded childish?Edit

You rolled back my edit to gaytarded. I think that was an error.

The childish tag is used for language like choo-choo meaning "steam locomotive". It is not generally used for homophobic insults. Can you provide source for "gaytarded" being particularly used by young children? Zeimusu (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


Given the recent (hopefully temporary) demise of the ping, I had the realisation that you might not have seen this: Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-10/User:Chuck Entz for checkuser. Whether or not you have, you need to accept the nomination. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

model:rfv|da in det er ikke alt guld, som skinnerEdit

Hej Chuck, I re-inserted the rfv (and my synonym), but from what I hear and read the phrase/proverbe is well-used. Maybe sometimes not in inverted form, but anyway ;-), B Lemeukx (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The {{rfv}} template should only be removed by the person closing the discussion at WT:RFVN. Removing it won't keep the entry from being deleted- in fact, it might keep people from posting the quotes needed to save the entry. It could also put you under suspicion of trying to improperly obstruct the process. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Chuck Entz".