2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
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)Reply[reply]

Mass-protecting pagesEdit

Hello. I've seen that you've spent quite some time protecting a big batch of pages. I just wanted to tell you that I could in the future write a script for that (once I have the necessary rights) so that you don't need to do all that tedious work manually. The protection API is documented here: Just reach out to me! Fytcha (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It turned out it was worthwhile, because I moved one. BTW, sorry about that, I was a bit drunk last night. I was this close to going on a vandalism spree, but managed to control myself. Br00pVain (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question regarding the admin toolsEdit

I've noticed that some of the preset reasons overlap to some degree:

  • Page deletions have both "No usable content given" as well as "Vandalism" (say someone creates a page with "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa")
  • Revision deletions have both "Inappropriate personal information" as well as "Potentially libelous" (say someone writes something bad about "Chuck Entz")
  • Blocks have both "Adding nonsense/gibberish" as well as "Vandalism"

I take it it doesn't matter much which ones I use in these cases, right? Fytcha (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fytcha: The preset reasons can't possibly cover everything, so just try for the best fit. I personally don't like to block people for "Vandalism", because I believe interactions with vandals should be as boring as possible. Such people like to think of themselves as evil geniuses like a James Bond supervillain, or clever tricksters outsmarting the normals, like Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd. Calling them "vandals" gives them too much of an antihero mystique. Anything I can do to drain the fun and excitement out of vandalism is worth it in my book. I hide edits a lot more than anyone else, because I would prefer not to leave souvenirs in the edit histories for the vandals.
I'm not saying you should do things my way. Find what's right for you. We all have our own strengths and interests. The main thing is to keep a level head and be as calm and as even-handed as possible. Not only does it help to be fair to sincere contributors, it also frustrates those who push your buttons to make you react for the feeling of power it gives them. You also need to be philosophical about your limits: no matter how good you are, there's always a certain amount that gets by you. It's not at all unheard of for things that should have been reverted or deleted 18 years ago to turn up with nothing but bots in the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that's some good advice; I will keep it in mind, especially the part about making vandalism as boring as possible. Fytcha (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered usersEdit


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

About Botero surnameEdit

Hi Chuck. I noticed that I got blocked from editing botero in Wiktionary in English. I know I made a mistake when trying to edit this page a few days ago, as I was still new in Wikipedia.

Now, I have learned how to use the editing tools better. How can I get unblocked? I already edited some Wikipedia articles on surname Botero, which is of Italian origin, in English, Spanish and Italian languages (same spelling but different meaning in Spanish, which doesn't correspond to the actual surname). Could I add/ edit some information to Wiktionary regarding this surname too?

I appreciate your kind feedback and value your expertise.

Thank you very much. --Diego Botero P. (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Chuck. Can I just mass-nuke these tvö hundruð, iki yüz and similar ones? WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals says so but I'm a bit unsure, seeing that they've been here as entries for the better part of a decade (or even longer). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a DalekEdit

but I have to ask you to explain. I do indeed think that your roleback is in error, because I was effectively arguing your party line. If you think I expressed myself poorly, I would appreciate if you could summarize thebargument in fewerbwords without all the subjective tangents; I can not. ApisAzuli (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't summarize something that I can't understand. As far as I can see it was a string of isolated fragments bearing no relation to what was being discussed or to each other. You even seem to be having trouble hitting the space bar without hitting the letter keys next to it. Are you okay? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm Yahya (CentralAuth). I recently found a lot of pages that use the magic word PAGENAME or FULLPAGENAME directly. These should be substituted. Can you please grant the flood flag to my alternative account User:YahyaBot so that I can substitute all of those magic words without flooding RC? This account has bot flag on bpywiki. Regards, Yahya (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yahya: You really should discuss this at the Grease pit. These range from simple things like [pagename].ogg to improperly substituted declension templates. I'm afraid that mass substitution of everything will just cure the symptom and leave the disease untreated. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit removedEdit

Hi Chuck, I see you reverted my edit on quotations for Maskhole. I have to clearly state that this reversion is incorrect. But the problem arises that as the inventor of the term to show any prior reference is impossible. I had hoped that you would understand from the secondary pun explanation (btw, a pun is 'a play upon words' and not necessarily funny, although most puns are designed to be amusing) how I came to invent the term and its multiple intended meanings. --10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)~~

You don't understand. We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage. It doesn't matter who invented it, the question is: is it in use? Quotes should give an idea of how the term is being used. Except yours wasn't really a quote. It was more just you explaining how clever you were.
As for whether you indeed invented the term: I'm sure you did, but you may not be the only one, or even the first. I con't tell you how many times I've seen people post on entry talk pages to explain how they and their buddies came up with a given term back when they were in high school. At least half the time, it was easy to find usage on Google from years before that. In this case there's a very tight time window, so that may not be possible. Still, when you have hundreds of millions of speakers, the odds of multiple people independently coming up with the same word or phrase is actually fairly high. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I understand the basis for your argument, but since I sent it to several late show writers after inventing it, I know I was first. But here we see the difference between Wiktionary and a real dictionary, which usually attempts to determine the roots and origin of a word. The example you give of high school buddies is specious (see definition 2 in wiktionary). But I also know it is fruitless when an editor makes up their mind. have a nice day. 13:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)~ Zyzzy1 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't let the door hit ya! Equinox 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FWIW, a cursory look through the results at google books:"maskhole" finds instances earlier than 2020. Most of these appear to be of a sense like "hole in a mask", presumably for a stencil or similar application, but I did also find this BBC publication from 1993 mentioning the 1986 song "Catcheel Maskhole" by The Nose Flutes, where the meaning is likely related to asshole. Album info here, which (for me at least) also includes an embedded YouTube player with "Catcheel Maskhole" as one of the videos to play.
(Incidentally, most of the returned books don't appear to actually include the search term "maskhole". If anyone knows how to get Google to stop returning such non-hits, I'm all ears.)
A quick-and-dirty search of the wider internet for hits finds this submission to the Collins Dictionary from January 5, 2020, so it's clear that this word, even with this specific pandemic-related sense, was coined before February 2020. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I am not the same person as above.) There's no way that is from January 5. It's from May 1. Most people in the West did not even know about the novel coronavirus on January 5, 2020. Compare Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_January_2020#5_January. The very first confirmed case in the US was January 20, 2020. Masks certainly weren't widely used or recommended by the CDC until months later.
Also, if you look at other suggestion pages on the Collins site, the first number in the date format can go up to 30, which implies they're using DD/MM/YYYY. 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Thanks for the check! I really flipping hate non-ISO date formats, precisely because of the very ambiguity I stumbled upon here. Wherever I've encountered XX/YY/ZZZZ date formats recently, these usually have the XX as the day, and YY as the month. For smaller values of XX and YY, it's impossible to tell with any certainty which is which. I vastly prefer the ISO standard YYYY-MM-DD -- no ambiguity, and dates even collate correctly.
The timeline of the pandemic is interesting, but by no means conclusive with regard to the appearance of the relevant sense of maskhole -- there are English speakers in places that have been wearing masks for various reasons for quite some time, such as the various countries of East Asia, and it is not impossible that someone may have coined the term pre-COVID. Without confirmable textual evidence, we can't say -- same as for Zyzzy1 above.
At any rate, that still leaves us with the 1986 song title instance of uncertain meaning, and the older instances pertaining to holes in stencils and other masks. The previous existence of the term maskhole, the behavior of various people with regard to masks, and the obvious rhyming overlap with asshole, all combine to make the pandemic-related sense a near inevitability. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with the point about it being an inevitable development and likely independently invented multiple times. I just enjoying going down random tangents of research like this.
On that note, it's possible to find people on Twitter who used "maskhole" to refer to "an asshole in a mask" before 2020: [1]. Zooming forward, if you look at tweets prior to May 1, you can already see both pandemic-specific senses developing. I do think it would be really hard to find a quotation for anyone using "maskhole" to refer to a person who does not wear a mask prior to 2020, but I can't really prove a negative. Maybe in a surgical context or something. Other than that there was never really a social norm in favor of wearing masks in Anglophone countries, AFAIK. (It won't let me post Twitter links, so I used Nitter.) Btw, there's a Usenet use combining "mask" and "asshole" from 2001: [2] (but not really in either of the modern senses). 06:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for helpEdit

Hey, if you will, can you help me with this module?--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BandiniRaffaele2 I'm afraid I'm not able to help you. I've spent a lot of time over the years patrolling CAT:E, so I have a general feel for how things can go wrong, and I use my knowledge of basic troubleshooting techniques and general programming background to figure out where the problem is. Once I find it, though, I give the information I've found to someone who knows Lua, because I've never written anything in the language. I don't know enough about the details of how Lua does things to work with the code. I make a point of never editing modules unless the fix is so obvious I already know it will work, and then only when things are bad enough that anything is better than the current state.
In this case, there were 143 module errors, 19 of which I had been looking at the day before, so there more than 120 new ones. Spot-checking showed that they all had the same error in the same module, which had just been created, and the code to invoke it had just been added to the template. I looked at the module and could see that it still had @Benwing2's documentation for another module in the comments, so it was obvious that you hadn't gone through the code in any systematic way.
When the module errors from your module cleared, I discovered a new and unrelated error that no one had spotted because of all of your errors. That's why it's so important to fix these things right away. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To summarize, the problem is that BR2 copied the module for Italian pronunciation, and then removed several variable and function definitions. The interpreter therefore complains that the missing variables are not defined. You can't expect stuff to still work after removing large chunks, without removing references thereto.
IMO, starting from such a complicated foundation (1000+ lines!) may not be the best idea anyway. Then again, if Romagnol's orthography/pronunciation is similar to that of standard Italian, then I can see the appeal of code reuse. You have to familiarize yourself to some extent with the existing codebase if you do that, though. 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any way, thanks. Yes, I've chosen the it-pronunciation Module because Romagnol pronunciation is very close to Italian, despite some differences.--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:BandiniRaffaele2Edit

I think you didn't intend to delete everything else there, right? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right. I have a 4-day work schedule, so I tend to be a bit thick-headed on Fridays until I catch up on my sleep. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

diff needs to be hiddenEdit

This diff contains personal information that needs to be hidden from view. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again here: diff, some NSFW stuff. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/2603:7081:802:7F4B:A11D:81FD:D019:6306Svārtava (t/u) • 08:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kudos from TaxacomEdit

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail on Taxacom e-mail list:

"As such, I would never recommend this resource [Tropicos] to a zoological taxonomist who was interested in gender agreement.

"Honestly, a taxonomist needing guidance can do better looking things up in Wiktionary, which - despite a distinct small percentage of errors and omissions - is *generally* pretty reliable in giving exactly the sorts of details needed to adhere to the Code."

The author is Rafaël Govaerts. I don't know which Wiktionary(ies) he is talking about (English, French, German, etc), but it is encouraging that such an authority would recommend Wiktionary for any taxonomic purpose. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest putting " [] *generally* pretty reliable" [] as our new slogan. Probably the only positive review we've had since this guy from Nigeria. Br00pVain (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Br00pVain: "Nigeria"? Who knows? They're now blocked globally as an open proxy. That means anyone can take over the internet connection remotely and no one will be able to tell where the edits are really coming from. How do we know that it's not you doing your usual smoke and mirrors? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, Chuck, we admit it was Wonderfool. All the dumb comments on this site are from her. Br00pVain (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This user is back with their nonsensical and unsourced edits, promoting Punjabi as an etymon. They never do source their additions and when asked, provide unconvincing claims and assertions. Recently, it has been done at Special:History/ਪਿਓ and they've obviously violated the rule to not revert beyond 3 edits in an edit war, despite the RFV-etym discussion Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/December#पिउ (which they didn't even take part in despite being pinged, let alone providing sources). They have also done it a lot of times before also, starting all the way since their early edits. As you are a previously involved admin, I request a mainspace-wide block for the (numerous) offences committed (removing sourced etymologies, promoting Punjabi as etymon, edit warring, removing Old Punjabi valid sourced content, etc.) till now. Thanks. —Svārtava [tur] 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. Can you please check RecentChanges and block the vandal? Thanks. 02:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thank you for not mentioning their user name. This particular person likes to show off their alleged cleverness at making up offensive user names as well a their vandalism. I find it's better to remove all trace of their actions, edit summaries and user name so they have nothing to show for their efforts.
Then there's someone who creates a user name impersonating me or someone they believe is associated with me based on online research they've done. Then they revert one of my edits to get my attention and do some kind of low-grade vandalism using the impersonation account. They just did the revert, so I'm sure they'll do the rest in the next day or so.
They don't realize how that makes them look: like someone reduced to following someone else around and feeding off of their reactions like a leech. I wonder: if nobody noticed, would they shrivel up and die? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think vandalism-only accounts especially those impersonating should be hidden. There is one more account name which needs hiding IMO. —Svārtava [tur] 16:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. They showed up with the a trivial variation on the expected impersonation and did the expected vandalism, right on schedule. Not very creative. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are all these imposters (like the recent one) accounts of the same user? If so, wouldn't it be best to block their IP range by your check user tools so that they can not edit with any sockpuppet? —Svārtava (t/u) • 08:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for addition to Template:inflection ofEdit

Hi - I wanted to request the addition of the term "sigmatic" to Template:inflection of. This relates to two archaic senses found in Old Latin: the sigmatic future and sigmatic aorist. It's also in use in Ancient Greek, though that isn't my area. This would go under the "sound changes" category in the documentation, as it involves the addition of an "s" sound just before the ending (e.g. adempsit, faxo, turbassitur).

My suggestion would be to add the shortcuts sigm and sig. Many thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator User:Vininn126's rollbacks don't patrolEdit

Hello Chuck. As above, reverted diffs such as this one appear in my patrol queue, I also have the button to patrol it: Any idea why that is? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, someone's gotta keep me in line. Vininn126 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha: That's because he used the "undo" tool to revert it rather than "rollback". The latter marks the reverted edit as patrolled while the former does not. That's why. —Svārtava (t/u) • 01:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Svartava: Right. No idea how I missed that. Thanks! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 07:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Samuel as is šamu + el has the etymology outlined on Wikipedia proper with šamu meaning god as in heaven or the (upper) sky and el meaning high (the word el for god also meant high, similar to how sometime is your highness in English). 14:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The above user made the same edits on two pages as Sarawon, which I reverted following your previous reverts. If this is indeed sock-puppetry, a block might be warranted. —Svārtava (t/u) • 15:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No surprise there. Blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove edit on 也Edit

I do think there's an error when you removed the edit. Like I said in the summary, I looked at multiple sources that basically confirmed my changes. I actually wonder if there's not a confusion between Chinese and Japanese. Indeed, in Chinese, 也 can mean "also" and "too" (like it is shown in the article) but I saw no sources mentioning it in Japanese. If you have some sources that contradict it, could you please link them? 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not "sources". The proper thing to do would have been to tag the sense with {{rfv-sense|ja}} and post it on Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English so that others can look for evidence of usage. If there isn't usage that meets our Criteria for inclusion, it will be deleted. While you obviously are concerned about the accuracy of the dictionary and you certainly know the language far better than I do, you shouldn't be unilaterally removing content (other than obvious vandalism, of course) without consulting the community of people who work with the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic articlesEdit

Hi there Chuck Entz, I was just wondering if there was a possibility to mass add "Request for translation" on a mass load of articles so I can then go and add an Assyrian translation. I am trying to add as many Assyrian articles for as many words as possible and it would really help me.

Regards, Antonklroberts (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Antonklroberts I'm not sure I understand. Why do you need a request added? You can find all the entries with translation boxes by searching for "insource:Translations". There are 125,546 of them. Mass-adding requests would result in a request category with the same 125,546 entries.
At any rate, I don't have a bot, so I can't help you. You might ask at the WT:Grease pit, but I don't think anyone would want to use a bot for that. Perhaps you need some sort of a list, which someone could generate from the dumps. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, don’t know how to message u sorryEdit

Hey I’m actually Native American and Hispanic and study biotechnology and dna, some history as well and just wanted to add to it. Seemed like a lot of people didn’t know where the word came from or meant and the context of where it originated. I’m new here sorry if this isn’t the right way to message u Historical.Intellect (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Historical.Intellect: Except you're wrong. The usage by bigots is simply based on applying the n-word to anyone they don't like (pretty much everybody that's not them). There's no historical background to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse Filter 61Edit

Can you show me Abuse Filter 61: Prevent new entries for numerals>100. I want to apply it on thwikt too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Octahedron80 I started out with a crude version that does math on the titles of new pages in mainspace to see if they evaluate to a number > 100, but I never developed it beyond that. I left it so it only tags edits to see how it works on real edits, and forgot about it. Before making a real filter out of it I would need to think through how I would want it to respond to the user, and what policy page(s) to link to. Looking through the logs just now I noticed a case where the entry title is made up only of digits, but the POS and definition are not those for a number- something that should definitely be allowed. I changed the description of the filter so it won't give the impression that it actually does anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind.--Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollbacking rightsEdit

Hello. Could you make me a rollbacker? Since I edit using mobile, reverting edits is sort of a nightmare for me: I need to switch to desktop mode to be able to compare selected revisions. Sometimes I even bungle at the job. As a rollbacker, I guess I have to report every single vandalistic edit at WT:VIP? If that’s required of me, then I’ll do so. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support, satisfied with the reverts; but I don't want to go through all of them, so consider getting back your autopatroller right -- just get over the fact that a vote of mine which you opposed passed. —Svārtava (t/u) • 05:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that’s the case, then I   cancel my self-nomination in the interest of patrollers’ wellbeing. Editors being able to edit locked pages should belong to a separate group: I’m not against that proposal itself, but bestowing that privilege on autopatrollers (which is a different group) is wrongheaded. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mean to discourage you, but the list of rollbackers says that all rollbackers are autopatrollers. I have really no idea how it bothers you so badly that you don't want it back (most autopatrollers just don't even care about this, not they need to). —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userpage abuse filterEdit

Currently if a new user or anon creates their userpage, the edit is tagged as "new-user-page" but I'm seriously thinking it should be made a bit more strict (e.g. allowing only autoconfirmed users to create them, disallow such creations otherwise of the creator is not autoconfirmed) so as to reduce creations of meaningless/trash pages; and becoming autoconfirmed is no big deal anyway, so this would no way stop real contributors from having their page. As someone who has done plenty of work with abuse filters, what do you think? —Svārtava (t/u) • 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A resignationEdit

Please revoke my administrator privileges. —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 22:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While you're at it, you can revoke my privileges too. Notusbutthem (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Romanophile:   Done. Sorry to see you go, but we're all volunteers here. I left you the way you were before you became an admin, as an autopatroller and a rollbacker. You may not plan to use the rollbacker tool, but it doesn't hurt to leave you with it on the off chance you might stumble across the odd bit of vandalism. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation. It’s still far below the compensation that I need for the damage that this community has caused me over the years—memories that trigger rumination and mood swings almost daily—but we all know that I’ll never get what I want if I ask for more.

As for my future participation… perhaps you can predict my involvement by analysing my activity this year. —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 11:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Chuck, pursuant to the email discussion thread, I've noticed Fumiko continuing to edit prolifically, even modules, as with this edit (since reverted).

I think I just changed the permissions at Module:ja-pron to prevent Fumiko from editing this anonymously.

I'd appreciate it greatly if you could implement some way of at least preventing them from mucking about with the template and module infrastructure, as a whole.

(Pinging @Fish bowl for visibility.)

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:etyl cleanup/en/LANGEdit

Would it be possible to have an exhaustive list for all languages instead of a selected few? And I see that creating Category:etyl cleanup/en/de, for instance, doesn’t bring forth the required list of entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Inqilābī: the language-specific categories are controlled by lists hard-coded into the {{etyl}} template itself, which I'd rather not mess with. You can, however, get the same list by using insource:"etyl\|de\|en\|" in the search box. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the searching tip, it will suffice for the time being— but I still prefer to get all language-specific categories. So do you know anyone who could attempt to achieve that? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I, too, used to believe that male cattle exist. But unlike you, I eventually realized it isn’t true. It turns out these things are nothing more than cartoon tropes done out of ignorance. The truth is, the chances of a male cow being born are the same as the chances of a male calico cat being born. Every time you refer to a cow as ‘he’, the only reason it isn’t saying “Excuse me, I’m a ‘she’” is because it doesn’t have the vocal chords required to do so. Male cows don’t exist in the same way male calico cats don’t exist — they are a biological impossibility. The “AnimalGenderBender” page on TV Tropes even mentions that male cows are unrealistic: “ You might not know it from the way they're portrayed in fiction, but farm cows and bulls are the same species, just different sexes. How about only female mosquitoes drinking blood? Or that female lions lack manes? Or only male cardinals are red? Or that it's male peafowl, not females, which are vividly colored and have trains? Animal Gender Bender is when all members of an animal species are shown to have a well-known attribute of that species, but in Real Life, only the male or female normally has it. So you end up with male cows, male blood-drinking mosquitoes, female lions with manes, red female cardinals, and female peacocks, as well as male goats with udders, male bees with stingers, female moose with antlers, spotless female snowy owls, female roosters, male kangaroos with pouches, female rams, colorful female betta fish with long fins, and so on. Prehistoric and extinct animals aren't immune either; many times you'll see a "female" Pteranodon with a long crest. Barring the theory that perhaps these characters are meant to be transgender, intersex, or otherwise an anomaly of some sort, it's best to assume that this is pure artistic license.”

I guess you and I both watched too much Back at the Barnyard growing up, huh? -- 01:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem a little confused about terminology: "cattle" is used refer to both males and females, bulls and cows. At any rate, there's a difference between the word "cow" and the animal of the species Bos taurus. The word in its strictest sense refers only to the female of Bos taurus, but is also often used to refer to an individual of Bos taurus whose gender isn't specified. That's because there's no obvious alternative: "cattle" is a plural, so "a cattle" sounds wrong, and other words like beef are rare or regional, while "bovine" sounds more technical. There's a long history of words for animals changing their meanings over time: "pig" and "chicken" used to refer strictly to the young of those species. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the animal, I've never had any illusion about their genders. I read a lot about animals as a kid, back in the 60's, and I knew the difference between cows and bulls.
And as for "Back at the Barnyard": I saw the commercials for the original movie and thought that showing a bull with udders was a really stupid idea. As a single, middle-aged adult I had no reason to see a children's cartoon, so I ignored it and forgot about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple requestEdit

Could you please blank the page Wiktionary:Todo/Incorrect derivation templates so I can replace it with a regenerated list? It won't let me remove that much content at once, and I don't want to just lazily comment out the previous content, because the page size is already large and after adding the updated list it would be about twice as big. 19:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. :) 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you do it again? Again, much appreciated. 02:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done. I wrote the filter that's blocking you from doing it yourself, so it's only fair. We used to have a problem with random IPs coming in and blanking forums and various policy pages. You can't completely prevent such things, but it's not as much fun if they have to do it just the right way to avoid tripping the filter- and draining all the fun out it is half the battle. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I was at it, I added a check for your current /24 range, so you should be exempt from the filter from now on. No one has ever done logged-out vandalism from that range, and I put the check last so the processor-time use should be negligible. It's the least I can do. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cant edit my user page or talk pageEdit

It says I'm doing that thing with the v in it but I. Not doing it can I be fixed Peyton pppppp (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Warning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful.Reply[reply]

Unconstructive edits will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked. If you believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it.

A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: probably vandalism. If you believe your edit was flagged in error, you may report it on the Wiktionary:Grease pit.

But I'm not typing like that

@Peyton pppppp: your user name looks to the filter like vandalism (all those repeated letters). I've implemented a workaround, though I'm not 100% sure it will work. Try again. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a new account and it works

Reverted edit on word 'caveat'Edit

Hi. Okkult here, who removed the 'Spanish' section on the word 'caveat'. I'm curious to see whether you found an example of its use in Spanish. There's no dictionary entry for 'caveat' in Spanish nor could I find an example brought up in online context dictionaries. I personally agree that, should it be adopted in Spanish, it would likely be a loan from English since it's the lingua franca. Nonetheless, the English term bears no additional meaning that it's Spanish equivalents 'advertencia' and 'salvedad' don't already do. Perhaps that's the reason why the word hasn't been borrowed yet. Is there a citation or an inclusion criteria that requires a Spanish entry for this word?

Cheers, Okkult (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Okkult See our Criteria for inclusion. We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not on other dictionaries. It may be rare, but it can be found in running Spanish text on Google Books. Even if there wasn't any usage, the proper way to get it removed is to tag the entry with {{rfv|es}} ("es" is the language code for Spanish), and (preferably) post an explanation on Requesrs for verification/Non-English. People would look for usage and remove it if they don't find any. I always cringe when I see someone removing an entry because something "doesn't exist"- we cover all historical periods of all languages everywhere that we have evidence for, and no one knows everything about even their own language. By the way, caveat is originally a Latin word, so it could just as easily be borrowed directly from there rather than from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lotEdit

Thanks a lot for changing the "Rhinos" category to "Rhinoceroses" in entries, and sorry I had to leave it midway after finishing the English ones since it was late night. —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Svartava: after all the stuff I've done with categories over the years, I have a system all worked out, with tabbed browsing, copypasting and keyboard shortcuts, so it didn't take long at all. I figured it would be easier for me than for anyone else. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The plural of macuahuitlEdit

The plural of macuahuitl is macuahuimeh. Macuahuitl is a Nahuatl word and follows that language's pluralization rules. Words that end in -tl get the suffix -meh when pluralized, e.g. axolotl --> axolomeh. "Macuahuitls" is a misapplication of English pluralization rules onto a non-English word. I concede that in the case of axolotl, the word is a loanword that has been adopted into English and therefore axolotls is an acceptable construction. This is absolutely not the case for macuahuitl, which is not at all assimilated into modern English. I hope you can agree that the use of the template {{en-noun}} is not proper and my change to {{nci-noun}} should be reinstated. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Axem Titanium: {{nci-noun}} can only be used in Classical Nahuatl entries because it adds the categories Category:Classical Nahuatl nouns and Category:Classical Nahuatl lemmas instead of Category:English nouns and Category:English lemmas. In addition, anything it links to is linked with "#Classical Nahuatl" appended, so it goes to the Classical Nahuatl section rather than English.
I also have my doubts about which plural is actually used in English, but I haven't had time to look in Google for "macahuitls" vs. "macuahuimeh", and there is also the matter of whether "macuahuimeh" (or "macahuitl" for that matter) is English or code-switching. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, so my mistake was to use it in the #English section of that page, rather than the Nahuatl section? (I am clearly not a regular here.) If that's the case, then would it not be appropriate to use {{nci-noun}} in the latter section (which it currently does not)? The page in question is already a member of Category:Classical Nahuatl nouns and Category:Classical Nahuatl lemmas. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Axem Titanium: {{nci-noun}} is fine for the Classical Nahuatl section as long as you use it correctly (though I probably wouldn't be able to tell either way- my knowledge of Uto-Aztecan grammar pretty much stops at the US/Mexico border). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alrighty. Thanks for the pointers. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tawellemmet tamajeq Language codeEdit

On the page ؽ, why is Tawellemmet tamajeq language code (ttq) not working? Can you please try to ask someone to fix it? --ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ImprovetheArabicUnicode: It looks like we only recognize Tuareg with the language code tmh, but I'm not that familiar with the Berber languages. You need to ask about this at the Beer parlour. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible socks?Edit

Both Dryvun and Gornorps were created minutes ago, and seem like the same user (?). —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's one possibility, but it's not enough to act on- yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

filter 7 - New L2Edit

Hello. I hope you can help.

When I add a new language section (Ukrainian) to an existing page, with the inflection of a Verb/Noun etc linked to an existing table on another page, fiter 7/ new L2 shows up on the abuse log.

This happens even when I can see no mistake anywhere. Could you please explain in simple terms what I am doing wrong?

Here is the latest, as an example...

10:29, 22 May 2022: DaveyLiverpool (talk | contribs) triggered filter 7, performing the action "edit" on принесла. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: new L2 (examine | diff)

(I am creating these individual entries to make searching/navigation more obvious for users of a language-learning site which uses those words.) DaveyLiverpool (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DaveyLiverpool (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DaveyLiverpool: You're not doing anything wrong. The filter is just tagging the edit as one by a relatively new account that is probably adding a new language section to an entry. It gives patrollers more information for deciding whether to examine the edit in more detail. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. That makes sense. Thank you very much for the reply. DaveyLiverpool (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stay away from that article, Chuck. It's Sneed's Feed & Sneed now. Your Fuck & Suck is gone. 23:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, the article is for sneed, not Sneed. Second, your "Sneed's Feed & Seed" (if it really exists) has nothing to do with the places or people named "Sneed". This is a dictionary, not a collection of references to some joke you saw somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sun porch imageEdit

I think a image of a sun porch is helpful for the Wiktionary entry. I think the edit reverting my image addition is in error.ScientistBuilder (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your work, as long as you don't end up doing things like this. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I didn't want to draw attention to this but can you please take care of the user who edited reception? Requires edit history suppression. Thanks. 04:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The recent vandal edit at (history) coworker also needs hiding (and if it's a sock of the previous vandal, could you IP-block them?). —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Svartava When I blocked all their IPs recently, I was expecting something like this. Anyone who's determined enough and has even a moderate technical background can figure out ways to get around IP range blocks. This is someone whose sole motivation is ego gratification from showing they can do things people don't want them to do- it's sort of like a competition for them. Putting a lot of effort into shutting them down just motivates them more. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daha ( دحي)Edit

There is a verse in Quran, regarding دحا الأرض.

Chuck entz edited that it means " to make earth like an egg " from Almaany dictionary.

I want to know why Almaany dictionary has stated this explaination?? In Egyptian Arabic دحی means an egg , not in Modern fusha. The original Arabic and the Egyptian Arabic is different. And what is the root word for دحي in Egyptian Arabic?? I want to know about this. Pls help me.

None of the classical interpreters of Quran said that earth is egg shaped. From where Almaany found this explanation!!!???

I want to ask chuck entz that " Do you agree with the explanation of " Egg shaped earth " shown in Almaany??? 06:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll have to link to a specific page so I know what you're talking about. I don't add things like that, so you must be talking about my reverting some edit of yours that removed something. I generally do that when the edit in question is poorly formatted or otherwise wrecks the page- not because I agree with everything on the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding daha( دحا)Edit

Thanks chuck ! For replying. I am sorry for my poor English. I asked you because you are an knowledgeable person on Comparative language study. I want to know these things: 1. Can you inform me about the origin of Egyptian Arabic word " دحي " ( egg ) . Like, I want to know whether this word is influenced by the Coptic language or not. 2. Can we use the Egyptian word " دحي " to mean that earth is eggshaped according to Quran . In Quran, it is stated that " و الأرض بعد ذلك دحاها

Translate: and the earth, after that, he he spread it.

But, some people are translating it as : " and god made the earth eggshaped " .

You know Quranic Arabic and Egyptian Arabic is not the, what is your opinion about their translation. 18:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old templates with langEdit

I find that, in old templates which historically used |lang= instead of |1= for the language code, there is {{check deprecated lang param usage}} but |lang= is still supported, as far as I know, for the purpose of revision histories. Bits of code like {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{lang|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}, {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}, {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{x|}}}|{{{x+1|}}}}}, etc. are pretty redundant and unneeded now. In this aspect, |lang= seems to be an exceptions which remained: there are lots of templates updates and deletions (as opposed to deprecations), which make previous revisions less readable or sometimes leave even module errors. I would propose that these be cleaned up, what do you think of that? I could make a fresh GP/BP post after the previous (somewhat related) discussion if needed. Thanks, —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dim BlobEdit

Just a FYI; I only now recognized who Special:Contributions/Dim Blob is, and they're someone you've had to deal with before (through both blocks and an even more drastic measure which has now stopped working). I doubt their quality of edits has improved much, but I also cannot find anything immediately blockworthy (although I suspect it won't take too long). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Surjection Their IP isn't a geographic fit for any of the targets of my abuse filters. They've made lots of IP edits, sometimes going out onto thin ice with languages they don't know, but they're not someone I would call a serious problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about #117. The behavioral (and circumstantial, albeit possibly inaccurate, geographical) similarity is very striking. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Protection for PekingEdit

I would like to request edit protection for Peking in anticipation of potential edit warring from Atitarev diff, diff, diff, and diff, diff cf. Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/June#Translations_of_Alternative_Forms. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look into this when you get a chance, thanks for all help. It seems like a non-trival, non-frivolous possibility that "Peking" should have a translation box that doesn't reference you back to Beijing (given all the other languages that have used Peking- see Peking). Thanks for any guidance. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's an admin- he has access to everything. The only way I could make edit protection work against him would be to desysop him, and there's no way I would do that over something like this. To start with, can you give me one example of a term that's a translation for Peking but not for Beijing, or vice versa? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response. That discussion is raging wildly on without me since I reached my "four comment limit". It's better this way, trust me! But again, thanks anyway. I have adopted the philosophy that I can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I just can't allow myself to participate in any discussion beyond four comments, or there will be a danger of causing too many problems for myself and others. Again, @Atitarev, I am not against you personally and it's good to get push back from people that don't agree with you. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I loled. Thanks for fixing the families I never had. "The excessive instinctual demand can threaten the dynamic relationship between the id and the ego and change the ego back into being a portion of the id." Equinox 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fumiko reduxEdit

They've apparently gone on a kick related to typesetting, as I noticed this morning at Special:Contributions/ Unfortunately, and as per usual, quite a bit of time-consuming double-checking and cleanup has been required. I've just spent a couple hours on cleanup and only gotten through about a half-dozen of the entries there.

Given this person's persistent lexicographic sloppiness, apparent and self-stated incompetence with Japanese, insistence on ignoring various Wiktionary community standards, and belligerence, I'd like to ask for your assistance in finding some way of range-blocking them -- at least, range-blocking them from editing JA entries and templates. They appear to be alternating through a set of IPv4 addresses starting with 14. This inconsistency of source makes it even more difficult to stay on top of their edits, let alone the sheer volume.

Pinging @Fish bowl for visibility. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help RequestEdit

Hey Chuck Entz. I was accused of making a personal attack, and I would appreciate it if you could give me advice about how to respond/what to do. I am pinging the person in question so they know I'm asking this question: @Meters. Thanks for your time. If there is a more appropriate forum or person to contact, please let me know. I trust you more than anybody, so I'd appreciate any guidance you could provide. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can retract the false accusation, as I requested. I said I didn't want to be pinged to your talk page, and that I would not reply further, but that does not give you carte blanche to make crap up about my actions. How about this... do not ping me, and do not mention me in your threads, anywhere. You are not doing your chances of ever being unblocked on English Wikipedia any good. Meters (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need any guidance you can give me Chuck Entz. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Chuck Entz. I made an edit to,%2C%20nonstandard)%20Full%20of%20enjoyment. to make it clear that this is a disputed word since a Japanese teacher of English believes it is a real word based on this page. Would it be possible to include the clarification "Please note: This is a disputed word. It is not in the Oxford, Cambridge or Mirriam-Webster dictionaries." I thought this might help make it clear for people who are unfamiliar with the wiktionary layout that shows this is in the category of nonstandard and proscribed English. If the term "enjoyful" is googled, this page comes up top and I think it is causing confusion for unfamiliar users who do not understand the explanation "1. (proscribed, nonstandard) Full of enjoyment." If my original clarification is not acceptable then is there another more acceptable way to highlight the fact that this is not standard English? I am worried that students learning it and thinking it is a real word will lose points in their High School entrance examinations if they are learning this in Junior High School Grade 2 (as my colleague is now teaching it based on this page which is cited by which is accepted by my Japanese colleague as a standard English dictionary.). Since enjoyful is not a common mistake, this page appears top of google searches for it. This could be a great opportunity to introduce more clearly to people that some words in English are disputed and while the fact it does not appear in major dictionaries does not mean it is not a "real word" (since it does clearly exist through mistaken use in the past that my become mainstream in the future), but could it be stated more clearly on the page that this is not in standard English dictionaries so that students and teachers of English as a second language do not make mistake of believing their google search of "enjoyful" means it is a standard English word that is in standard English dictionaries. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I appreciate any suggestions of an acceptable clarification that might be put on this page. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Harboe2019 (talkcontribs) at 02:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Harboe2019: The article in question qualifies the definition with (proscribed, nonstandard) though. This makes it clear that this term is disputed and not standard English, as you phrased it. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted it not just because it was unnecessary, as @Fytcha says, but also because it was poorly worded and misspelled. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your replies. I will leave the page as it is. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your decision to me. Harboe2019 (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I wonder if 2A01:CB01:2053:C960:E07B:E4CD:8E54:B27 is PaM... Equinox 13:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Equinox: PaM edited from the northeast London area, but this IP geolocates to Paris. It's close enough to be our "Missing informations!" editor, but this IP's edits so far haven't strayed from what would expect of a Middle Eastern expat or second-generation wannabe. They certainly bear watching, but I don't have the expertise to judge the quality of their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or bust revertEdit

Hi Chuck Entz, you recently reverted an edit I made on the or bust page. This was my first edit on Wiktionary, and I admit that I didn't check the style guide before changing the section title "etymology" to "definition". The fact remains that what is provided under that section for this expression is not an etymology but rather a definition. How can this be remedied? Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku it's borderline as an etymology, but it's not a definition. Really it's an explanation of why bust is used in the phrase. Feel free to discuss it at the Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not even a borderline etymology. Etymology is the history of a word, not its meaning: [3] What we are discussing is a definition of the term, how can you deny that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I would like to ask what is the rationale on your revert on firm? As a native speaker I can confirm that the word is used as such in Hong Kong Cantonese, and so I believe that the revert was an error. Wpi31 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wpi31 The content was probably fine, but the formatting was a mess. I don't really edit Chinese, so I couldn't fix it myself, but the entry was in Category:head tracking/unrecognized pos, not to mention oddities like Category:Chinese an, Category:Cantonese:va and Category:Chinese vs.
The Chinese entries use a very complex and sophisticated system of templates and modules as well as a quite different overall format, which you can find more information about at WT:AZH. Another good source of information is User:Justinrleung, who knows a great deal about how our Chinese entries are formatted, but also about Chinese in general and Cantonese specifically. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The formatting issue is simply me forgetting to add commas in the |cat=va line which should be |cat=v,a. I've noticed that some of my past edits also have this issue, will have them fixed as well. --Wpi31 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over “name“.Edit

Hello, I am Akuma Homura, the user who edited the english section of the “name“ article.

I still do not understand why did you edit my contribution out of the article. That is not to say I am angry but, rather, confused.

If you could give me the reason why did you do it, I will appreciate it.—⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2806:105e:1b:5b9a:cdc2:a4e2:95fd:3cf7 (talk) at 17:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Akuma Homura: it wasn't because I thought it was vandalism or anything like that. It was just useless almost to the point of being silly. Very simply, the likelihood of anyone thinking the Japanese word is related to the English one is pretty much zero. Besides: a substantial number of our English entries have the same spelling as terms in other languages. On the just that page are a Lithuanian inflected form meaning "at (a/the) house", a Northern Kurdish term meaning "letter", and a Dutch word meaning "taking". Judging by your IP, you probably are familiar with Spanish homographs of English words such as "come, "fin", "mar", "pan", "real", "sea", "van", etc. If we put a note in the etymology section about all of them, it would be an absolute mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move protectionEdit

I was wondering why you are mass protecting lots of pages from moves without any history of moving vandalism or move-warring. Not that they have any chance to be moved, but such a list of pages can be endless, right? —Svārtava (talk) • 04:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been a while since we've had a page-move vandal, but they're harder for non-admins to clean up, and they mess up the revision histories. There's no real downside to move-protecting pages that will never be moved, so I do that when I have time to kill. I have no illusions about getting all the likely targets protected, but if it makes it harder and more tedious for vandals, it's worth it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well-attested WordsEdit

Hey, I saw some of your recent work disabling the ability to move certain well-attested words, and I was wondering what the criteria were to determine if a word is well-attested for that purpose. I would like to use whatever criteria there are to generate a list of words in my area of interest that I could propose to get the only-admins-can-move treatment. Because of the decades-long contentions over various Mandarin romanizations and similar, stabilizing a core zone of unmovable words may be useful for preventing someone in 2035 from doing various untoward shifts of well-attested terms. If there are no criteria for what a well-attested term is, then let's make some criteria up and I will see if any of words in my area of interest could ever meet the threshold. Thanks for any guidance and keep up the great admin work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin vandalismEdit

Hey. Very recently, a whole bunch of derogatory articles have been speedily deleted, ignoring that some had a reference leading to a search result page that contains more than enough durably archived quotations ([4]), while others already came with some cites (though not 3) ([5] which is extremely easy to cite even just in published works, let alone Usenet) and some even had 3 valid citations but were deleted nonetheless ([6]). None of these were run through RFV. Is there anything we can do against this vandalic incompetence? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, I stand by calling it vandalism: this act not only actively makes the dictionary worse and less descriptive, it is also done against the community consensus of including all words that can be cited 3 independent times in durably archived media. Deleting articles that can trivially be cited (and already contain quotations or at least a link to a place where quotations can be found) cannot be anything other than bad faith, even if (big if) it is technically within the bounds of the permissible if one sticks to the strict letter of the law. It's also worth noting that only articles not listed on WT:RFVE were speedied which leads me to suspect this is some kind of underhanded ploy to get rid of them because it is obvious that they would survive RFV. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Niggeria at the very least should be undeleted. When I was going through n-word derivatives looking for ones to tag for RfV, I noticed that one, but when I edited the source I saw the citations (they were commented out, probably because they were grossly offensive). There were at least three, satisfying CFI. 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I warned people against heated controversy based on the new guidelines but they didn’t listen. Now they are pointing fingers at each other exactly because the scope of application is uncertain more than predicted, splendid. Fay Freak (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak, Fytcha I'm in absolute agreement here that this is harmful to the dictionary. I have brought up such concerns at the Decision section of the vote on this. I don't think AG202 or Sgconlaw's actions are in bad faith or are a conspiracy, but nonetheless I strongly disagree with what is being done here. I don't think that Wiktionary should have any political biases in its processes, and that's only one of many reasons I could list out that I'm against this. This policy only encourages these reckless mass deletions. We should start a new vote or at least community discussion about this as immediately as possible. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My 2p FWIW: in going through and looking at recent deletions, a few are trivially citable (and were deleted without being listed at RFV AFAICT) and I'm restoring those with lazily unordered and unformatted/unbolded lists of citations I spent six seconds copying from QQ, but many of the rest are the exact kind of ultrarare crap the vote was all about deleting. (Homocrat, BTW, may or may not exist in the sense that had been given, since many of the Books hits are actually a different sense which is now at homocrat, where its definition could probably use improvement.) - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m just now seeing this. Please see my response to PseudoSkull at the vote itself. I can’t see the logs, but from my memory, other than N*ggeria which was erroneously added, some of those straight up had links to groups that were invalid or showed similar users or otherwise. I agree with sche, and I wish that you had at least discussed this with folks first before taking a direct antagonistic response and calling it “vandalic incompetence” because that does not aid towards finding an actual solution. I would’ve been more fine with folks saying that we should send terms to RFV first as a compromise with some discussion, but when you come out the gate like this, I’m less likely to actually be open to talking about it, especially when the main folks are the ones who voted against the proposal to begin with. AG202 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AG202: I can't help but interpret the deletion of trivially citable entries as an action done in bad faith. It should be common sense to not delete entries that presently don't contain 3 citations but for which 3 citations can easily be found. Moreover, you don't see the people who delete these entries go out of their way to actually try and cite them themselves; they just delete them with no regard for attestability and offload the actual work onto others (which is why I suspect, as I've written on the vote's page, that this vote is being abused to get rid of some derogatory terms irrespective of attestability). It's not fun for me to spend hours citing wrongly deleted, patently attested discriminatory terms because I'd rather work on other entries, but it's not fun either that we're deleting presently uncited but clearly attested words just because nobody else is willing to put in the work. Further, the fact that the majority of entries that were deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY have already been undeleted and cited also speaks volumes. Lastly, no hard feelings against you personally of course, tagging and deleting are different; my complaint is against the people who actually press the delete button with no regard for attestability. Please tell me where you disagree with what I've said. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha Thank you for the response. I appreciate that it's not targeted towards me, because I have received negative comments, primarily from IPs with things like "stop being offended all the time", "what are you even doing on this project" for merely adding the tag, so it's hard to not see things like that being directed towards me. See my reply to sche at Template talk:derogatory first for the other parts of my reply that I'd put here. Otherwise, while I do see your point, I disagree with the interpretation that folks should have to send entries to RFV first as that's part of why the vote was created. I also personally do not feel comfortable with most of the terms in question, as I've stated before, and thus, feel more comfortable solely tagging them rather than creating an RFV forum for them (I don't even type them out as I'm sure has been noticed), and I'm surely not going to dig for cites for them when I'm the target of the vast majority of these entries being cited. Part of the rationale for the vote was to place the onus on the folks who create the entries in the first place, and as such, I think it's fair that folks who focus on creating/citing offensive terms should face the brunt of that. When it comes to the fact that the majority of the entries deleted have been undeleted, it does speak volumes to me, but not in the same way that it does to you. It shows why I voted abstain on option 1 in the first place: little fundamentally changes because the majority of those terms will be cited in the end if we continue to give free rein to Usenet. I do think that more care could be given when it comes to the deletion of entries nonetheless. CC: @Sgconlaw, @PseudoSkull. AG202 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also seeing this discussion for the first time. I agree with @AG202 that the whole point of the policy is to put the onus for providing contestable and contested entries with qualifying quotations on editors who create the entries (or those who wish to retain them). It is most emphatically not the job of admins or other editors to supply these quotations, nor do I agree that an entry should be retained just because there are apparently some qualifying quotations "out there somewhere" but not actually placed on the entry page or associated citations page. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AG202 I am completely fine with the fact that you're uncomfortable associating yourself with these entries. Well so why are you associating with them so much then? Tagging them for deletion en masse requires clicking on them from somewhere at least if not searching for them in the search bar, and it requires looking at the word on the page, etc. If we delete entries just because we're offended by the words they represent, we are doing a huge disservice to lexicology and I will stick by the notion that this is effectively being used for censorship. We should document concepts we hate just the same as concepts we love or are apathetic to. @Sgconlaw The contention is not that the citations are "just out there somewhere"; it's that they are in clear view with simple search queries. We're all active editors here, and for sure I know you can tell the difference between an entry that is easily citable and one that is not. Many entries have been pointed out that are clearly and easily citable and they were tagged and deleted anyway. In other words, for many of the ones you've deleted, it's not even like they were entries that had say, 2 iffy Books results and 1 Usenet result you had to dig for among lots of Google Groups stuff. I've seen you delete things that had pages of clear Google Books results specifically for that phrase. You can keep saying as you have been that "it's pursuant to the policy, so whatever," but that's not even my argument—my argument is that this policy and the way it's being used is inherently destructive, and its application here has nothing but proved that. It is effectively being used to mow down a bunch of entries, that do contain factual and provable information about real words mind you, that the Wiktionary community decided it doesn't like. We should probably stop doing that. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sirena = gay?Edit I saw you reverted my revert on ay. "Sirena" doesn't mean "gay" and this is likely to cause confusion for various people. Chininazu12 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

flood flagEdit

Thanks for move-protecting so many pages! Do you suppose you could give yourself the flood flag when you're making lots of such protections, so they don't flood recent-changes / watchlists? - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I hadn't even thought about that aspect. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiskrahablo is back *sigh*Edit

Special:Contributions/Berbasantara looks like a reincarnation of Eiskrahablo, Indigenouswikicom etc. They target the same templates Template:jv-variant and produce the same kind of nonsense etymologies[7]. –Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Austronesier: yes,   Confirmed. I blocked them and every other unblocked sock I could find, though I got carried away with my research and they made more edits before I blocked them- sorry! I reverted some of the more obvious things like setting up the Sundanese script as the native script, but most of their edits require more knowledge to separate the POV from the correct. They did a number of edits in Appendix:Austronesian Swadesh lists that I couldn't undo en masse due to intervening edits by others, and probably a good number of the added terms are okay- but I don't know which ones. Anything they did to restructure the table is suspect, though. At least, anytime I see "Fix misinformation". in an edit summary, there's usually some kind of POV pickiness involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like in other WM projects (enWP and idWP), this turns into a tiring whack-a-mole exercise. I will try to fix all the POV/CIR they have left on their trail (the misapplication "learned borrowing" is another trademark).
Btw, there is a bias among a group of editors (not just this one maverick) for considering historical scripts as basic for lemmatization (even if they have largely fallen out of use in daily life except in certain context) and treating the Roman script as "Romanization" even when 99,9% of the speakers of the language are only proficient in writing their language using the Roman script. I have seen this with regional languages of Indonesia (Javanese, Balinese etc.), but it might be wider problem. I have addressed it before without response (User_talk:Xbypass#Balinese), and I will bring it some other time to the beer parlour. –Austronesier (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cam Stur (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha: Pretty likely, Eiskrahablo socks have very actively edited pages about the Kangean islands and their language, so it doesn't look like a coincidence that the second bulk added by Cam Stur is Swadesh data from Kangean. And btw, right now I have the dubious honor of meeting them again in Wikipedia w:Talk:Tenun#Etymology. –Austronesier (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse Filter 60Edit

Hey Chuck, can you look at this filter log entry, the filter is meant to ignore edits by autoconfirmed but it is seemingly not. - TheDaveRoss 15:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheDaveRoss I think I fixed it. It needed another set of parentheses to keep it from treating the "Barack Obama" code as something to be ORed with all the code before it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attention noteEdit

I updated the definition per your friendly note on my page.

Also, I'd like some further clarification for your "attention" edit on Statist. I used the reference as shown below the entry, DWDS. Also, I cross-checked with DWB and OED.

Maybe putting the references[1] directly into the etymologies might prevent these kinds of misunderstandings?

  1. ^ Example reference

Chuck please explain why one reverted my edit to WaldoEdit WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a mess. To start with, never add a number to an etymology header unless there's more than one etymology section (see WT:EL. The {{given name}} template is designed to be used in the definition line only- never in an etymology. When it is used, the language code is for the language of the entry, not for the language the name came from- you had Waldo in Category:Estonian male given names. "Estonian (Teutonic)" isn't a language. Wikipedia isn't a reference (especially since the article doesn't even mention the name "Waldo"), nor is a book by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Yes, his middle name goes back to Peter Waldo, but, then, my middle name goes back to a 19th-century Swiss-American actuary- not something to document in a dictionary. The second Proto-Germanic term you linked to explains the "-er" in Walter, not the "-o" in Waldo. You linked to w:Peter Valdo, which is a redirect to w:Peter Waldo. Not all of these errors were worthy of a revert, but they were all together in just a couple of edits, and it wasn't worth it to fix them all.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree on the first rebuff, I accidently left the 1 there after contemplating adding a second etymology, but then decided to extend the first (only) etymology as to keep a common definition section.
Yet, I think the first reference supports the claim that Estonia was part of the Teutonic Order during the time of Peter Waldo, and the second reference shows that Emerson knew the Teutonic tribes to be connected with German names of honest meaning like his own, not associated with thievery.
The name Waldo does derive from Walter in the case of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Peter Waldo, via Valdo from Voldemar\Valter.
The linkage to Peter Valdo was intentional because he is yet referred to as Valdo sometimes, it also shows that it is common to associate Waldo with Valdo, but that's unnecessary as the the book written by Mikics and Lopate demonstrates clearly that Peter Waldo is the 12th century hero after whom Emerson is named, and the Peter Waldo wikipedia page cleary states with references to medieval Latin text that Peter Waldo was alternatively called also Valdo, Valdes, Waldes.
If there is no further objection I will reinstate my edits with the "1" removed from the etymology section and "Peter Valdo" Wikipedia page changed to "Peter Waldo" and the "given name" template abandoned. WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Entz, one did not respond here with any objections in the last 2 days, but now has reverted my forewarned edit, please explain any objections one may have. WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you're talking to another person, you call them "you". Not "one". Equinox 04:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sir, Equinox, this is not germane to our scholarly discussion. I do not use the phrasing "you" with strangers or men with whom I have not been cordially introduced and really acquainted, I request one refer to me as "one" as well. WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see Waldo Talk Page. WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverting "بدوي" editEdit

So obviously, I believe your rollback is in error. Why did you revert the definition change? 2A02:CB80:4077:CFC9:4854:1279:C493:BB75 19:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The English entry is not the same thing as the Arabic entry, so it's not circular. This is English Wiktionary, so the definitions for other languages tend to just link to an English term for the concept. Would the Arabic term be used to refer to someone who wanders from island to island in the Pacific Ocean by boat, or to the Romani? Or does it refer specifically to Arabic-speaking nomads? Chuck Entz (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems a bit strange to define a word by its borrowed form, rather than just explain it. Its derivations are already included right underneath.
The term as used in Arabic is more general than how "bedouin" is used in English. I agree that it's not equivalent to nomad, but the word is used generally to refer to groups that practice pastoral nomadism, including people that are not Arab and do not wander deserts (examples: [8][9][10]).
The word is also often used to refer to members of Arab tribes that traditionally practiced pastoral nomadism (i.e. same as in English). 2A02:CB80:4077:CFC9:4854:1279:C493:BB75 20:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz since you never replied to this, I've edited it back with some explanation. High surv (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flagEdit

Hi Chuck, I noticed that all your edits have the b flag in the recent changes/watchlist pages. Do you mean to still have the flood flag enabled on your account? This, that and the other (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the harm, since the edits in question are fairly randomly distributed: basically to fill time when I'm not feeling like doing something else. If there's a reason to remove it in between, I certainly can. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I brought it up is that people with the "Human (not bot)" filter turned on in their watchlists, which I believe is the default, do not see any of your edits. For example, your recent edits to the Beer Parlour were bot-flagged and would not have shown up in most people's watchlist. Your discussion contributions are valuable and I think it's important that people are able to see them in their watchlists! This, that and the other (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent Albanian entriesEdit

Hi there. I just wanted to know whether you have any idea whatsoever what exactly the user Balltari has been doing recently with (Proto-)Albanian entries? From the pages they've created, the formatting is really all over the place and often shocking, not to mention the fact that 1) some of the entries being created are not even grammatically correct (e.g. qeni sharrit should be qeni i Sharrit), and 2) for some reason beyond me, they seem to have also taken the leniency to create Old Albanian entries now. However, I have never seen this discussed or even brought up before in regards to Albanian Wiktionary entries. Indeed, they seem to even use the sq (modern Albanian) language code for alleged old lemmas, and that isn't to mention the fact that Old Albanian is not even an agreed upon term. The same goes for the flora of Illyrian entries being created too, which have no references and even contain sq - modern Albanian -- coded related terms, also blatantly incorrect. Sorry if this message comes across as slightly emphatic, but a lot of what is being done here is of low quality, so I would appreciate any thoughts you have on this. ArbDardh (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)ArbDardhReply[reply]

@ArbDardh See WT:Requests for cleanup#Special:Contributions/Balltari and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/August#Secondhand Attestation of Extinct Languages. Yes, I'm painfully aware of their edits, and spent an hour or so yesterday just adding headword templates and fixing language codes. Your contribution to those threads would be very helpful, since I know very little Albanian. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just realized I had their user name wrong. I was already very tired when I posted that thread, so it doesn't surprise me. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This user is flooding me with taxonomic entries that need lots of corrections, besides being light on content. I am not getting responses to my comments on his talk page. Do you have any advice? DCDuring (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted edit to the 'wizard' entryEdit

Hello. I'd like to understand the reason for your revert of my edit to the wizard page. As I understand it, it doesn't make sense to have the Japanese meme meaning of the word listed in the Etymology section. Notice I didn't delete that part, I moved it to the point it seems more appropriate, in the Noun section. Alexander Gieg (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexander Gieg: on the contrary, the definition line should be about what the term means. Where it came from should be handled in the etymology section. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... It looks extremely uninformative the way it's written. I think it'd make sense then to have two English etymologies, one for the word coming from the Middle English wize + -ard, and a second etymology, coming from the Japanese ウィザード, which in turn comes from the English wizard etc., specific for the backported slang meaning. (The ウィザード entry would also benefit from having this slang meaning added, as it isn't present there.) What do you think? Alexander Gieg (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perru, Revision of September 2nd, 2022Edit

Listen, sorry about the whole editing, it's just that I want to add my own ideas, for the etymology, and I just want to help people that are new, and who are learning Spanish.

I just added the etymology and that's it, if you want you can do your own edits, just don't remove it, please I beg of you.

I am just trying to make Etymology.

Sorry If you had to remove the Sardinian Edit, I just want you to know I am sorry, and that I am glad I contacted you.


When you have a moment, User talk:Skiulinamo. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In this edit, you reverted me, with the result that the entry now displays m and f as synonyms of the head word. Maybe this is a template malfunction, but we should not let this stand as it was before I changed it. Soap 15:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to fix it by breaking it in another way. The {{t}} template is strictly for translation sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soap I fixed it for you. Next time, try looking at the documentation for the template already in use before improvising something weird. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollback in errorEdit

In special:diff/69315708 you removed my historical examples of a phrase, why did you do that? They were cited.

I can see this done in rapid sequence with other edits of mine too without giving an edit summary. HearthHOTS (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do you think this is that previous user who kept switching around all the Malaysia and Indonesia entries? Equinox 00:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Equinox Yes. Anytime you see a category with "unadapted borrowings from Javanese" in it, it's probably them. They think everything is unadapted borrowings. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No offence, since half of your contribs seem to be "lock every word so that nobody can vandalise it". But yeah like eh wow. Turn on tune in. Equinox 05:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dirty old manEdit

My version was perfect, first because middle-aged are not really "old", so the term is used inappropriately in form of actual insult towards these ones, and needed to be punctualized. Second, the term is ageist and there's no need to hide it. 15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sir, I was wondering if you could give me some guidance on "fringe" content on Wiktionary. I have the goal of maintaining the legitimacy of the Wiktionary as a dictionary enterprise in the eyes of the reader and remaining neutral, etc. But I just don't know what the limit of "fringe" is. You could say that most of my work on minor geography itself is fringe on some level. Anyway, I was really struggling with an edit I made here: diff. Am I thereby legitimizing lies? Or am I thereby being neutral? Or is it fringe content? Can be fringe, given the outlet it comes from? And then I look to other edits: diff- this geographical area is in direct proximity to that regime, so how could a truly unbiased, non-Anglo-American focused dictionary ignore such a quote? IDK bro. If there's no good response to what I've said, then just leave it at that, but if you have any guidance for me, let me know. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concluded that the material was within the range of fringe material and kept it on the respective Citations pages. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin inactivityEdit

Hi, I happened to notice that there are a number of admins that would be considered inactive [11] per Wiktionary:Administrators#Removal_for_inactivity. Could you take a look at this? Rschen7754 17:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanskrit word 'kati'Edit

This is derived from Proto Indo European root Satyman (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Satyman, what's the derivation? --Skiulinamo (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ٶ and ءوEdit

ءو cannot be considered as a single letter. However, it is a common non-standard form of the ligature ٶ when typing into the computer. We should delete the ءو page. In addition, the letter ء is not used in Kazakh Arabic scripts. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco: first of all, you left out the language code and caused a module error. Second, {{d}} should only be used for things that are so obvious that no one would object, for instance, blatant vandalism or your own entry that no one else has edited, or something that any idiot can see is wrong. For everything else, you should use {{rfd}} (WITH the language code!). Even in borderline cases like this, you should at least include an explanation as the second parameter so that someone who doesn't know the language can make a decision. Otherwise, it just clutters up the speedy deletion category because no one will touch it. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. I did not know the difference between {{d}} and {{rfd}}. I added some opinions on the discussion page of ءو. Still, I think that page should be deleted. It's also fine to refute this argument. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stopEdit

Please stop reverting my edits to pages that I added Category:en:McDonald's to. I am expanding the category and it will bigger if you give me the chance (currently has 11 pages). I have reverted your edits. Thanks.

P.S: please add the category to McGriddle and McShittles, these pages are protected and I can't edit them. 06:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not the only issue. It has to be integrated into our topical category infrastructure by entering it into the correct modules. I'll see what I can do. I have also made categories in Russian and French. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Whenever I make more categories I'll request their addition on the module talk page. 06:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add science and truth not your opinions and jailhouse craps gamesEdit

Why the block? I am an Aryan and want to put science in this page rather than confuse people with Aryans true meaning and the race baiting that is on there now. I am a powerful Fili and you should bend to my will. Ravenus X (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not your personal blog. You can't just wipe away centuries of usage with a warm and fuzzy story about what some relative told you. You may not like the way people have used the word, but that doesn't change the fact that people have used the word in those ways. A dictionary isn't about "science and truth", it's about words and phrases. What's more, a phrase like "Aryan, as told to me by my great grandmother" has no place in a dictionary: dictionaries don't have great grandmothers. It's obvious you have no idea what a dictionary entry is for, and what you wrote here borders on delusional. All the more reason to keep you away from that page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the sort of mentality that gave credence to the delusons that destroyed the roman empire. Obviously you cannot deny the usages of words... But bringing awareness to how words and ideas have been altered and mutated throughout history... It seems very important to also provide the historical meanings of words, because otherwise you cannot understand what is being said, even if you use the same words in your every day speech. Luxporphyra (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is, if you're trying to read a translation Luxporphyra (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits reverted on քարյուղ and նավթEdit

I added synonyms for both, linking back to each other, because they both mean the same thing. I am a native Armenian speaker, so there is absolutely no way this could be incorrect. Now, two questions: 1. What's wrong with my edit, and 2. Why did you feel that you have the authority to revert it?

I am not interested in edit wars, so I am expecting either your rationale or an apology. Either way, I am canceling your edits until I get a response. Armeniangigachad (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Armeniangigachad: I reverted precisely because they weren't linked to anything, and with no explanation. As far as the average reader would know, they're random alphabet soup. If you want to wikilink them, or add them to the synonym template so it will add the wikilinks, that will work just fine. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, so it's about քարաձեթ and քարաձյութ, the words that do not have an entry on English Wiktionary. However, these two have entries on Armenian Wiktionary; is it better to add those links, or just exclude the words altogether? Thanks in advance. Armeniangigachad (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now cleaned up after you, @Armeniangigachad. Vahag (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Last night I signed up to join this awesome crew of world shapers and word police, though in a state of sorrow in losing 2 of my children, I lashed out by finding a sense of control and power in my ability to delete. To choose for myself what I deleted, rather than just be another accursed sorry sap waiting around to have the forces of nature choose for me what it wants to delete from my life. I did not specifically target anyone or anything in general but rather deleted the first thing I found that didn’t seem to make this world of anguish any better. I apologize for this and won’t allow it to happen again like that. I’m sure this person has a valid reasoning for their thought process and I welcome such freedom to express this. I am an exile in the land I live and appreciate the freedoms here to do such things. The trauma I have learned and am learning to live with, had given me a rather ‘kicked by a mule’ perspective on learning our histories. I’m so virginal in using this platform so I would be greatly advanced in my abilities here if someone was willing to take the time to apprentice me a bit in the usage or capabilities of this platform. I have some groundbreaking concepts to introduce that I fear would have me and the remaining family of mine in some forms of danger if I were to say put in a book or share in a “autographed” sort of way. I thought maybe this platform may be a good outlet to share these concepts on so that they could be analyzed and worked through by others with more education and powerful mental facilities. Chuck, I apologize for pissing on your rainbow, please forgive my intrusion. If anyone is interested in seeing what I have to share please reach out. -RaVenus X

Ps.. the “master race” was a concept that was rejected by the other 10 tribes, it seems to me in context that there is a confusion as to what this means. Now it is claimed that the master race is a concept brought to us from Nazis but I am saying that it was a concept brought to the world from ‘nasi’ and that the other X tribes were really ‘getting lost’ on purpose to avoid the systems trying to be set in place by the ones that this modern ‘master race’ torchcarriers’ are pointing at as being the issue of problem. It’s like a reversal of what may actually have occurred. I am a direct descendant of the ‘purple’ Byzantine folk and have been called in Spirit to rebirth the Byzantine Empire… crazy I know but still the Spirit burdens me. Look deeper at the beginnings of the exile from Assyria and of the forgeries that may have been brought upon us from the ones seeking to divide and conquer by such divisions. In the bottleneck of time it is rather hard to escape the “we are one” bubbly idea.. but I feel it has been usurped to hold onto the need for the Weak to divide in their aging grip on mankind. 15:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're still not getting it. This is a dictionary. We describe what terms mean when people use them or have used them in the past. We aren't "world shapers" or "word police". The fact that you refer to "this person" is telling. The word "Aryan" has been used by millions of people over centuries. It wasn't the result of a centralized decision, but of the normal way that language works. The word "Aryan" has a special meanng for you, personally, and you have your own beliefs. It's not for me to judge you or your beliefs, but they have no place in a descriptive dictionary that adopts a neutral point of view.
On a personal note, losing a child is possibly the worst thing that can happen to anyone, and I'm sorry for your loss. I would strongly advise seeking the help of mental help professionals. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollback of my editsEdit

Hello, you seem to have rolled back all my edits without providing an explanation of why. I'm not angry, but rather confused. Thank you, Matr1x-101 (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be simpler if it were just one thing. For pathogen, you replaced an English etymology, with the Language code "en", with a German etymology (language code "de") so that the English etymological categories went away and the terms linked to were in the German sections of the entries. For Linux, Linus Torvalds' pronunciation is certainly of interest, but he isn't a native speaker and there's no point in teaching people how to say it with a foreign accent (in the English section, anyway). As for the rhymes, they contain all the syllables from the accented sylable to the end. That means preface would be all by itself in "Rhymes:English/ɛfɪs" rather than "Rhymes:English/ɪs". I didn't revert your other rhyme-related edits because they weren't wrong, although they didn't represent the whole picture. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there, I'm writing regarding your reversion of my edit to casn't. My edit was due to a misuse of English declension: the original example states, "Thee casn't see I". (or uncontracted, "Thee canst not see I".) Thee is the accusative form of the nominative thou, and I is the nominative form of the accusative me. Since thee is being used as a subject, it should instead use the nominative case thou; and since I is being used as a direct object, it should instead use the accusative case me. Thus, the properly declined sentence should read, "Thou casn't see me". (or uncontracted, "Thou canst not see me".) Please... revert your reversion? Nathanael Hahn (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nathanael Hahn: this is an example of dialectal speech. How do you know that this particular dialect doesn't use us "I" for the accusative? It just so happens that the person who created the entry and the example sentence is from Bristol, and I trust his judgment on Bristol dialect more than I do yours. This is a descriptive dictionary. We don't correct usage examples to make them just like the prescriptive standard. Also, I have a degree in linguistics and my mother was an English teacher. I don't need to have English declension explained to me. Please use a little common sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really appreciate your tone. You could have simply told me that the example was in a dialect which uses I as the accusative; I just didn't realize the example was written in a dialect. A one-minute Google search of the Bristol dialect has enlightened me to the declension of Bristol English nouns, and was much more helpful than your sarcastic remarks.
Your degree and your mother's job history are irrelevant regarding my description, because you specifically asked me to describe my percieved error on your talk page. That seems sensical enough to me. I acknowledge my mistake, but your tone is unnecessary. Please use a little professionality. Nathanael Hahn (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for doing that - I was about to use AWB but I had a lot of trouble getting it to work for moving pages, and by the time I had got it going you had done most of the work already! This, that and the other (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@This, that and the other: I've been working with the lifeform categories for the better part of a decade, so I know them like the back of my hand. I have a system I've worked out using tabbed browsing and HotCat, so I figured I could do it as quickly as anyone else. I also knew that Category:Marijuana is in the same module as Category:Recreational drugs, so I was able to change the parent for that one, update all the language-specific ones, and create any missing parents very quickly. I believe we've managed to move all the members of all the Cannabis family plants categories to Category:Hemp family plants, including all the Category:Marijuana ones, and delete the empty ones. There was one Chinese entry that took a little extra effort because of the way {{zh-see}} transcludes categories from its target entry, but even that took less than a minute. I actually enjoy tinkering with that sort of thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I can say is - we're lucky to have people like you around the place, Chuck! This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't understand your motivations, but I can't help but notice the asinine quote under 'obsolete, poetry.' You reverted my edits without any justification. I'm not interested in your response. I disagree with how this has been depicted in the West historically, and I think people have an obligation to provide the historical context of words that are identical to those used in the past. Julius Caesar himself, the one executed on the ides of march, said he was descended from Venus. This is not some idiotic statement like that of monotheistic religion, literally interpreting metaphors. Venus is a metaphor to anyone who actually understand Latin. And they know that about the entirety of ancient paganism and polytheism. I know what I'm talking about when I added a definition to the word. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. The supercilious with which you have conducted yourself is atrocious and appalling for a public service such as Wikipedia. Instead, I assume you would rather be a pawn of the sycophants and psychopaths interest in completely severing people from the liberating understandings the Romans and the Greeks uncovered for us. You can only do this if you understand the meanings of the words they used. Luxporphyra (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Luxporphyra: one big problem with that: you're editing the entry in a dictionary for the English word "Venus", not an article about the goddess Venus. People use the word in English to refer to certain things. Whether that aligns properly with the history of Greek and Roman beliefs about the goddess is irrelevant. If you have to add all kinds of quotes to the entry to inform people about something, then they obviously haven't been aware of it and it can't be part of what they mean when they use the word. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Necesse est scīre aliquid poēsem, eō quod ōrātio ūsitāta et prōsa rērum concipiunt dispariter. Haec disparitās nōn est parva sed magna. Poēsis potest spectra perspicientiaque ēlabōrāta et ampla cum multitūdine complexiōnum imaginosārum, et via facit illī nōn potest alibi. Luxporphyra (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lucretius was in all proper senses an atheist. This isn't about belief but the specific usage of a word... A word that happens to be an extraordinarily important one, if you think about it. I think some other people throughout history have found it important too... Bracciolini, for instance... The sense with which Lucretius was writing was lost to history. Of course it is not in the popular use. But does that mean it should not be included? This is not an idiosyncratic usage of this word... I think, on the contrary, and this is my opinion now, Spinoza, and others, but particularly Spinoza was aware of this sense... And Spinoza, of course, inspired Einstein. I'm saying this has significance, and it also has scientific significance, as Lucretius was a Democritean, a traditional Epicurean, an atomist when it was argued against, for instance, by Cicero. Luxporphyra (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why did you add {{rfv}} on a page I made? I know Coptic at an acceptable level plus I gave a source for the word in my edit summary. Copticos (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not remove an {{rfv}} tag from an entry. Ever. See the nomination at Wt:RFVN. This needs to be discussed before you add a ton of unverifiable entries that end up being deleted. Removing the tag doesn't stop the process, it just keeps visitors to the entry from finding out about it and possibly helping to save the entry- if it can be saved. I have my doubts. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is a point. This editor is the same Australian one who thinks they know every language and blindly copy entries from Wikipedia editions (most of which are still in the Incubator). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thought had occurred to me. I was hoping to provide an example so they might learn something before the inevitable block starts the cycle over again. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got a very good reputation on Wiktionary "Discord"Edit

I think you're the only person who gets repeatedly mentioned in the context "yeah that guy is good", as opposed to the usual "ugh, look at what X did, I really hate user X". Good job! Equinox 03:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Greetings, Chuck. Could you enlighten us about the circumstances of your block of User:Zhomron here? They have been investigated for sockpuppetry on enwiki, and I'm seeing activity also on Commons and Wikidata. There may be a historical link to BedrockPerson as well. Can you shed any more light on this? Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23: I couldn't remember anything, but I mentioned them at Wiktionary:Requests_for_checkuser/archive#Gabloigen, and I have the data at my CheckUserWiki user subpage for Bedrock Person (under the name of User:יבריב). That's probably who they are, though all the confirmed socks were stale by then- so I can't be 100% sure. The earlier Bedrock Person socks did a lot of logged-out editing, so all the enwikt admins were quite familiar with their IP ranges. They did match those. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yotta light millenniumEdit

It isnt protologism, light millennium is a real term and yotta- is an SI prefix so "yotta light millennium" is a valid term AleksiB 1945 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AleksiB 1945: Yes it is. Just because you can derive it by normal processes from real words doesn't make it real. It may be valid, but no one has ever used it. We're a descriptive dictionary, so no usage means no entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Chuck. I made an edit to the term Webtoon on IP that you blocked. This wasn't spam/advertising. A Webtoon is not a digital comic, it is an actual platform owned and operated by Webtoon Entertainment Inc., who also own the trademark rights to the term Webtoon (see and (see The Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards is the comic world's equivalent of an Oscar. WEBTOON's (the company) won best webcomic (see As you can see in the article, ""Lore Olympus," a webcomic released by Webtoon, the American unit of Naver Webtoon, has won an award at the Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards." The term webcomic and webtoon are NOT interchangeable as Wiktionary suggests. They are in fact two separate and distinct terms. A webcomic is something that can be found on the WEBTOON platform. Therefore, the current definition that Wiktionary has in place is incorrect and misleading. Below you will find more articles that you can review that further support my claim (I can supply 100 more). To call a webtoon a "an animated cartoon" is simply incorrect and untrue. I hope you will consider my accurate edit and remove the current incorrect definition. Thank you and have a wonderful evening, Chuck!

Correct Entry Should Read: WEBTOON - a trademark and platform owned by WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. which is the world's largest digital comics platform, home to some of the biggest artists, IP, and fandoms in comics.’t-Miss-Programming-at-New-York-Comic-Con Astro315 (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Astro315: I believe the word in generic use pre-dates your trademark. I have now added a citation from 2001 (from a Usenet newsgroup). Since there appears to be generic use of your Korean comics trademark too, I have added a sense for that, and some citations. Equinox 12:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


why did you delete dvd player in bangla? Thank you. Shaqw21 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shaqw21: please read WT:EL and especially WT:ABN. It was a totally useless mess, and I don't know enough Bengali to fix it. Once you know how to do it right, feel free to add it back. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another nonsense barf at Etymology Scriptorium?Edit

Curious if this is our unfortunately disordered friend from Germany. It certainly seems similar, and is again wildly off the mark, indiscriminately confusing Old Chinese and modern Japanese name readings. This bit is completely bonkers:


... especially the top / bottom semantics of bright and dark skies and earth, and everything between. See , 庭園; 天空 (tiānkōng), diem, Jupiter, brown bear, escetera.


Notice that that hiragana け (ke) is linking through to the non-existent Korean entry.

Oofda. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The scriptorium is becoming increasingly unusable because of his gibberish. We should do something. Vahag (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*cough* this *cough* --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to stay out of this (see Leasnam's talk page for an explanation), but they forced the issue. In the example @Eirikr linked to they were using a proxy, so the IP address was different- but it was clearly them. I had started quietly reverting their new etymological word-salad posts, but in cases like the one @Skiulinamo linked to, people had already replied and started discussing what they said. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am truly baffled by some (many?) of their statements. In one since-reverted edit at ES in the takara thread:

The claim [made by this very anon] is ... that *pirə corresponds to (OC *puʔ), because that's phonetically and semantically sound.

This seems like nonsense, but it's borderline enough to make me wonder -- is there any validity to the idea that Japonic *pirə ("broad, wide", related also to ideas of "flat") might somehow correspond to Old Chinese *puʔ ("pot, jar")? I was tempted to respond and lay out why this wouldn't work, but if these are indeed the ramblings of an unhealthy mind unmoored from linguistic foundations, I would likely be better served by training myself to ignore this kind of thing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is anything in their ramblings that makes the slightest sense, it is just an instance of a "monkey-on-a-typewriter" hit among an infinite number of misses.

French translation of englishEdit

Hi! Last December, following my message on Talk:english, you were kind enough to ask for a verification. However, nothing has changed in almost one year. The current translation is absolutely incorrect and this hurts my eyes. Maybe the page could now be unprotected? Else, can you change that mistranslation to effet (fr) m (my suggestion) or, if you don't trust me, just remove it? Thanks. 23:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"또" pageEdit

Why is the "----" there? Blahhmosh (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It separates the language sections with a line. See WT:EL. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollback on "pharaoh"Edit

Hello, I do believe that this rollback is in error. Separating the American pronunciations based on those with and without the mergers appears in other MARRY vowel word entries, so my edit simply conforms the entry to others like it. Compare:

Various American pronunciations separated by mergers also appear for other words besides MARY-MARRY-MERRY words

The cot-caught merged pronunciations, the LOT vowel in orange, forest, etc., and horse-hoarse distinguished pronunciation are not typical of General American English, so they are listed separately from the more typical pronunciation. Similarly, a distinct MARRY vowel in "pharaoh" is not typical of General American English. 2603:3015:D01:8000:4DDE:6E24:DF55:A81B 16:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That may be, but "nmmmm" and "mmmm" are worse than useless. Even people who know about the Mary-Marry-Merry merger (vastly in the minority) are unlikely to recognize the strings of lowercase letters. Since you've linked to all those other entries, perhaps you should look at how they handle this. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Nmmmm" and "mmmm" are the template's code; they're not the words that appear in the published article, so I don't know why that has anything to do with anything. They're not worse than useless, since the full, intelligible words "Mary–marry–merry distinction/merger" are what actually appear in the published text. I personally find the pronunciation separations according to "Mary-Marry-Merry", "cot-caught", "horse-hoarse", etc. mergers and distinction are helpful for me to understand the pronunciation that I don't have in my accent, and I'm sure many other do, too, especially for those who are just learning why the pronunciations may various between accents. I find that the entries I linked handled it very well. 2603:3015:D01:8000:2DA0:8AA2:97C8:D014 21:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't notice that, since I generally look at the diffs rather than the entry itself. I stand corrected. I still don't know if it's a good idea, but I generally don't involve myself in such decisions. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit revert on هوا etymology.Edit

Hi, I recently made an edit to the هوا etymology page and replaced the origins according to what is stated on wordsense dictionary. I could not find a source for the word being of Arabic origin (which is what the page originally stated) so I thought the edit was valid. I also elaborated on the talk page about why the word cannot be of Arabic origin. In summary, the word هوا was used by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature to coin new words such as هوا پیما. At the time the word was made, the goal of the academy was to use words of Persian origin to make new Persian words. This was during the Pahlavi era, right now words of Arabic origin are acceptable to coin new words however at the time of the creation of the word هوا پیما and many others with هوا, only Persian words were accepted, not Arabic words. If this word was Arabic it would not have been used, as there are numerous other words that could have been used instead of it. I would like to know why my edit was reverted. Many thanks.

WordSense: —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I have added the sources (not that this transparent borrowing needed any). --Vahag (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you. One question, how do I know what is supposed to be sourced and what is not? Some borrowings between Arabic and Persian seem transparent because they were borrowed earlier from Middle Persian into Arabic, and then re-borrowed in New Persian. So, are there any guidelines on what is considered to be transparent enough not to need a source? 18:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no guideline. Use common sense. Vahag (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You being a smart a$$ does nothing but show the unreliability of the site you spend your time editing. Common sense is a phrase that is subjective, if not meaningless. I am surprised you are telling me that there is no guideline on when a source is necessary and when it is not. Use your "common sense" and explain why the original root of هوا in the Arabic language is not of Persian origin. It wouldn't be the first Arabic root of Persian origin, after all. There are other roots such as ه ن د س that are of Persian origin. To prove the origin of the root you would need a source, not "common sense". Besides, The Arabic root ه و ي means a hole, empty space, declivity, valley, you want me to use my "common sense" to guess that the Persian word هوا which means weather and air, originated from that root? you cannot guess the fact that the Persian هوا originated from the Arabic root ه و ي simply because Arabic also has a word with that root that is comprised of the same letters as هوا. There are many examples of native Persian words that resemble native Arabic words due to their roots, this is especially common with small words. Take the Arabic root س ه م as an example, it forms the word سهم which means share, lot, portion, etc.. The Persian سهم is a word originating from Proto-Indo-European *trés-mn̥ and it means fear. The fact that you are not a linguist, and not anywhere near an expert on this topic, and you believe it's okay to simply use "common sense" makes me worried about the future of this site. I hope our conversation helped you realize your deficiencies, lack of responsibility and inability to provide meaningful responses to genuine questions. 23:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to be the one to tell you this but, They accepted both Arabic and Persian words. Their purpose was to limited European languages. CaesarVafadar (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deja vu?Edit

The user named Theyoungmetalattack is giving me a bit of deja vu, makes me wonder if this is The Young Prussian evading their block. The revision history at 尻 in particular. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eirikr:   Confirmed. The fact that they thought they could get away with it after they and their other sock got blocked before shows they don't have enough sense to be editing here, anyway- especially after they did something like this in the meanwhile. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding CategoriesEdit

Hi, I was thinking about adding categories for the different Sanskrit aorists the same way there are categories for the simple Verb Classes, and I've added a category label maker in the conjugation module. I also added this to Module:category_tree/poscatboiler/data/lang-specific/sa, but it's not showing up in Category:Sanskrit verbs by inflection type like I want and Category:Sanskrit_verbs_with_ṣ-aorist , for instance, still gives an error. Do you know how I can fix this? Dragonoid76 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dragonoid76 Check line 32. Benwing2 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filter requestEdit

Hi Chuck, I think you're the resident filter expert here, but if I'm wrong I can take this to Grease Pit. Would it be possible to create a filter that verifies that count("{{") == count("}}" and count("<!--") == count("-->") (or maybe not count on the HTML comments, just ensure that if "<!--" exists that "-->" also exists, ideally after "<!--") Hopefully it would catch edits likes this and this. JeffDoozan (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On name changes in taxonomyEdit

You may have seen this, but if you haven't, [] . DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I've seen you removed the "botany" label from a couple of senses. What's the correct way to indicate that a sense is plant-related? Jberkel 08:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you unprotect this for me? You can reprotect it later. Thanks, 01:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I hope you haven't quit for the evening yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I did what had to be done. You can reprotect it now, although I don't really see why it would be more prone to vandalism than any of the other Latin letter entries. 02:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oddly enough, it was protected in May of 2006 when someone added 10,682 bytes of content that was apparently copied from somewhere, then edit-warred using their own account, a Brazilian IP and 3 sock-puppets to add it back 7 times after they were reverted by 4 different admins. I can see why it was protected, but that was back when George W. Bush was in the White House... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I saw that an edit of a previous contributor had been reverted. Is there any reason for this? From my understanding, the term is actually used to refer to people specifically of Indian-origin, and very loosely to refer to 'South Asians' in general.

In fact it's also used by some 'South Asians' themselves to refer to people of Indian origin? نعم البدل (talk) نعم البدل (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@نعم البدل Who's to say that all the ignorant bigots in places like the US who use the term know or care about the distinction between South Asians and Indians? Sure, the core meaning is people of India, but it's hard to rule out other meanings.
It's an extremely nasty, ugly term, so it's natural people would want to control its application. People in India want to make it about everyone and people outside of India want to make it about only people in India.
At any rate, something contentious like this should be at least be discussed in the Tea Room. I'll start a topic. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of PajeetEdit

I added the correct definition of the word a few weeks ago but someone with no account changed it. This is IP Vandalism.

This word is only used for Indians. As other nationalities in South Asia have different words. It originated on 4Chan and is only used for Indians hence the correct definition is "An Indian Person" not South Asian. MT111222 (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any Indian that says otherwise is only saying it because they are ashamed that the word "Pajeet" is used for them. So they want to make it sound like it is used towards all South Asians which is not true. it is only used for Indians. Hence the correct definition should be added. MT111222 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said that who is to say if it is only used for Indians and not South Asians.

The answer is that the origin of the word. The word came from 4Chan and it was only used for Indians. It came from the meme, Pajeet my son, which was about India's open defecation problem. Not South Asia's. Only India's.

Hence as the origin of the word had a strict definition as "an Indian Person", it should be the same here.

I have corrected the definition on the "Pajeet" page. So please keep it like that.

Thanks MT111222 (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should my edits be reversed?Edit

Is there a mistake or do have to add the source? Sauerklee (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I guess I've written the definition from another word. Sauerklee (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive edits by an IPEdit

Hi - I have noticed that an IP has been removing the term شام(śām) from Urdu translations for 'Syria' - they've done this on multiple cases - such as [12], [13] and even on the Hindi lemmas - [14]. This term is definitely not used for the city of Damascus in Urdu or Hindi, and is simply a copy of the Persian definition.

In fact, they took it a step further and changed it on Wikidata as well [15] (however this edit was signed by an actual account not the IP). I've reverted their edits for now but I'm not sure why they're adamant on removing this term and replacing it with 'suriya' (since I doubt any Urdu speaker would understand this over 'sham', but could you please take a look at it? نعم البدل (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't this that French unregistered user who likes editing terms derived from Arabic (mostly in languages with a significant Arabic/Islamic influence like Turkish and Persian)? I recall Chuck Entz asking someone who knew Azerbaijani whether their edits were okay, and that person said they were mostly okay but with occasional inaccuracies. It's possible that was a different unregistered user though. I think they're a good-faith editor, but they don't seem to be very interested in communication. 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was 2A01:CB09:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), this is 2A01:CB06:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks). Both are Orange Telecom IPs that geolocate to Paris, but it's hard to tell whether they're the same person- as I said to @Allahverdi Verdizade, there are a lot of Turkic-language speakers in France. Oddly enough, the Pays-de-Loire IP I was thinking of when I asked has been active lately as (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks), and is showing their old preoccupation with dead/proto languages, Esperanto and Japanese. I haven't figured out the best way to deal with the IP asked about here (aside from reverting their Indic edits, of course). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, the association I had in mind was the Arabic-language IP editor who was active last year, and for a while whenever I would request an Arabic entry they would respond helpfully by creating it (or removing the request if it wasn't worthy of an entry). Not sure where they fit into this constellation of French unregistered users with an interest in Arabic and languages with that sort of influence, but they seemed pretty productive. 00:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about my reverted speedy deletion requestEdit

According to WT:USER, "Unregistered users ("IPs") should not have user pages". Due to this statement, I thought User: is subject to speedy deletion. What do you think about this? MathXplore (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding فخرEdit

Hi, Why is it that under the Persian section it says "the Arabic word itself is an Iranian borrowing ultimately from Proto-Iranian *húHarnah (“splendour, glory”). Doublet of فَرّ‎." But it doesn't say this under the Arabic section ? Also under فَرّ it says the word comes from Middle Persian Farrah, yet under the *húHarnah it says the word is from Farnahah in middle Persian and in "Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum" it states that the word "Glory" is Farrah whether it comes from Parthian or Middle Persian. So which way is it I guess ? If it is borrowed from Iranian language, whether Parthian, MP, or Old Persian it should state that. CaesarVafadar (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the possible Iranian origin of the Arabic is discussed at ف خ ر(f ḵ r). You were duplicating information. Vahag (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it really duplicating information, when the other information is in another page that unless the person goes after, won't ever find out? Furthermore, it is not as though this "Duplication of information" never happens on the site, For example look at فکر under Urdu, it states "Borrowed from Persian فکر‎ (fekr), from Arabic فِكْر‎ (fikr)" This information can be found under the Persian section ergo, it is duplication of information and should be removed.
Also, descendant of Proto-Iranian is a very round a way of saying, Middle Persian or Parthian. So why is it this information given out in such around a way? CaesarVafadar (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking up a couple of word and I found another duplication of information
"From Persian حافظ‎ (hâfez), from Arabic حَافِظ‎ (ḥāfiẓ), from verb حَفِظَ‎ (ḥafiẓa) (to preserve, to protect, to defend)."
Saying it comes from Arabic, when under Persian it already says it comes from Arabic is duplicating information, should I edit those out to align it with this policy ?
Honestly this is even worst than my edit because at least you can find this information without having to click to go to another page, you can just scroll up. CaesarVafadar (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is customary to handle the Arabic etymology at the root page, even if the root itself is back-formed from the noun.
The vague wording "borrowed from a descendant Proto-Iranian" is because Iranian dialectology is hard. Often we do not know if the borrowing is from Middle Persian, Parthian, Middle Median, Old Persian, Old Median etc.
@Fay Freak, do you maintain your Iranian etymology for the Arabic? See Kogan, Leonid; Krebernik, Manfred, editors (2020) Etymological Dictionary of Akkadian. Volume 1 Roots beginning with p and b, Leiden: Brill, page 130 and Corriente, Federico; Pereira, Christophe; Vicente, Angeles, editors (2017) Dictionnaire du faisceau dialectal arabe andalou. Perspectives phraséologiques et étymologiques (in French), Berlin: De Gruyter, page 949 for native origin proposals. Vahag (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vahagn Petrosyan, CaesarVafadar: The first reference itself acknowledges that with the homonymous formulae in the other Semitic languages “the semantic link is hard to establish”, and the second, which I had read, gives the usual fallback story of an extension d’un élément bi-consonantique, which فَخَّ(faḵḵa) I also have described, and فَخْفَخَ(faḵfaḵa, to brag), wherever this may be used (we don’t like to explain by words whose philological status is unknown), from this makes sense as die Nase rümpfen from the usual meaning of reduplicated verbs in Arabic.
Before coming to this my derivation of ف خ ر(f-ḵ-r) (where it is stated because the etymology might have been not for a single word only), I looked back what the most used forms within the root are, and it turned out the Sunna has only the noun فَخْر(faḵr) while the Qurʾān does not even have this, so I counted this with the Proto-Iranian page, given also that the Iranians succeeded to lend us Proto-Slavic *xvala. Shouldn’t have somebody suggested this already? I think it should have been in those many collections of supposed Iranian words in Arabic, but found no mention, so as with Vahagn’s approach I expanded that ledger since I have worked through the literature already and it would leave us with lots of lacunae in the explanatory parts of our dictionary. And this explanation appears best on the first and last glance: Arabic faḫr “vainglory” = Middle-Persian/Parthian farrah “glory”, the consonant order probably again owed to internal repatterning according to root consonant order preferences few people known consciously but are spoken intuitively and are described Greenberg, Joseph Harold (1950), “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic”, in Word[16], volume 6, issue 2, →DOI, pages 162–181 and Vernet i Pons, Eulàlia (2011-03-01), “Semitic Root Incompatibilities and Historical Linguistics”, in Journal of Semitic Studies, volume 56, issue 1, →DOI, pages 1–18 which I appear to have read later that year; the rules were less pressing with an organism name like فَرْخ(farḵ) but in turn this favoured the metathesis in the borrowing.
In the Persian section then it talked about the Arabic word because Raxshaan (talkcontribs) added it there, evidently accepting my derivation on the Arabic root page, as a Wiktionary editor, knowing where to find things, is more likely to check the root page, too. Fay Freak (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary editor and your ability to find information doesn't equal to the rest of the users, your users aren't editors. And if you put in one language where the origin is, like some of the Urdu edits where it states the borrowed term was another borrowing, you have to do the same for everything. It is not as though there is limited space, and a very simple "Most likely from Middle Persian or Parthian, look at the root word for more or look at *húHarnah" isn't going to take anything away from the page.
The purpose of the site is to present as much information as possible about a given word, not to lead you down rabbit-holes of clicking on pages after pages. As it stands, I have to click on ف خ ر‎ (f ḵ r) then I have to *húHarnah (“splendour, glory”) to see that the word came from Middle Persian(What the edit at *húHarnah suggest when you look at it) . CaesarVafadar (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CaesarVafadar: your edit demonstrates why that won't work. If I had left your edit as it was, the Persian entry, the Arabic entry and the Arabic root entry would all be different, with each missing something. What's more, you're leaving stuff out, too. The steps in the etymology that we know of so far: Modern Persian, Arabic, Classical Persian, Middle Persian, Old Persian, Old Median, Proto-Iranian, Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European, not to mention the elements of the compound per the etymology at the Proto-Iranian entry. Listing all of those at the Persian term would make for some real clutter. We're not paper, but walls of text can be intimidating.
Also, even if each etymology in that chain covered all the steps above it, there's the matter of corrections: if someone spotted an error in the Old Persian etymology, correcting it wouldn't just mean fixing that entry, but all the other steps in the etymology- if not in their etymologies, in their descendants. In practice, someone who knows about Old Persian may not know or care about Arabic, or they wouldn't even think about checking eight levels and who knows how many side branches (does anyone even know how many entries have- or could have- the Old Persian in their etymologies?). The inevitable result is that the etymologies would inevitably get out of synch- some missing information found elsewhere, and others actually contradicting each other. Even now, the entries in the Persian entry's etymology don't mention it at all- they stop at the Arabic.
The problem with trying to run Wiktionary like a published dictionary is that those have a single author, or at least a group who know about each other and coordinate their efforts. We're a wiki, so we don't know who all of our co-editors are. Without strictly-enforced standards, chaos is always a possibility, if not a probability.
The reason I reverted you, though, had more to do with memories of a serial-block-evading Persian editor who insisted on adding incredibly far-fetched Iranian etymologies everywhere they looked. As a checkuser, I've dealt with a number of their socks over multiple years. The fact that you were a new user and added a Persian etymology that I didn't see in the Arabic entry's etymology made me nervous, and the added factor of your odd wording/punctuation/capitalization (who starts an English sentence with "Meaning Glory, ultimately from"?) pushed me over the edge into reverting.
I think we need to do a better job of letting people know where the etymology is for Arabic entries- maybe something like a note that says: "see root for etymology" when that's where it is. I don't think we should even try to have everything in every entry's etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only edited it because it stated one thing under the Persian and the same information wasn't communicated under the Arabic part. I can accept the "see root for etymology", at least that will tell the reader there is more to read.
Also it's kinda hard to do that kind of editing, and I miss-clicked my comma with full stop.
I was trying to insert "from Middle Persian Prh (Farrah), Meaning Glory," but I miss-clicked.
So the sentence should have been like this, "from Middle Persian Prh (Farrah), Meaning Glory, ultimately from Proto-Iranian *húHarnah (“splendour, glory”). Doublet of فَرّ‎".Under the Persian edit, with the Arabic edit not having the "Doublet of فَرّ‎" part.
But I couldn't do the last edit because I got locked out.
So can I put the "see root for etymology"?
Also you don't need to put all of them, you can just write the last 2 or 3 which is the most relevant followed by the OG root of Proto-Iranian. Sort of like what is already being done under فر. If فر had its proto-Iranian root. This way it gives you the immediate important history but keeps the clutter to the minimum while also letting the interested user to know there is more to be read if they are interested. At least that is what I would be interest in seeing. CaesarVafadar (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

clown world editEdit

Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary based on usage. The section I removed can not be considered to be in 'usage' in good faith, nor is it substantiated by the sources cited in the article. Either the sources require ammending or general usage of the term in the manner described should be shown. Furthermore, to be perfectly clear, I am not an (alt-right) troll like the authors of the essentially vandal edits of the past. If the presented info can somehow be substantiated and/or general useage shown, please re-add (it would in fact help me greatly with my own current research). So far I however have not been able to find anything (it is the reason I removed it in the first place and added the somewhat lengthy discussion enntry). 15:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does "flood flag" work?Edit

I set "flood flag" for User:Jberkel and see that it was indeed set when I look at his user name, but I am still seeing his "semi-automated" edits on my watchlist. That was exactly what I was trying to suppress. Would the tool he is using also have to have some kind of flood flag as well? If so, I guess setting the flood flag doesn't address the issue, as I don't suppose we would want to risk having the flood flag provide cover for vandalism. DCDuring (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DCDuring: the flood flag is for Recent Changes, not watchlists. It causes the edits to be hidden by the "hide bots" setting in your preferences. I don't know of anything that can be done about edits showing on your watchlist. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then WT:Flood flag#Info needs correcting. DCDuring (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fakebook rollbackEdit

Facebook is also usually associated, directly or indirectly, with fake news, disinformation, and propaganda. It is mostly used that way on the online streets. Liray70 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the rollback is an error because "fakebook" is a common term online with association to fake news and disinformation. Thank you.  Liray70 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zhomron: the results are inEdit

CheckUser on enwiki has behaviourally linked Zhomron back to BedrockPerson (globally locked), and CheckUser has linked the following recent/sleeper accounts to Zhomron:

Blocks are handed down on Commons now as of this writing. Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23 I’m 99% sure that the username Контфокк is an attempt to phonetically spell English “cunt fuck” in Cyrillic, so we might want to revdel their username from all their contribs. The word is otherwise meaningless, and the only Google results are from this user. Theknightwho (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur; that was my shock when I sounded it out. Thank you for reminding us, unfortunately. Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23 I ran into this discussion recently, which summarizes their earlier history. Because of their interests, they seem to have been a lot more active here to start with than on Wikipedia. They did a lot of logged-out editing with Optimum Online IPs geolocating to Oyster Bay, New York (I'm not disclosing anything. It was obvious to everyone before I ever used the checkuser tool- subtlety is NOT one of their traits). There's another IP who geolocates to Huntington Station, New York and edits things related to Indo-European linguistics. That IP seems unrelated just based on competence and behavior.
We seem to have missed Rebfeee- most of our regular contributors in Hebrew and related langages have been inactive lately. By the way: here they mentioned editing as (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks). Chuck Entz (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz, when you find a spare minute, could you check up on our friend Itobh? They're only here on Wiktionary for now, and 3 inaugural edits were questionable undos of my BedrockPerson reverts. Elizium23 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"type species of the family"Edit

At ananaskala I encountered "type species of the family". I didn't think it worked that way. I thought that a species is type for a genus and a genus is type for a family. I had thought that the relationship "type of" is not transitive. (I don't know exactly how it works for other ranks, including "sub-"s and "super-"s.) Am I wrong about this? DCDuring (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit on x-wordEdit

The edit to change the definition of x-word to specifically mean xenophobia was made following a suggestion to do so on the RFV for the page at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#x-word. 4hrue2kd83f (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query about a problematic user over at EN WPEdit

I have no idea if your lookup tools could help. There's a logged-in user going by the handle of Immanuelle, whom I stumbled upon over at the EN WP. This might well be that anonymous IP from London who was obsessively adding bad magic- and religion-related entries here, who may have been Mare-Silverus or that user's family member (c.f. User_talk:Eirikr/2019#Do_not_shoot_the_messenger).

I have been growing increasingly worried by the sheer volume of misinformation they've been adding over there: w:Special:Contributions/Immanuelle. Much of their content is problematic even if you're not familiar with the subject matter, but unfortunately a number of less-savvy WP editors have even approved Immanuelle's submissions to w:WP:AFC and draft review (such as commented on at w:Talk:Toumakoku#Feedback_from_New_Page_Review_process). I'm pulling together my thoughts to post at w:WP:ANI, and upon realizing that Immanuelle was working on articles that had been touched in the past by anon IPs with similar habits, writing styles, and geolocation as Mare-Silverus, it occurred to me to ask you if your role as bureaucrat and/or steward here has any relevancy for issues of cross-wiki malfeasance.

If your purview extends to WP users, and if it is even appropriate to ask, can you see if Immanuelle is at all connected to either Mare-Silverus or the London anon IPs that were so plaguing us at Wiktionary in the past?

If this question is outside scope for any reason, my apologies -- I have no intention of compromising anyone's ethics.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eirikr: my being a bureaucrat has nothing to do with it- that's strictly about adding or removing user rights. As for my being a checkuser: I can't do anything with edits to Wikipedia, and I can't run a check here without reason to believe they're going to do something wrong on Wiktionary. Even if I did, it looks like they haven't edited here since October, so I would find nothing- everything a checkuser can see goes away after 90 days. The only thing I can suggest is reporting them as a suspected Mare-Silverus sock. If they haven't saved any data on Mare-Silverus, I have data from the check I ran a year ago on one of my Checkuser Wiki user subpages. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I am unfamiliar with the bounds of how checkuser works, so I appreciate the explanation.
I'll post to w:WP:ANI and mention my concerns of potential socking, in addition to the main issue of the flood of misinformation. I will ping you from there if appropriate.
Thanks again, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


IP is at it again, adding both blank and often wrong Proto-Norse (and Old Danish) terms to Proto-Germanic entries. Can you serve them with another block? -- Sokkjo (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

εισάγω: inherited vs. derivedEdit

Hi there Chuck! You revised my first attempt at a wiktionary edit and I wanted to ask—as a friendly enquiry—why that is.

I tried hard to comprehend the templates for inherited vs. derived and the About Ancient Greek pages before making the change. I noted that the template:derived page says to use inherited wherever possible (though I realise making that sort of etymological determination is not straight-forward). εις is marked as inherited. άγω is marked as inherited. (I realise those two facts combined don't imply that εισάγω is therefore also inherited!) A verb like λέγω is marked as inherited. I quickly checked a few other verbs, and it seemed to me that Modern Greek verbs with minor (or no) spelling shifts are often labelled inherited. I did hesitate when I noted that the inherited template description gives the example of "hundred" as a case where derived is correct, not inherited, because there is an intermediate step in Proto-Germanic from the parts found in PIE.

I realise this case of εισάγω is complicated by its prepositional suffix. Is it the case that we go for derived here (as a default) unless there is some positive evidence showing a direct inheritance from Ancient Greek to Modern Greek? Or should it be classed as inherited unless there is some positive evidence suggesting it was not directly inherited (Thus, better labelled derived)?

While I can't right now consult a Modern Greek dictionary with etymological notes, I can see that forms of εἰσάγω are used in the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 12th, 14th, and 16th centuries according to TLG (I acknowledge some may be citations of earlier works so I'd need to check more carefully to prove a continuation of usage). I guess my question is how strict is the criteria for labelling something as inherited? I feel like this fits the use based on what I read in the Wiktionary user documents.

As a secondary matter, I also removed "Learnedly, " from the entry. I do not see how this word adds to the etymology. Can I just clarify that it was the shift from derived to inherited that caused the revert, not this part of the change?

I bother to ask partly because I want to contribute further to Ancient Greek on Wiktionary, especially adding missing lemmas. I've tried to do my due diligence by reading a lot of the template and tutorial articles before attempting a minor edit. Just wanted to know why this should be labelled derived not inherited so I get it right in future entries. Appreciate your help! Tellytubbay (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main reason I reverted is that a knowledgable Greek editor had made the change from inherited and there was no indication that you had any particular reason for the change back. The history of modern Greek is very long and complex, with scholars in every generation who were aware of and versed in Ancient Greek (see Katharevousa, for instance). Under those circumstances, it's never safe to just assume anything, one way or the other.
The main argument for inheritance would be indications that the term underwent changes from the way it was in Ancient Greek, but it seems to be basically the same. As for "learnedly": the wording is a little awkward, but if it is a borrowing then it would have to be a learned borrowing, so that would be accurate. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I'm at it, I would suggest reading WT:AEL for a better idea of Wiktionary's approach to the language in question. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tellytubbay: you can use {{R:DSMG}} which marks learned borrowings with λόγ. (lóg.). Vahag (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh that's super! Thanks for the tip! 2405:6E00:F6F:7100:8D0F:3AA0:ACF5:C392 09:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry, just realised I wasn't logged on...)Tellytubbay (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I do recognise the long complex history of the language...I'll stick to my lane in the future (Ancient, not Modern Greek)! 2405:6E00:F6F:7100:8D0F:3AA0:ACF5:C392 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dirty old manEdit

I think your last rollback to the page "Dirty old man" was a mistake, also because you didn't leave an explanation on why you reverted it. 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for you:Edit

Why did you just deleted the Wikifuctions page? I didn't do anything wrong in this page and I used these sources, and therefore this term is totes attested in general public and news websites. You know that it even has an Wikipedia article on it. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:55AE:BF2:19B3:F54E 05:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A collaboratively edited catalog of computer functions to enable the creation, modification, and reuse of source code" is a description, not a definition. If someone else came up with something that matched that description it wouldn't be Wikifunctions. Wikifunctions is a specific Wikimedia project. That means the term is a proper noun, which would require a different part-of-speech header. Besides which, both the etymology and the definition are basically regurgitated from the Wikipedia article, and you left out the headword template.
Then there's the matter of whether we should even have an entry for this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so they have articles about all kinds of things that meet their notability requirements. Wiktionary is a dictionary, and we only have entries about terms, as parts of languages. We don't have an entry for List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, for instance, nor do we have entries for the films in that list. Please read through our criteria for inclusion, expecially WT:BRAND. None of that is grounds for speedy deletion, though. If it weren't for the problems mentioned in the first paragraph combined with those in the second paragraph, I would have just referred it to Requests for deletion instead of deleting it.
I should also mention this discussion on "neologisms", since you've been adding that label to just about everything from the last 5 years.
I'm not saying that everything you've done is a waste of time and space, but you do need to think a bit more about what you're doing- quality is more important than quantity. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting a voteEdit

Hello. Can I please ask you to figure out why user Thadh deleted my vote Wiktionary:Votes/2023-02/Prohibition of Valence Theory? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Previous editor meant "onom" (instead of "onam"), for onomatopoeia! Of course! How did I not guess that? The clue word "imitative" was right in front of me. Glad you knew what was intended. Far from being a godwit, I was a halfwit...HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you explain to me for good what was wrong with my edits on ageism, since you people refuse to address it post-edit? 12:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. What was wrong there? To me the added text looked incomprehensible. Svartava (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yes, what's up with your revertion? Non lex rex (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. I overlooked some of your qualifiers. I reverted myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So what do we do about Polish terms with redundant head parameter? Vininn126 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete RequestEdit

Hey Chuck Entz! I would like to request that you delete and also delete the histories of my user home page, user talk page, user talk archive page and sandbox page? I have already backed up the content for myself. I make the request on the basis that I have accidentally put out some personal private information. (Also, I don't know if there are any other user pages or user talk page that I control- how can I know if I do or not?) If I need to contact someone else, let me know. I don't know the procedure. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help! Can you delete Sandbox too? Thanks for any help here. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]