Open main menu

Archives:

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

Contents

WelcomeEdit

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

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

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

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



unprovenEdit

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

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


Interface editorEdit

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

CUEdit

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

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

ThanksEdit

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

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

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

The new version includes one major change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your understanding,

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

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

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

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

The new version includes one major change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your understanding,

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

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

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

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

The new version includes one major change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your understanding,

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

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

Changed images in archivesEdit

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

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

vandalEdit

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

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

laneEdit

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

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


Re: bagelEdit

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

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

errorsEdit

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

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

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

This revert: Etymology of ca:fangEdit

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

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

Re: "blue"Edit

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

Sincerely,

a native Malay speaker from Malaysia.

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

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

Redlinked taxonomic names in categoriesEdit

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

The spelling in South KoreaEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if notEdit

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

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

iskąą ánaagodzįįhłEdit

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

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

Curious about certain anon editing patternsEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the advice.Edit

I apologize for not being aware of the verification process, and ignorantly took the template at the beginning of the definition as a suggestion like Wikipedia's CN tags. I have added some citations to the RFV and moved the three quotations to the Citations:yeet page, as they appear to be "mentions" and not uses. 93 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I apologize for being a bit way too forceful in making my point, especially in the first half of my message. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You really don't know the details.Edit

Get over it. 112.201.3.230 06:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

wild onionEdit

Do you think that wild onion deserves mention as a hypernym of twincrest onion? Or am I misunderstanding what a hypernym is? —Rua (mew) 23:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's probably more of a synonym, though I don't really care much, either way. I just didn't want twincrest onion listed as a synonym at wild onion, because there are just too many things called wild onion- even within this species' relatively limited range. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


The source used the other fancy apostrophe. Wanna see?Ndołkah (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure they did. The question is whether the difference means anything. Word processing software tends to automatically replace apostrophes with left and right quotes, but web browsers don't. That means typing the same thing in Word gives a different result from typing it in a Wiktionary search box or edit window. PDFs are usually either scans with the text added using optical character recognition, or word-processing-software documents converted directly. Web pages can also be converted from word-processing-software documents. There are a number of ways that that "smart quotes" can end up online without any human being being aware of the difference.
Also, you may not have noticed it, but the headword template displayed ‘uuner instead of 'uuner- it decided that the ‘ wasn't part of the term, and linked to a nonexistent version of the headword without it. That probably should be fixed, but there may be other problems like that, because software on this site tends to assume that no one types ‘ on purpose.
What it all boils down to, is this: unless someone knew the difference and decided to use a left single quote instead of an apostrophe, it's better to use the version that Wiktionary users are most likely to get when they type on their keyboards. Otherwise you have to use extra workarounds to get everything to work the way it would with the plain apostrophe. In my experience, the character used to indicate the glottal stop isn't generally specially chosen. The Hawaiian okina is the only exception I can think of- and it has its own Unicode code point. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
that makes sense, i just didn't want to make a language up, however with my experience with Western Apache they use a fancy apostrophe for sure,words just don't seem to start with one.Ndołkah (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

SFBAEdit

San Francisco Bay Area why no translations, it's useful.Ndołkah (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Whether it would be useful or not, you obviously had no clue about any of those languages. That one module error tells me that you were going to Wikipedias in those languages and copying whatever they had. First of all, wikis aren't sources. More importantly, Wikipedia editors make things up all the time- their focus is on writing an article, not writing a dictionary, and they may not know off the top of their heads the term people actually use in real life, so they paraphrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I know French and Spanish where right as I speak them. Can we keep those? The local news channels use Área de la Bahía for the area.Ndołkah (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Italian translation of "lapin"Edit

I did not understand why you reverted my translation "pelliccia di coniglio". I quote Treccani Enciclopedia…lapin ‹lapẽ′› s. m., fr. – Coniglio; pelliccia di coniglio; con questa seconda accezione è termine molto icn uso anche in Italia nel linguaggio della moda: una giacca di lapin.Angelucci (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, if you put an equal sign (=) in a template parameter, the system interprets everything to the to the left of it as the name of a parameter, so there was a module error. Secondly, you quoted an encylopedia article, but would an Italian dictionary have an entry for that phrase? I'm not that great with Italian, but it seems like what we call "sum of parts": the meaning would be covered at the entries for pellicia and coniglio. If I made up a word "xyz" for an animal, wouldn't you describe its fur as "pellicia di xyz"? I've seen some of your other entries in Requests for deletion because of the same issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

IP block exemption -- where to request?Edit

Hello Chuck, I'm a bit stuck on where to ask this. User:Huhu9001 contacted me via email after they discovered they're subject to an IP range block, and cannot edit. I'm wondering if you, in your role as Steward, might be able to either handle this yourself, or help me figure out where to post such a request. TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a Bureaucrat, not a steward- I'm just a regular user outside of Wiktionary. I checkusered their account, and they just started using an open proxy that was globally blocked by a steward. Someone commented on a talk page recently about the Chinese government having just blocked access to Wiktionary, so I assume they switched to the proxy to get around the restriction- out of the frying-pan, into the fire...
At any rate, I can't touch a global block, so I granted IP block exemption.


By the way: did you check whether you have the ability to do that? As a Bureaucrat, I can't tell (I would have that, either way), but I could have sworn that any admin has the rights to do that, just as they can make an account an autopatroller or give it a flood or a bot flag. Go to a user or contributions page, and look for the "Change user groups" link on the left to see what user groups you can change. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Aha, thank you! It seems I can get to that menu. I had no idea what that was for, so thank you very much for the pointer! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Why delete?Edit

PS mw:Multilingual Templates and Modules Capankajsmilyo (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We have our own policies on user boxes and other general templates, so we take a dim view of people importing things from Wikipedia without checking whether they're compatible with our approach. If you want to implement a major cross-wiki initiative like this at Wiktionary, please provide an explanation at the Beer parlour, and get community consensus first. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Proverb namingEdit

Hello! I think you could help me. There is an entry there's many a slip twixt cup and lip, but the naming is amiss. It should be: there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip — that is to say, the definite article is missing before "cup" and before "lip". Wherever else you do search, you would find the definite article. Since I do not know how to change the heading of a lemma, could you kindly do the needful change? Thanks for the heed! —Lbdñk()·(🙊🙉🙈) 18:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The current form is fine and can be easily found in Google Books. Equinox 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The other form scans better metrically, and is the one I'm familiar with. I think we need both, with one as an alternative form to the other- though a redirect would work. It's just a matter of seeing which is the best known/most common. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
They seem both comparably old in print, with the early cites (c. 1820) already suggesting that they were both well-known proverbs at the time. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted EntriesEdit

Why exactly did you delete my entries? Last time I checked, "zmírnění" was Czech for "mitigation" and "maltroigo" was Esperanto for "mischief". I sought all the exact translations I could find. —This unsigned comment was added by 2601:c7:c201:c640:11d5:512b:c7fc:940b (talk).

(chiming in) I suspect you might discover some of the reason if you actually look at our entries for zmírnění and maltroigo -- neither indicate the meanings you've listed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The IP has not edited either of those pages. DTLHS (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Part of the joy and wonder of IPv6 is the vastly larger address space for confusion. :-/
  • The first thing I noticed was translations being added in an impossibly diverse range of languages all in a just a few edits. Albanian Burmese and Welsh are very tricky languages that are hard for non-native speakers to get right. Cebuanu, Hausa, Igbo, Kannada, Kyrgyz, Maltese, Samoan, Sundanese and many others are regional languages that very few people from elsewhere in the world study, let alone master well enough to be adding translations. For that matter, there aren't many people who've even heard of all those languages. The kicker, though, was removing a Czech translation added by a native speaker with the comment that it was "not accurate". That requires being either arrogant and reckless or utterly clueless. Either way, the only safe thing to do was revert. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.jsEdit

Hi,

I need to be able to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js, please. I always was, until recently. I and others have pinged you but you may have missed. Could you please enable my access? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Chuck. I am still here, waiting for your response. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been ignoring you, but I'm waiting until tomorrow when I have the day off to decide how to address this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
What does it take to decide? Let's just give Anatoli his user rights back (and anyone else known to be trustworthy who asks for them). It will only take you a click. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
That's OK, I can wait, as long as it gets done. Someone else did what I needed to do immediately. I need to access MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js as well, in case the access rights are different. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Chuck, I still need it, please. Shall ask someone else, since you're busy or don't know how? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter against triple bracesEdit

What's the point of Special:AbuseFilter/56? What's wrong with triple braces, anyway? 68.193.209.173 00:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Very simply, the kind of wiki syntax that uses triple braces should only be used in templates, not in the entries themselves. If you're triggering that abuse filter, you're doing something wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anent your recent revisionEdit

Hey! In hewers of wood and drawers of water, what was the need to drastically cut down on the the origin of the term? The biblical background is necessary for the reader, and just stating where the term is first mentioned in the Bible is sorely insufficient. Our policy is to make Wiktionary unique: if a piece of information (that is not readily available) be shown here, then where is the problem? I want the removed background to be brought back anyhow. Regards— Lbdñk()★(🙊🙉🙈) 15:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rollback at idiomEdit

Sir,you reverted my edits on idioms. But i did add it under the heading of bengali. I fail to recognise the cause of reversal. Perhaps you intend to say that the definition should be clearer Kuhu chan (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kuhu chan Please read our Entry layout page. Our entries are arranged by spelling, not by subject: idiom should only have information about the English word and words in other languages that are spelled the same. Since Bengali terms are spelled in the Bengali script and English terms are spelled in the Latin script, Bengali and English can never be on the same page. If you want to see how Bengali is done here, go to Category:Bengali language. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kuhu chan: I have just made this very simple basic Bengali entry: বাগধারা (bagdhara). (This spelling matches the dictionary I used).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WindjammerEdit

Hi Chuck,

I note that you reverted my definition of "windjammer", supported by references back to a definition that appears to be over constrained and not supported by references. Let's discuss this at Talk:windjammer.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How muchEdit

I think I didn't understand why you removed pronoun in 'how much'. Why have you removed it? Osbri (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:PaulietraEdit

Hey Chuck, I am guessing that this person didn't remove the comments of others maliciously, but rather isn't familiar with how wikis work. Seems like a good faith edit to me. - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but you'll notice that the account was created a minute after an IP was blocked by an abuse filter from making that edit. Feel free to reduce or remove the block, though. I have my doubts whether they're really going to participate here, either way. My impression is that we're dealing with loyal supporters off-wiki who think that this is a challenge to the OPs expertise on the subject, rather than to the suitability of the term itself as a dictionary entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you are almost certainly right, but I was going to leave them a note on their talk page about why I undid their edit and noticed the block. I'd like to give them a chance to state their case, even if it is unlikely to be relevant for our purposes. Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 15:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Islamocracy other definitions (Re: rollback)Edit

Other usage for Islamocracy has been mentioned on its talk page. The citation of the person who is said to have coined the term (wikipedia:Democracy#Non-governmental_democracy) is from 2013 but other usage dates back to 2000.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing discussion of 'female' at WiktionaryEdit

I asked about a quotation that refers to a fictional character in order to understand which definition of the word 'female' (in this case, one who is gender-fluid) the story means. It can help when each sense will be separated to two different definitions, one for sex and one for gender. Then this quote can come with the one that fits. הראש (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

ReversionEdit

Can I ask why you reverted my edit to Albtraum? According to Wiktionary:Style_guide images are allowed on the right hand side of the page. CaGlwwWEDymzc7KBQC8u (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

criteriaEdit

Dear Chuck. Thank you for being so open to a discussion. (I have experienced worse behaviour.) When, in reading the article "criteria", I reached the end of this article, I became aware that I had still not read a definition that is: the meaning of this word. And I had to think about it, before I recognized that the meaning probably is given in the article about the singular form. And I can imagine that there are others who are not familiar with this dictionary and it's rules. And I might not be the only one who would experience this. Of course: if one is familiar with this dictionary one knows that the meaning is only given in the article about the singular form. Maybe this is even written somewhere, but these cases of a plural having a rather un-common form, compared to its singular form, are not so often. And to help those others I added this hint.
And I would, for the sake of the other users, apreciate if you reverted your revert. --Steue (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:I learned some phrasesEdit

So what's up with User:I learned some phrases? I just got this message on my user talk page. I feel there's some background to this that I'm missing. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Another User:AryamanA/Wonderfool. Equinox 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Am I right in guessing that WF's modus operandi is to mix sensible contributions with not-so-sensible ones, and then after a while he (she?) gets blocked and then switches to another account (or accounts) and starts over again? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
He always passes a certain point and "gets bored" and rapidly creates a lot of junk. He usually announces this in advance, as you saw. I think the amount of bad/fake stuff slipped in during well-behaved periods is quite low, but there definitely is some. Equinox 00:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert of plural formEdit

Hi! I noticed that you made [this revert] of my edit that added another plural form to "glans penis". However, if you look at glans#Declension_2 and penis#Declension_6, you will see that the nominative plural of "glans" is "glandes", and that the genitive plural of "penis" is "penium". Therefore, "glandes penium" is the correct Latinite plural of "glans penis". I suggest reinstating it. The Patibulary Constabulary (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not in an English entry. English doesn't follow Latin declension rules. More importantly, we're a descriptive dictionary, and a quick Google search shows only one example of "glandes penium" being used in an English sentence. Ever. If someone wrote "glandes penium", very few English speakers would even know what was being referred to. For that matter Google doesn't even have any examples of "glandes penium" being used in a Latin sentence. Having the phrase in an English entry would only confuse people and misinform them. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Move protectionEdit

Rather than move-protecting hundreds of individual pages I wonder whether it would be more profitable to start a discussion about tightening users' default page-move rights. Equinox 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

New and IP users should be able to move some pages, especially those they created themselves. Don't worry- I don't intend to make a career out of this. Just a bit of yak shaving while I build up the motivation to start on some things I've been procrastinating on. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Name modification to HanneloreEdit

You deleted my modifications to MY NAME. How can they be incorrect? It's MY NAME, MY NICKNAME. Also, my neice's name and nickname. Both are variations of the original name Hannelore. Phonetics pronunciations were also added. If it is the coding I did incorrectly, please fix for me as I am not a coder, but only a user. If it was incorrect, just send me a message as to why you deleted it. Contributors should recieve communications like this so instead of just "DELETE" because maybe I didn't understand the "coding". I don't understand your lack of consideration in this. —This unsigned comment was added by Hanalore (talkcontribs).

@Hanalore The entry was about how German speakers in general use the name. Not about how it's used in the US, where it would presumably be used as an English name- I sincerely doubt that anyone in Germany would have the nickname "Honey". My given name is Charles, which happens to be from French, but I know better than to put information about US pronunciation of my name and my nickname under the French entry, because it's irrelevant- everybody here speaks English, not French. Basically, you got carried away by the coincidence that you have a similar name and decided to make the entry about you and people you know in the US, rather than about the the stated subject of the entry. The fact that you massively violated our formatting rules (see WT:EL) didn't help, but wasn't the reason for the revert. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

simple presentEdit

You removed User:Tooironic's and User:SemperBlotto's contributions to WT:TR concerning [[simple present]] in this diff. Where should they have gone? To WT:RFC, which has little activity? DCDuring (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, to the monthly subpages, which is where Wikitiki89 said they had been moved when they were removed the first time. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't look at the year and thought it was a current matter. DCDuring (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Candida wiktionary reversionEdit

I object to reverts without comments. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Suslindisambiguator (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia, and you'll find that invoking Wikipedia policies isn't very popular around here. At any rate, I reverted you because you added links to YouTube videos, which is almost never allowed in the dictionary and definitely not allowed for something basic like pronunciation. We take a very dim view of anything that could be interpreted as promoting a commercial website- if I had thought you were doing it intentionally, I would have blocked you on the spot for spamming. If you can't find appropriate sound files at Commons, you'll have to settle for spelling it out in the International Phonetic Alphabet. I'll add our welcome template to your talk page so you can learn the appropriate policies for editing here. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:List of portmanteauxEdit

Hey Chuck, I was wondering why you deleted two portmanteaux from the list? I didn't see any explanation in the page's history description, so I undid the edit. Now that I see you're an admin I figure there's got to be a reason, so clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Article "one"Edit

Why you delete my change on the page "one"? The rightful abbreviation of Low German is NDS. Not NDS-DE. Low German is not part of German, it's an foreign language related with English and Frisian with an own language code. Phillipm0703 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Phillipm0703: Wiktionary treats nds as two main languages: German Low German (nds-de) and Dutch Low Saxon (nds-nl). See WT:ANDS. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Module:ms-headwordEdit

Can you please keep the "-kau" (second person possesive) part? --TNMPChannel (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue about the content- I don't speak Malaysian. The only reason I reverted was that you renamed a variable without changing the code that referred to it, this causing module errors in hundreds of entries.
First of all, don't make changes to a widely-transcluded module unless you thoroughly understand what you're doing, and second, always check CAT:E for at least an hour after you do make any changes, so you can see if your edits trashed things. It would also be a good idea to look at a representative sampling of entries to see if your changes caused any problems other than module errors.
You have to realize that when you edit a template or module, you're simultaneously editing every entry that uses that template or module- so tiny mistakes have huge consequences. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?Edit

Can you check if SKA-KSI is a sock of IMIPER? I got this message on my talk page from the former: "Is there a reason why illyrian(messapic) entries are constantly deleted and sabotaged? My entry was sourced!" They are referring to Reconstruction:Illyrian/rhinos, which I nominated for deletion, but IMIPER was the one that created it, so "my entry" is suspicious. —Rua (mew) 09:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Rollback rightsEdit

Hi. Would you be willing to remove my rollback rights from my Chignon (talkcontribs) account and 'transfer' them to this account? Canonicalization (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No offence but you're such a pain with your 99 user names. Can't you settle down? Equinox 10:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy with the current one and don't plan on switching again. But it's not the first time I've said that... Canonicalization (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I was asked to stop trying to speak French on some Internet place because I was so bad at it :D it makes me want to continue Equinox 10:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Normally I would take it to the whitelist, but you're equally well known by both names, so this is pretty uncontroversial. Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Canonicalization (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yield, yold & yoldenEdit

Just like when i had to explain in 2018 why my obsolete -> archaic edits should not have been reverted—and without expressed reasoning, at that—i'm reverting these rollbacks, because these terms fall under Wiktionary's definition of archaic, not obsolete. A quick Ngram search reveals they've still been used into the 20th century. BenYaMan (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@BenYaMan Ngram searches aren't infallible. It's easy enough to find surnames, mislabeled Yiddish, scannos, variable names (yold vs. ynew), but I have yet to see any form of yield. I dare you to find even one in Google Books. What's more, I suspect that 99.9% of modern English speakers would have trouble figuring out the forms if they saw them in a sentence. A few fluke uses might allow the forms to pass rfv, but for labels we're talking about general patterns, not mere existence. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd argue that, per the classification policy page, if you narrow down the sample of modern English speakers to educated speakers who'd potentially find themselves in the position of reading a text using archaic terms, they'd typically be able to understand it unaided, and understanding, or, in other contexts, cause, of the term's usage might be spurred by a natural niggling intuition some should feel—that yield should exhibit ablaut. BenYaMan (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@BenYaMan Well, if you told them about "grield", a word you made up, those same people would be able to figure out "grold" and "grolden". That doesn't make it part of their vocabulary. At any rate, show me usage in the past century that's not someone playing word games. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Does a term being understandable between speakers not constitute something being a part of the modern language, as opposed to whether it was in the listener/reader's vocabulary in the first place? If something's understandable, even if only by the mechanism you demonstrated above, does that not, according to its very definition, preclude it from being obsolete? Anyway, i concede defeat on the front of modern attestation, in genuine surprise at how old all the texts are. I reflect that it's a vicious cycle, if a dictionary labels a term as obsolete: when the term would still have otherwise been used and understood, in so doing providing more evidence for its existence, it's now become prescribed against, bringing about further decline in its use when it would still have otherwise found itself in the vocabularies of speakers, and that's not the point of a descriptive dictionary. BenYaMan (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting a pageEdit

Excuse me. Who can delete a page directly? -- Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Only an admin has the capability. We generally defer to the community in deciding whether to do so except in the most obvious cases. If you want something deleted, how you request it depends on what it is, and why it should be deleted. I it's something obvious like a one-off typo, an entry you just created based on a simple error, or an act of vandalism that blatantly violates the rules, the {{delete}} template or one of its alternate names like {{d}} can be used.
If it's something that will require consensus and therefore discussion, you use one of the request templates: {{rfv}}/{{rfv-sense}} (with the appropriate language code) if you think it doesn't really exist in the language as used, {{rfd}}/{{rfd-sense}} (again, with the language code) if your reason hinges on some other aspect of our Criteria for inclusion, and {{rfdo}} if it's a page other than an entry in the main dictionary. Then there are cases where you're not necessarily deleting something: {{rfc}} when it just needs to be fixed, {{rfm}} when it has the wrong name or it needs to be merged with something or split, and {{rfv-etymology}} when you think an etymology is wrong (there are also requests where you'd like something to be added that's missing, such as {{rfap}}/{{rfp}}, {{rfe}}, {{rfi}}, {{rfq}}, etc., but that's probably getting too far off-topic). 05:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you. -- Thedarkknightli (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Tea Room imageEdit

Hey. You seem pretty reasonable. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

AgapeicEdit

I believe this rollback was in error. "Agape" is a homonym for /əɡeɪp/ and /ɑɡɑpeɪ/. "Agapeic" is derived from the latter, so my edit was to clarify which word "agapeic" is formed from. As evidence that this is the correct etymology, see Collins, and also the fact that "agapeic," as an adjective, is unlikely to derive from the adjective /əɡeɪp/ (whereas deriving from the noun /ɑɡɑpeɪ/ makes morphological sense). I realize also that the piped link should be added the "agape" in the etymology section.

Am I good to revert? Anthologetes (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to refer to a numbered section on a wiki: all it takes is for someone to rearrange, add or subtract sections, and your reference will go wrong. "Etymology 2" could be Etymology 1 five minutes from now. Better to add a gloss to tell which one. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Rollback of 🔰Edit

This is a new but real usage of the symbol, and at this point is more common among English speakers than the original Japanese use. There is no reason to exclude it. --PDVk (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Limpdick and friendsEdit

I see you deleted this nickname as "inherently unsuitable for an entry", after somebody tagged it as abusive or some such. So is this only true when it's derogatory? Would we keep flattering nicknames? What about Iron Lady (Maggie Thatcher), Drumpf (Donald Trump), etc.? Equinox 20:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake. It seemed a bit too much of a reach for anyone to use it in real life, and I was in a hurry. As for the "inherently not suitable for an entry" part, that's my standard creation-protection comment when I delete something that's open-and-shut non-dictionary-material- things like the name of some non-notable individual or musical group or some lame made-up protologism with zero Google hits not generated by the one person. This one wasn't quite to that level, so I only gave it autoconfirmed protection. If I would have checked it out on Google or even looked at the edit history I would have realized that it the evidence wasn't up to my normal standards and left it alone. I'll have some time this weekend to look into it further and decide whether it's even worth rfv-ing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
These are horrible entries TBH but we have to be consistent... Equinox 23:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Why'd you revert my edit on desembarque?Edit

Vandergay (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

By using {{gl-noun}} you marked the entry as a Galician noun, you used the header "Substantive" rather than "Noun", you added links to a bunch of external web sites, and it would be easier for someone to recreate everything from scratch than to fix it. I'll add our welcome template to your talk page so you can learn how to do things right, and I'll hold off on reverting your edit to embarque to give you a chance to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, I did that on a whim. Should've used noun, but switching languages does that to you. As for the external web sites, what's the proper way of citing dictionaries, etymologies and corpuses? I saw it in another entry actually and copied it over so the formatting was the same (I used saída and exit). I've fixed both articles apart from that already. This is actually my first edit on Wiktionary after a lot of time just using it, so cheers! Thanks for taking the time to reply. Vandergay (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

There is already a reference template for {{R:Michaelis}} (see the changes I made), and you could make one for Dicio based on the code of the templates at Category:Portuguese reference templates, and take a look at the existing templates you can use. I could also help with that tomorrow (I'm not very good with code, but I've made some reference templates). Personally I don't recommend linking to the corpus because the url doesn't change with each word, but that's just my preference. Ultimateria (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Chinese messages vandalEdit

monogamy practice/practiseEdit

Hello, you reverted my edit which changed practise to practice, where the word was being used as a noun. I'm not aware of any standard variety of English that uses "practise" as a noun. Was this perhaps in error? AllenY99 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake. Since I don't use it myself, I was unaware of the difference between the spelling of the noun and the verb. We try to avoid switching between UK and US spellings in entries, and I thought that was what this was. I've restored the correction. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! AllenY99 (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rollback in errorEdit

I think this rollback is in error. {{w|en|Kingdom of Benin}} and {{w|en|Benin}} both send you to the Wikipedia page EN; the intention of the OP was clearly to have them link to the Wikipedia pages Kingdom of Benin and Benin.  --Lambiam 22:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I reverted myself immediately. Unfortunately, the links for viewing a diff and rolling it back are very close to each other, and things jump around a bit as they load on my old, slow system. Sorry for the error! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

human being, man/translations‬Edit

Explain your rollbacking, which clearly was no improvement. --Cory Jewed (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To start with, it would seem to me a better idea to move the human being translations to the closer, and clearer, semantic equivalent, human, than to the ambiguous "man". I would have moved all of the translations for the "human being" sense at man there- as far as I'm concerned, you moved them in the wrong direction.
More importantly, though, I would have discussed such a major and potentially controversial restructuring before doing anything. You could have brought it to the Tea room, though Requests for moves, merges and splits would be a better fit. If you didn't know the correct forum, you could have asked at the Information desk. Yes, this is a wiki, so you can do all kinds of things without asking anyone- but with that comes the responsibility to work with the community and to make sure you have consensus before making major changes. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism Fighter – A Barnstar For You!Edit

 
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Mr. Entz, I really do wonder how you do it, sometimes.

The amount of promotional material and vandalism slipped into Wiktionary on a daily basis is astounding.

I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation ought to send out flyers or put up posters explaining, in a nutshell, why vandalism of Wikimedia projects accomplishes nothing, and is (rather) merely a good way to get oneself banned.

In any case, keep up the good work!

Tharthan (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, though there are several people who do more than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Trans-nistraEdit

If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page - yes, I think that your rollback is at least an error, and most likely the vandalism. 217.19.216.241 20:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Chuck Entz".