User talk:Chuck Entz
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.
Hey Romanophile, congrats on passing your RfA here. I just wanted to let you know that I mass-reverted the contributions of the vandal here, but pages he created still exist. Not sure if you've found this yet, but Special:Nuke can very quickly clean those up.
Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Though, some of his contributions seem to be fine. I typically just mass rollback since it denies them the recognition of seeing their work stay, but if some contributions are good and you feel they're worth keeping, let me know. I'd be glad to go back through them and undo the appropriate reverts. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC) @lbd188.8.131.52 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for the slow reply. You may be right that it's a different person, actually. That's interesting regarding the style of communication as well. If you think that they are editing in good faith, and they aren't being blocked on other projects, then I'll stop globally blocking the IPs and we'll see what happens. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
. SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:perpetuüm mobile (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)evnlesowithboiler template
- furthr15:23 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:ad perpetuum (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox);alfsegat<idoNOTadthoz4fun,uno.. log); 15:17 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:chef's knife (Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP)
(Deletion log); 15:16 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:tegoedhoudertje (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)184.108.40.206 15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
220.127.116.11 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You rolled back my edit of hen's teeth without explanation. My edit was perfectly valid, your rollback looks like vandalism.
- Well, your edit was in good faith, and I have no reason to believe the information was wrong. The problem is that a dictionary is about words and phrases, not about subjects. For our purposes, it's enough to know that the term came from the fact that hens have no teeth. Anything else is beside the point, and gets in the way of the reader who just wants to know what "hen's teeth" means. The fact that they use the grit in their crops for the same purpose as teeth is interesting, and sounds like something that would be good in an encyclopedia article- but not in a dictionary.
- I'm sorry I didn't have time to leave you a note, because you deserved better. Unfortunately, we only have time to look at new edits when they're made, and any problem gets lost among our 5 million entries if we don't deal with it on the spot. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If you continue to vandalize articles, like you are on Gerhard , your account will be disabled and your IP will be blocked. Do NOT do it again. This is your FINAL warning! 18.104.22.168 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds serious. - TheDaveRoss 17:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just another idiot anon, who can't be bothered to read the instructions, and then gets upset with editors editing.
- Your effort at self-discipline is commendable, and admonishing yourself does save me some typing, but I have my doubts as to whether you'll take your warning as seriously as you should (nobody listens around here, even to themselves). :-) Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- See this explanation. It's probably rare or obsolete, nowadays (I've certainly never heard of it before), but the term does exist. At any rate, it has absolutely nothing to do with "annoying". If you see something that doesn't seem to make sense, you either remove it or ask someone about it (the Tea room is probably the best place to post such a question). Mangling it and leaving it for dead just makes the confusion worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
1.hedunspeakNL2.obvjesly,w/cieio-morgengav-lbd(nevncodcatwe=colaboratin(soDEL=UNelpfl,sai19:11 . . SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:uitverkoop (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)@CIeio, Morgengave, Lingo Bingo Dingo22.214.171.124 19:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- nmor(theySERVPURPOSuno<komunicate~entryz:((20 January 2017 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:rui (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)
05:19, 20 January 2017 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:ziekteverwensing (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox)<hadUX+q:ow2ad(asHEDWORDnoinit.. 126.96.36.199 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, what is happening here is that @SemperBlotto has deleted a couple of talk pages where this anon in question, who afaik writes in a highly abbreviated shorthand due to a nasty case of repetitive strain injury preventing them from easily writing words in their entirety, had been discussing some Belgian Dutch terms (one of them I participated in). Presumably the pages got deleted because at first glance these comments look like gibberish, though they can be parsed without too much difficulty if one can be arsed. From what I can tell this particular anon got blocked in the past, but their current contributions seem valuable and in good faith, so perhaps a more tolerant approach could work better. — Kleio (t · c) 22:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
1.=saichologyENTITY2.WIDESPREDusag3.so@leastitdeservzsumentionundrANGUISH(ichekd:zilch<ilearntENmyslfDAHARDWAY,usin(shity)bux,n'nop,thisaint'elpfl2learnrs:((@metaknowledge, CIeio188.8.131.52 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- What really isn't user-friendly is the way you write. I can't understand what you are talking about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
this=DEFlECTINthepoint;noned2RIDEONMYDISABILITY:((184.108.40.206 15:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- i'lelaboratbitsinsbroutup:USR<MAINpp,EDITRS=talkpp;idunabr.onMAINas,wel=DIC,spelinstandedetc(inded,USRfrendlinesdue!;talk=COLEAGEDITRShu genralyKNOW~myRSI(me1DEKADher),soREAZNBL(i=nomakinKRUKDargumnt+abovboard!)acomodatn=due(remembr:GERMANYblokdWMFonce(2dayz ibliv)4noadhern2locaLAW(blp-probs>THENalasudnSWEPINCHANGES(policyetc;now,PROGRESIVsocietyzvANTIDISCRIMINATRYLAWZ2(wichaply2WMF2,novirtualrealy;icantrigr thozregulatnzinUS(v.ard4me,a.cozicantrite/typmuch),iDOcanherinEurop,uno(esp.sinsi=bak.
ps:emotionalystunted<DEL,samaplyz(NOdunbyM.KN(wotisawfromit,gen:ps.ENTITY,MORthanjusOPsmh ivNObenblokdyet,iltakdadasPOS.SIGN(ivben@BP,genstmywilrealy,dramabox(wel,SUMdoso..:|220.127.116.11 09:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:chloorkip (Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the S<hedunc.aldaNLentryzitakpartin??icantakakount'genifdad'elps..18.104.22.168 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- nactualywasment4ppl~SBhuno~SPORTSsai22.214.171.124 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's more for the patrollers' benefit than anything else: it saves us time wasted by looking at edits that we already know are going to be without problems. But you're welcome, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you may have edited the wrong entry: the entry for the sense you added is at cosmos (lowercase). — Kleio (t · c) 17:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Rp2006: You might want to read [[Wiktionary:What_Wiktionary_is_not#Wiktionary_is_not_Wikipedia]]. This helps explain some of the key differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary, when it comes to editing entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You deleted my edit then gave Zero reason for doing soEdit
Regarding the article for "belabour". I'm sure i am not the first one to feel degraded that you have such power to instantly place the burden of proof onto the other person. However just by luck it happens to be true... i am in fact just some idiot. You won & i hope you agree it's "case closed". Now, addressed toward anyone else who is wondering why i'm not diplomatically sounding like a team player: This particular note of mine was worded in an unusually high-voltage manner for good reasons that i will happily stand by North Alabama 000 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You!Edit
A barnstar for you!
This barnstar is awarded to you for your excellent contributions to Wiktionary! Thank you very much!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/today_is_a_good_day_to_die<=1.+SF>wp,n?126.96.36.199 07:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding my edit on س م ح (s-m-ḥ): do you think root entries should be excluded from the category (in this case, Category:Arabic terms belonging to the root س م ح)? Now that I think about it, it's sort of redundant since the root is already listed at the top. Module:ar-utilities can be modified to do that. — Eru·tuon 05:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, thank you for adding so many
|nocat=1 parameters! I don't know how you're finding the entries that don't belong in the categories; it seems like wizardry to me. Or maybe there's a tool I don't know about? — Eru·tuon 05:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- No wizardry- I just looked for non-Arabic scripts and non-entry namespaces. As for your question: every root entry should have a link to its category, whether in the entry itself, or at the bottom. In the entry is better for general users, but at the bottom is easier from the point of view of guaranteeing that all entries have them. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously. If there had been typos, I'm sure they would have been included, too. You need to learn how to do a Wiktionary etymology, and not just regurgitate bits of other (copyrighted) sources. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please, check the meaning of the word "welcome". Delarouvraie 🌿 08:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Delarouvraie: Please also understand that Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. The editor base here is much smaller, and we must quickly and efficiently patrol a large number of entries. This often means simply reverting problematic edits. Content copy-pasted from other copyrighted sites is not allowed here, so the quickest resolution is simply to revert any such addition. This isn't personal, it's procedural. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- May I also point out that the user's signature does not conform to WT:Signatures? —JohnC5 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5. My addition comes from a printed dictionary, the Collin's. If a give the complete ref (page, issue date, publisher), would it be possible to restaure it ? I also was looking for the template for langages. I'm a contributor to the French Wiktionary. We are not allowed to create theories (i.g. for etymologies). Is it the same here ? If yes, how is it possible to give any information, without inventing it and without copying it from a sourced book ? Delarouvraie 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please, check the meaning of the word "welcome". Delarouvraie 🌿 08:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we fix this?Edit
It's been a merry chase, but @CodeCat and I have probably been fending of this "Errors (Missing informations)" user for a while now. The user always has slightly different addresses like:
and so on. The user is devilishly close to being correct but does not listen to reason and causes great annoyance. Is there something we can do about this? —JohnC5 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- An abuse filter could block edits with that exact summary, but the user might well learn to use a different one. Equinox ◑ 13:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, those are fairly common and innocuous on Wikipedia. I do see a few good edits with those edit summaries on Wiktionary from time to time as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is a sysop-only option in the Wiktionary:Per-browser preferences labeled "Adds a CIDR Range Contributions check to Special:User contributions" that lets you use wildcards in the search box there, so you can search on "2a01:cb05:8231:a600:*". It adds a line of text to the Special:Contributions page at the last minute, so you have to wait for the page to finish loading before you click anything, and it doesn't work on every browser (sometimes you can force it by clicking "User contributions" on the sidebar, but I haven't gotten it to work on Microsoft Edge).
- As for blocking, I always use at least a 65-bit range block for IPv.6 addresses, because it's standard practice for ISPs to allocate everything within that range to a single user. In this case you would block "2a01:cb05:8231:a600:3550:718d:ec4c:6d46/65" (the last 4 16-bit numbers can be anything within the same range, such as "2a01:cb05:8231:a600:0:0:0:0"). Of course, this person has used a number of IPs in the past, as well as the Inkbolt account, so they obviously know how to get around such blocks. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Request for recreating entriesEdit
I'm sincerely asking you to recreate entries about latinised Serbo-Croatian names, before I, BrunoMed will be unblock. The entries satisfied all criterias of inclusion and they are well documented:
- Književnik: Časopis za jezik i poviest hrvatsku i srbsku i pirodne ..., Opseg 1
- Vojnomir Slaven | Hrvatska enciklopedija
- Jezik: - Opseg 9 - Stranica 34
Thank you! --188.8.131.52 15:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, I think that the rollback is an error. "Recce" comes from OE "reccan". For further evidence see Bosworth's A Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon Language, p. 54r & 54v, it shows various compound words containing "recce", all derived from "reccan". I can't find any source corroborating the claim that it comes from a contraction of F "reconnaissance".--184.108.40.206 14:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC
Further evidence: G. Stephens' (Trans.): Two leaves of king Waldere's lay, a hitherto unknown Old-English epic, p. 82: "RECCE, 42, 3 s. pr. subj. of RECCAN, to reach, stretch, endure, last".--220.127.116.11 14:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- You're ignoring a millennium of language change and a huge difference in meaning just because of a coincidental similarity in spelling. The usage quoted shows that recce is interchangeable in meaning with reconnaissance, the first syllable of the OE word sounded like modern English retch, and you haven't explained why there's no trace of usage for recce in the centuries since OE evolved into Middle English- unless you're suggesting that modern soldiers got it from Bosworth-Toller. I'm sorry, but that's just nuts. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is no source claiming that it derives from "reconnaissance", while we have at least three sources which trace it back to "reccan". I'm not saying that the "reconnaissance" hypothesis should be utterly excluded, but that both possible etymologies should be pointed out.--18.104.22.168 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- (Still me, 193.etc.) Here you have the conjugation of the verb RECCAN. It is RECCE in indicative first person singular and in subjunctive first, second and third person singular. Maybe its not relevant, but default Microsoft Office English Dictionary gives "to recce" as a general equivalent of "to explore".--22.214.171.124 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- From the Merriam-Webster entry:
Definition of recce
Origin and Etymology of recce
by shortening & alteration
First Known Use: 1941
- That refers to the noun meaning "reconnaissance", not to the verb meaning "to explore". It is possible that there are two etymological lines, one "recce" deriving from "reconnaissance" and another "recce" deriving from "reccan".--126.96.36.199 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- The OED also says recce comes from reconnaissance: "< rec- (in reconnaissance n.) + -y suffix6. Compare earlier recco n., recon n.1". — Eru·tuon 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict...) The noun → verb shift in usage patterns is so common in English that folks talk about "verbing a noun". This is another such instance.
- As another data point, Cambridge lists the same derivation. The senses there more clearly overlap with the "explore" sense you mention.
- Alternatively, Oxford's entry derives the noun sense from reconnaissance and the verb sense explicitly from reconnoitre.
- In terms of historical development, just about any Germanic-based OE term with double-c pronounced as /k/ shifted in spelling to ⟨ck⟩. C.f. Old English þicce → modern English thick, Old English hnecca → modern English neck, Old English flocc → modern English flock, and even Old English reccan → modern (albeit rare) English reck (despite an indicated /t͡ʃ/ pronunciation of the ⟨cc⟩ spelling -- @Chuck, is that correct?). So this hypothesized Old English recce → modern English recce derivation is exceedingly unlikely just on the basis of the spelling, unless the modern language were borrowing it directly from OE sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
maybe fix that?
- My only objection was to the unnecessary removal of content, not to any grammatical issues. Feel free to fix the grammar without removing content (unless the content is factually wrong, of course). Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)