User talk:Chuck Entz/2023

Why should my edits be reversed?

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

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

Disruptive edits by an IP

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 [1], [2] and even on the Hindi lemmas - [3]. 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 [4] (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)

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. 70.172.194.25 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That was 2A01:CB09:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), this is 2A01:CB06:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active 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 89.225.181.102 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global 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)

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. 70.172.194.25 00:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about my reverted speedy deletion request

According to WT:USER, "Unregistered users ("IPs") should not have user pages". Due to this statement, I thought User:92.4.181.158 is subject to speedy deletion. What do you think about this? MathXplore (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding فخر

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, →ISBN, page 949 for native origin proposals. Vahag (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@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^[5], volume 6, number 2, →DOI, pages 162–181 and Vernet i Pons, Eulàlia (2011 March 1) “Semitic Root Incompatibilities and Historical Linguistics”, in Journal of Semitic Studies, volume 56, number 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

@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)

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)

clown world edit

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). 85.145.133.123 15:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How does "flood flag" work?

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)

@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)

Then WT:Flood flag#Info needs correcting. DCDuring (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fakebook rollback

Facebook is also usually associated, directly or indirectly, with fake news, disinformation, and propaganda. It is mostly used that way on the online streets.

https://www.rappler.com/nation/elections/non-political-facebook-pages-disinformation-propaganda-2022-polls/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2020/03/21/facebook-spreads-fake-news-faster-than-any-other-social-website-according-to-new-research/ Liray70 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Zhomron: the results are in

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

• Контфокк (talk • contribs)
• Makkacheez (not registered here)
• AlmondTuffen (not registered here)
• Rebfeee (talk • contribs)

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

@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)

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)

@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 108.30.184.238 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks). Chuck Entz (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@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)

"type species of the family"

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)

Edit on x-word

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)

Query about a problematic user over at EN WP

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)

@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)

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)

IP 173.216.33.6

IP 173.216.33.6 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)

He hath returned: 40.133.1.164 -- Sokkjō 20:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

εισάγω: inherited vs. derived

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)

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)

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)

@Tellytubbay: you can use {{R:DSMG}} which marks learned borrowings with λόγ. (lóg.). Vahag (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh that's super! Thanks for the tip! 2405:6E00:F6F:7100:8D0F:3AA0:ACF5:C392 09:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry, just realised I wasn't logged on...)Tellytubbay (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

Dirty old man

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. 151.68.127.23 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Question for you:

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)

"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)

Deleting a vote

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)

godwit

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)

Ageism

Can you explain to me for good what was wrong with my edits on ageism, since you people refuse to address it post-edit? 82.84.15.6 12:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/71531336/71576121

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

Caliphess

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

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

◌́

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

Delete Request

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)

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

special:diff/72201015/72201015

Hi. What was wrong there? To me the added text looked incomprehensible. Special deleted (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Special deleted It doesn't matter how it looked to you. The talk page is a record of what people wrote. Don't mess with what other people wrote in discussions. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

unban(i am sorry. see internet police)

• in [6] "user:kfjisee" create page "user:kfjisee/sandbox" and "user:kfjisee" with "please dont block ''if i am not harassment i'' *list of user to Here to build an encyclopedia *...>(he copy from w:User:Test fdf5)
• (Mass deletion of pages added by Kfjisee)

@Chuck Entzand he created page "user:frogger..."(warning vandalism)

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. I have no authority there. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of Maidenhair

Why was my edit reverted? Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Nuisance edits from Vietnam

This might be Fumiko, unsure. Similar pattern anyway.

See also https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%A6%AA%E7%8E%8B&action=history for two IPv6 addresses that seem to be this same person. They are going through Japanese nobility terms, and they've gotten a good bit incorrect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely Fumiko Take. Nobility terminology is not a new topic. —Fish bowl (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr, Fish bowl. The IP range is already in the abuse filter, but there's only so much it can do without blocking all Vietnamese editing of any Han character entries with both Japanese and Vietnamese sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

kanaimo

kanaimo is a Japanese Food Similar to *Satoimo*

@KEMONO PANTSU All the stuff you copied says it's a Maquiritari word. Everything but the definition is total nonsense. Look at WT:AJA to see how we do Japanese entries and さといも for an example.Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record: all the resources I've checked suggest that you're making this up, but I could easily be missing something. At any rate, your definition is so devoid of content that it's literally true, even if what you've said here is completely wrong- so I'm not going out of my way to get rid of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• @KEMONO PANTSU, there is no such Japanese word かないも (kanaimo) that I can find anywhere. Even if there were such a word, the romanization could not be kanaimö, as romanized Japanese does not use the diaeresis.

You appear to be the same user who was permabanned sitewide recently over at Stack Exchange -- technically "temporarily suspended" until Dec 29, 2296, as we see at the top of your Japanese Stack Exchange user page.

You added completely useless gibberish at the Japanese Stack Exchange (since deleted; thanks to my higher reputation score there, I can still find a little bit of it and can share as needed).

If you are willing to be respectful and add valid content, I am happy to have you contribute here. But please be advised -- if I see any additional rubbish added by you like what you did at kanaimö, I will block you as a vandal across multiple websites. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@KEMONO PANTSU -- Actually, I just had a look at some of your contributions elsewhere in the Wikiverse, such as commons:Special:Contributions/KEMONO_PANTSU, where you're already blocked. Your contributions there justify a block, as clear and pernicious vandalism, occurring even just this morning. I fully expect you to engage in further vandalism here, and I am blocking you to prevent any further damage to the project.

@Chuck, please unblock if my spidey-senses are premature. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reason for your revert to weak point

Hi,

may I know why you reverted my recent edit to weak point? Here's a link to the diff: <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=weak_point&diff=prev&oldid=72388664>. Gennaro Prota (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

About Ædre

I wanted to discuss the recent rollback and my edit of Ædre, I wanted to remove it from the Old English given names category since when I tried to find any source for the name existing I came up with nothing, I've also never seen it in any charter or even the Domesday Book so I don't think that it really qualifies as a real Old English given name, I didn't know any other way of doing this besides removing the part of Ædre where it claims to be an Old English given name. Was there a better way I could have gone about this? I'm still fairly new here so I'm still learning. Pirsicola T. (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pirsicola T.: If you don't think an Old English term exists, tag it with {{rfv|ang}} and post it on WT:RFVN, so others can check- if they don't find anything, it will be deleted. Don't rip out its innards and leave an empty shell to mystify our readers. Chuck Entz (talk) Chuck Entz (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Categories Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh

Hi, could you please help me with the following issues in regards to categories:

1. the Category:Punjab should be subordinate to Category:Indian subcontinent, as well as Category:Pakistan & Category:India – currently all the Punjabi categories are subordinate to India
2. Category:Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the Category:Ladakh category should be subordinate to Category:Kashmir, India (and or Category:Kashmir, Category:India, so that a greater Category:Kashmir can be utilised - which I've tried to manually create, but I'm pretty sure I've done it incorrectly)
3. Currently the Pakistani provinces and territories aren't automatically categorised (for instance Muzaffarabad to be automatically categorised under Category:Azad Kashmir) – could you please add them? 20:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC) نعم البدل (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomic items at WT:RFVN

The page is approaching 900K and could use cleanup. Following are the items that are taxonomic:

• cocciferus - looks like a pass to me, based on derived terms
• angiosperms and eudicots - I give up, but I'm not eager to change all the Hypernyms templates that use these and similar - Fail?
• Proteacea - I've altered the entry and references BHL snippets for citations - Pass
• jambangan - I've added Cyrtodactylus jambangan as a hyponym at Cyrtodactylus - No further action on anything taxonomic/translingual
• Ikhthues - just an uncommon transliteration - Fail
• SARS-CoV-2 - only one non-English cite - Fail (merge)

Do you disagree? Do we need more input?

Relatedly, I would have preferred that angiosperms and eudicots (& SARS-CoV-2?) have gone to RFVE and, especially, that cocciferus (and Proteacea?) to RFVI (on grounds of overlap with Latin). DCDuring (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Olaplenty Dipsy

They should probably be permablocked, right? We're not about to start being lenient and tolerant in the face of spammers are we..? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, though they seem more clueless than mercenary. One of a zillion African and Indian IPs who think this is some kind of free service from their cellphone provider. Then there are the ones who try to do banking transactions, and one person who created accounts from the names and contact info of all their contacts- apparently under the impression they were setting up their phone's address book. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Rollback on Indon

Hi, I saw that you rollback my edit on the page. I thought I already gave credible sources, not sure why it should be removed. One of the source even from the Indonesian Embassy (KBRI) requesting an Australian media (Newscorp Australia), even if the word originally meant as shorthand, to not use the word because of its offensive meaning. Envapid (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Envapid: you managed to show that Indonesians are offended by this word, but you also made it into an unreadable mess. This is a dictionary entry, not a court. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well so any suggestions for struggling readers? Envapid (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs. Systematics

I add the following to the ancient, now dying, category merger discussion, but forgot to ping you. It might be better consider this in user space, separately from the resolved merger discussion, but possibly eventually in a WT discussion somewhere.

How could we operationalize the distinction between term-definitions that belong to (biological) taxonomy and those that belong to (biological) systematics? Could we include in a taxonomy category taxonomic terms used before Darwin and Spencer and add the terms used in the taxonomic naming process? Terms used before Darwinism swept the field probably need definitions using pre-Darwinian definiens. DCDuring (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is my edit on this article "love juice" reverted?

Can you explain more detail about your reversion on this article love juice? BabesLooker (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

self-centred

Changed the wording to be more inclusive after previously trying to add a more neutral third option similar to the one on dictionary.com I think in needs to include used other than selfish such as of and realateing to the self type uses For when this word is not used as a synom for selfish. 194.105.190.217 04:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

cheese fries

Your recent deletion of cheese fries has appeared on my watchlist due to the fact that I created cheesy chips and linked to it - I also tagged the cheese fries phrase as North American. Sorry to say it but it seems that this and several other reversions of Paragraphseven’s edits are unjustifiable. Though it’s a dummy account of a banned user, many of their edits are uncontroversial (such as adding full stops to the end of definition sentences) and cheese fries should’ve been taken to RFV or RFD instead (though I’d argue it wasn’t SOP). Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Unlucky with luck

Hi, as you know, I added a now removed suggestion for possible etymological connection between luck and lucus, an I find the relationship very likely. No other real roots are posted for "luck", only speculations of similarities in some other languages, so why won't there be room enough for this suggestion as well? To me it seems quite clear, at least as a suggestion, as stated. Why can't the readers be allowed to use this as a possible link for their thinking, as most people wouldn't be familiar with the historical lucus? Bemland (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bemland --

Notably, Latin lucus has no such sense of "worship for good fortune and protection from the gods", as you'd added to the etymology at English luck. None of the semantics of the Latin term, nor for the earlier Proto-Italic or Proto-Indo-European, align with English luck or its Dutch or German precursors. Instead, Latin lucus appears to be cognate with English lea, not luck.

If you have to manufacture new meanings in order to try to make an accidental phonological similarity into a cognate match, you don't have a cognate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why I changed Amazigh to Berber on Amazigh, which you rolled back

An anonymous user about a month ago changed the definition of Amazigh from Berber language to Amazigh language. I thought that defining it as Berber (as the page previously had done) made more sense, because that is the more popular term and where the more detailed definition on the language (or rather language family) is. I also thought defining Amazigh as Amazigh was unhelpful. I am not really sure why you reverted my edit, given that you used the rollback tool instead of providing an edit summary. PikaSamus (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@PikaSamus. If you look back further in the revision history, you'll see that it was changed from Berber to Amazigh, and the IP just changed it back. Aside from that, I'm not sure that "Amazigh language" means anything. It certainly isn't enough by itself as a definition, since English speakers have no idea what it means. On Wikipedia it redirects to Berber languages. I realize that using an Arabic exonym in a North African context has its problems, but "Berber" seems to be the most common and familiar term in English for at least the languages. I changed it to reflect that, but I realize that it's more of a compromise than perhaps the final perfect solution. Skimming through a few of the Google Books hits for "spoke Amazigh" to get a bit of a feel for usage, it looks like it's been used to contrast the people's native language with externally imposed languages like Arabic or French without specifying exactly which of several related languages that is. That gives it some extra overtones, but I'm not sure that they're explicitly part of the word as a lexical item.

At any rate, this is English Wiktionary- so the focus should be on what will help English speakers to understand what the word means when English speakers use it. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I changed it from Berber to Amazigh. I actually did the reverse and changed it back. Regardless, it is good now. PikaSamus (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you suspend my account from editing ?

My account has been suspended from editing after few minor changes on an article (mostly because of misspelling and adding more minor details). Could you please revert your decision or at least justify it @Chuck Entz ? Thank you Mag2023 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mag2023: You have no edits on Wiktionary, not even any deleted edits. If you meant Wikipedia, then please ask over there. Equinox ◑ 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your answer @Chuck Entz Mag2023 (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Magali2022: blatantly obvious block evasion. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yyy 186.174.9.172 12:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Unauthorized bots

Goddamn, there are so many...are these all getting stopped by abuse filters then? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Blocking them is probably unnecessary, but I enjoy it. These are basically the work of parasites who feed off of the openness of the target websites. Besides which, as someone with programming background I'm offended by the shoddy workmanship: the programmers don't bother to learn the rules of basic English or check their geography. "I life in a seaside town in northern Switzerland"? Really? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know that the filters in place are so effective. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Brassicaceae

I like the look of what you started at Brassicaceae. {{smallcaps}} gives a handsome look to it. I have been working on it. I came to a point where the preview said I had too many (>500) expensive parser function calls. So I moved some material to Brassiceae, which is the only Brassicaceae tribe we have an entry for. I will add entries for some of the other more populous tribes and offload their genus level detail thereto. Thanks for helping me get out of a rut. DCDuring (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the order of evaluation within a template matters. When I first put {{taxlink}} together I should have tried putting the entry-existence test into a separate template which would not be evaluated if a flag were set. That would have meant that {{taxlink}} could have been useful to track usage of taxonomic terms generally, not just missing ones. Those horses are already over the horizon. DCDuring (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

not-to-scale

I scanned the Internet and didn't spot a single incidence when the word "not to scale" was hypenated. The only exception was at World Sense, which is associated with Wikt. A odd form. JimPercy (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@JimPercy Hyphenation is standard when a phrase is used attributively to modify a noun. This entry has lots of problems, but you managed to make it even worse. There's no way it's a noun- "not to scale" isn't a thing. Not only that, but you didn't add a headword template to go with the Noun part of speech and you separated the translation section from its definition.

I've nominated the whole entry for deletion because it's just "to scale" with "not" stuck in front of it and hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not my forte but realized a headword was missing. I entered a headword and it did not take. That's because your entry a couple or so minutes beforehand knocked it out. I notice that "to scale" and "not to scale" are neither hyphenated in their natural form. But, okay. Thanks for input. JimPercy (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

ጓዳ

Hello! I'm an amateur wiktionarian and noticed that my edits to this Amharic entry were rolled back shortly after they were made. I thought the additional definition of "kitchen" was acceptable as it came directly from an Amharic-speaking source, so I'm curious as to why this may have happened and am looking for any pointers for avoiding rollbackable edits. Thanks for assisting! Benjamin Pulliam (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

long firm

Hi, the etymology I added for long firm is supported by the source I added, Lying for Money, as well as a few others if you search Google Books. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Equinox has now started a thread on the talk page; let's discuss there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

editing techniques around matrix

How do you know the edit of television in Gothic and the edit of matrix in PIE you meant were made by the same IP (They don't have the same number)? And also: to check who edited which part of a page, I guess you don't check each and every edit on the history, don't you? Is there a tool you use? Thanx. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 07:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

How is there a copyright violation on "Conversational Journaling" please restore it. Newdefinitions108 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Newdefinitions108 I looked at your draft on Wikipedia, and saw a link to a page [7] with exactly the same content, word for word. On top of that, it's more of a description than a definition so it would have to be reworded, and it doesn't match what little usage I could find. It would be better to start over from scratch. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I started fresh. Hopefully the new, shorter version, is a good fit. Newdefinitions108 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Desysop vote

I pinged you at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-05/A couple of users for desysophood but you never replied. Is there a reason the mentioned users cannot be desysopped per the policy (Wiktionary:Administrators § Removal for inactivity)? J3133 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Abusefilter

Hello, I'm an sysop of Turkish Wiktionary. I need help with abusefilters. I want to ban words except some terms. Only terms like "Noun", "Adjective", "Verb" are allowed to be used. I'll post the full list if you can help. Turgut46 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Portuguese eza

Portuguese eza is a real naturally inherited form of the latin suffix -itia. I do not understand how it is being consistently reversed and removed despite it being a natural sound evolution from -itia, and not a borrowed form from old spanish/occitan. Grassfuel (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Infact i have multiple sources supporting that claim such as these Portuguese dictionaries. https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/-eza

https://dicionario.priberam.org/eza#close-modal Grassfuel (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandal

(If you read this Equinox, sorry I know I said I wouldn't do "backseat modding" or whatever on my alt account here but this guy has been messing shit up for over 30 fucking minutes now)

Please ban this idiot anon, they're breaking redirects and committing other vandalism. For the record like I said before, but I forget where, I use this account while attending the centre where I do a course just to make sure my account isn't hijacked, allowing people to abuse my admin tools. The real risk is very low since my PC has a password set up to log into Windows, I would think there are no would-be vandal idiots in the room and it's not likely someone else would end up using my PC so long as I am still here but I just decided to play it extra safe, so that's my reason for not jumping onto my main and banning this moron. That and I don't know my main password offhand and I don't want to change it. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@‎J3133 has taken care of the anon now, and to them I say thanks!! Someone should check their contribs again though to make sure all the vandalism has been reverted, especially since the fucker engaged in edit warring with me and MathXplore to try and preserve the vandalism. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Deal

Why didn’t you revert my edit of tranquilize? The reason I put it there is because I’ve never seen the word “tranquilize” being used to mean anything other than “sedated with a dart”. I also grew up thinking “cop” meant patrol officer but I haven’t edited the cop entry. Wanna know why I haven’t edited the definition of “cop” to say it means a patrol officer? Because aside from myself, I don’t know anyone who uses the word “cop” that way. Most people consider detectives cops. Hell, the main character in RoboCop (2014) is a detective! I can guarantee most people, regardless of whether they are a zoomer, millennial, or boomer uses the word “cow” that way because nobody ever questions that in the episode of Back of Barnyard where Otis disguises himself as a bull so he can enter the rodeo he doesn’t say he’ll disguise himself as a “bucking cow”, he says he’ll disguise himself as a “bull” and whenever a bull character showed up on that show it was always called a “bull”, never a “bucking cow” or “fighting cow”. Ok, here's the deal. Show this picture to everyone you know and ask them what animal it is. File:Spanish Fighting Bull.jpg If they all answer "bull", you have to change sense 2 on the cow entry back to the "not of a bucking breed or fighting breed" definition. If at least one of them answers "cow", you can leave the definition as it is. 2601:280:CB02:3CCC:50A0:FDA4:FEEC:DF3C 16:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

We're a descriptive dictionary that covers the entire world throughout history. Whether your judgment is right or wrong for the people you interact with is irrelevant. For a lot of people who don't have personal experience with the live animals, "cow" is just a generic term for any individual of the species. The problem is that there's no widely recognized countable counterpart to the collective term "cattle", so people tend to use "cow" for that. Yes, you can refer to individuals as "head of cattle", but a lot of people don't bother.

As to your argument here: if you show a picture of a great white shark with its teeth bared to just about anyone, they'll readily volunteer that "that's a shark". Nonetheless, if you ask them if it's a fish, they'll no doubt say "yes"- so there's no reason to change the definition at "fish" to say "except sharks". Your picture is best described as "a bull", and most people would call it that as their first choice- but that doesn't mean that no one would ever ever ever under any circumstances refer to it as "a cow".

Also, the weird way that the whole Barnyard franchise deals with the matter of cows and bulls is mostly because no one wanted to deal with sexual concepts in something aimed at very young children (hence the depictions of bulls with udders, for instance). What words are used in that context is hardly an indication one way or another of what people would use in the real world. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of template:it-verb/documentation

Hi Chuck, can you help me understand why you reverted my edit to {{it-verb/documentation}}? All of the usage examples on the documentation page were broken, i.e. were referencing a non-existent template, and I improved the page by fixing those broken references. By reverting my edit you have rendered the examples less effective, meaning each example shows an error message (red link) instead of the intended output of the example. — This unsigned comment was added by Cpetty-wiki (talk • contribs) at 14:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC).

@Cpetty-wiki: It's not enough to just replace all the redlinks: the documentation was designed for the old version of the module and requires modification. I reverted your edit because you left the page with a lot of module errors that would have required a lot of investigation and work to fix. What's the point of giving examples that are broken and obviously wrong? When you fix a redlink, fix the example that uses it, too, or don't bother. A redlink is better than a module error. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Balltari block evasion

Can you please check if User:Dardhanos is another block-evasion of User:Balltari? Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 19:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed to Balltari and Dardhani. Really obvious- they aren't any better at hiding their tracks than they are at etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 03:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Help

A user referred to another user as the f-slur. How do I report this? OvskMendov1 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

авьтмусс

Hi, I noticed that авьтмусс is not in Module:number list/data/sjd (but it was when I made that edit), so you reverted my edit. The term for "first" in the list is now авьтма (the edit is made by @Merrahtar), does that mean авьтма is the correct form, and the content in авьтмусс should be moved? --TongcyDai (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what the correct form is. I just took the module error as a sign that you didn't know enough about the language to be changing the template. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! авьтмусс is the superlative form of авьтма. I've just created a respective entry and fixed the definitions and other contents. Sorry for possible confusion. Merrahtar (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Problematic reversion in the "ναι" lemma

Χαίρετε. Καθότι κατανοώ πως δεν φέρετε εγγενώς την ικανότητα να ομιλείτε την ελληνική γλώσσα, θα γράψω το μήνυμά μου στα αγγλικά.
Hello. Since I understand that you have no inherent knowledge of the Greek language, I shall leave a message in English.

I am an experienced user of the Greek and English Wikipedias and have substantial knowledge of the way the Wiktionary projects function. I came across the "ναι" lemma and noticed that one of the examples provided was erroneous for two main reasons. For a start, a dictionary should not have biased, opinionated examples in its lemmata; the fact that the Wiktionary contributor that wrote this example profoundly dislikes milk for any nonimportant reason does not make this sentence a universal example of the correct usage of "ναι" and "όχι", the two fundamental affirmative and negatory words of the Greek language.
Moreover, the example is not a phrase widely used by Greek speakers, thus it cannot be a characteristic example of the usage of ναι (or όχι); I am a native Greek speaker and have not once in my life heard or read this phrase anywhere —maybe this is due to the fact that the "no-milk" movement has little to minuscule presence in Greece.

Besides, instead of just changing the lemma with no justification, I provided with a genuinely positive and widely used in the Greek-speaking world phrase, "ναι στη ζωή, όχι στα ναρκωτικά" (Here, for example, you can see it used by the Hellenic Police in an anti-drug campaign...)

I hope I made it perfectly clear why this change was both justified and just and I hope we can agree on bringing it back. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". And so I did. One can deduce from inspecting your User Contribution log that you just leave this message to anyone you revert for any reason. Excuse my tone, but time's up, sir. I offered a thorough explanation above and got your 3-day long disregard as an answer. I shall fully justifiably bring my edit back now, thank you and good day. L'Orfeo^{Son io}

Revision of Hinduphobia

You have reverted my editos on "Hinduphobia" and it should not be reverted as i have the knowledge of the local language Bengali. In Bengali, Hinduphobia translate as ,"হিন্দুফোবিয়া".

Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Thesaurabhsaha First of all, this is an English entry, so Bengali is irrelevant. If someone in New York uses the word, they aren't going to know or care about Bengali, unless they're from someplace that speaks the language. More to the point, your edit didn't add anything that wasn't already in the entry except more explanations and more words. A dictionary definition should be concise- this entry isn't the place to tell people what Hinduism is, for example. It's true that your version wasn't all that bad- it certainly wasn't vandalism, and I know you meant well. If I had had more time to think about it, I might not have reverted it. That said, I still believe your version was worse than what you replaced. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Deleted template

Hi, you've just removed the template (Template:sjd-IPA) I was using to test the IPA module I'm working on at the moment. Can I re-create the template so I can continue testing, and if not, what should I do instead? I have zero experience with modules and I'm almost sure it will not work as intended on the first try – this is why the thing I was doing seems like the most convenient option so far. Merrahtar (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Merrahtar: What module? All I saw was an invoke statement. You can't invoke something that doesn't exist. What you're doing is like writing checks when you don't have a bank account. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

After looking at your contributions, I see you created Module:sjd-translit. Why would you have your template invoke Module:sjd-IPA instead? It's a redlink. Having an invoke statement with the wrong module name is basically the same as not having a module at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I was testing the module via "Preview page with this template" so I could fix any possible mistakes before the template is actually created, it was working just fine. Merrahtar (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Merrahtar: Throwing module errors in mainspace and template space is the very definition of not "working just fine". I don't see how any consequence of just creating the module would be any worse. If you really feel you have to do it that way, you can create a copy of the template as a subpage for your user page, as in User:Merrahtar/sjd-IPA, and also a mockup of an entry, as in User:Merrahtar/ля̄ммт. Both will throw module errors, but those will only show in Category:Pages with module errors/hidden instead of Category:Pages with module errors. Modules are the only thing that will only work in the right namespace. You just have to spell it out completely. Here's an example from my own user space: {{User:Chuck Entz/showct|Even-toed ungulates}} --> Even-toed ungulates (7 c, 66 e) 

Revert

What's this revert about? That page is for documententing WF's sockpuppet accounts, not for promotional purposes. The "Count" section (originally called "Total edits") was created by WF. The total count is now included in the table; the "Count" section itself now serves as self-promotion akin to WF having the bronze medal. And the "legendary" wording came from an entry in the glossary that WF also created. I don't see any justification for including that embellished wording. Megathonic (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see from further revisions since the revert that the issue was about a module breaking. It seems that problem has been rectified. Megathonic (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic: Tell that to Module:games and Wiktionary:Christmas Competition 2017. You may not like it, but WF has been part of this community for a long time, and you can't root that out with a few edits. It gets real messy if you try. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

Greetings, Chuck!

Say, what are your thoughts on @Emolu? Are we dealing with Zhomron and BedrockPerson again? The timing and topics seem right! Elizium23 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I don't remember the exact circumstances behind the check (it's been 6 months), but they turned up with the same IP as Rebfeee (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) and the device was also identical when you allow for software updates, and they also matched Itobh (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) and Massachuu (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks). The latter is interesting because they were working on American Indian languages rather than Semitic languages- if you're willing to cut corners enough, and you're arrogant enough, you can convince yourself that you can master any language without even trying. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason?

Hello Chuck, any particular reason you deleted my edits? I mean, you didn’t even bother leaving a rationale! Thanks in advance, don’t bite the newcomers? XavierItzm (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: see WT:EL. What you wrote may be of interest to dictionary users, but it's not a dictionary entry. Also see WT:CFI: as a descriptive dictionary based on usage, a proposal isn't enough, in itself, to merit inclusion. I added our welcome template so you can learn more. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello chuck. Why did you revert an edit called theyby. It should contains therrby because it just coincide with rhymes. 2404:8000:1027:2C72:89ED:5E4E:E12A:ED25 18:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, no native speaker of English would ever pronounce theyby and thereby so that they would rhyme. "Theyby" rhymes with "baby" and "maybe", with the accent on the first syllable. "Thereby" has the accent on the last syllable. The vowel for the last syllable of "theyby" is /i/ as in "free" or "tea", while that of "thereby" is /ai/ as in "fry" or "Thai". Second, you added your note to the etymology section, which is for telling where the word came from.

Besides, what you wrote here is so full of really awful grammatical errors it's obvious that you shouldn't be writing about English at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Josh

Hello
I notice you reverted my changes to this page, but didn’t say why. What seems to be the problem? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: It was just too mixed up to fix easily. You added a Hindi entry for a proper noun. Except it wasn't Hindi- that would be under the Devanagari-script spelling. It also wasn't a proper noun, since that would be a named thing like a person or a city. And then there was the etymology, saying it was derived from English जोश, which is the real Hindi entry and which already covers what you tried to add. I suppose there's enough usage to justify an English entry (provided it's not all for the phrase "how's the josh?"), but it would have to be at josh, and you would have to make it a second etymology, which takes some more advanced formatting skills.

Speaking of which: your entry was missing a headword template, which was what brought it to my attention, and your etymology had no templates either. The templates aren't just for show: they standardize the formatting and add entries to the right categories. Categories are very important here: we have 7 1/2 million entries and categories are one of the only ways to navigate between them.

I'm going to add our welcome template to your talk page so you can read up on how we do things here at Wiktionary. Most of what you got wrong is covered in our Entry layout page, along with our Criteria for inclusion. You might also want to look at About Hindi, in case you want to make a real Hindi entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I see someone already has- though they forgot to sign their post. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I thought a dictionary entry would be the easy option!

I found this expression here; there didn’t seem to be enough for a new article, and there wasn’t anywhere that I’ve found that deals with morale in the Indian Army as a subject, so I thought a link to a wiktionary page with an explanation would be the answer.

Do you have any suggestions? The word in English (or maybe Hinglish) is 'josh', but derives from the Hindi word for passion (which you already have) though that doesn’t seem to be the right place, somehow (although a link there would make sense). What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thai

You added an adjective template to a Thai word, but this is poor lexicography. The template automatically assumes there's an abstract noun to go with it, but that noun has not, as far as I've seen, been attested. The adjective itself is archaic. Please advise on the best course here, because the template edit can't work. — This unsigned comment was added by Chris Weimer (talk • contribs) at 04:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC).

@Chris Weimer: That's one of the reasons I left an {{attention|th}} tag: I don't know Thai well enough to be sure what's needed. I've now changed it to a more generic headword template to avoid the problem you mentioned. Still, my edit was an improvement, even with the error: without a headword template there were no categories, so none of the Thai editors would have known it existed and it would never have had a chance for its deficiencies to be corrected. I'll add our welcome template to your talk page so you can learn how to do entries properly. I would also advise reading our About Thai page. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Urdu cleanup

Thanks for the help! — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 05:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Mover role

Could you copy my mover role over to my alt account User:Sokkjo? --{{victar|talk}} 18:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, whom should I ping for this if not you? -- Sokkjō 07:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

wiki

Why did you revert my edits for "wiki" and "wikiwiki" without any explanation or comment? I provided citations for the definitions added and these are common words available from any Hawaiian to English dictionary (multiple citations available from official sources). Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp: See what Wiktionary:About Hawaiian says about adjectives. The main reason I reverted you, though, was part of speech sections with no headword templates- at wikiwiki, you even removed the template that was already there for apparently no reason whatsoever, so the page was missing from all the part-of-speech and lemma categories for Hawaiian- if it weren't for the etymology categories, there would have been no way at all to find the term from the main Hawaiian language page. I was a bit shocked, since you've been active here for a decade and headwords are a basic part of Wiktionary formatting and already were when you started (see WT:EL).

As for the edit summaries, the rollback tool has no way to do those. That's why it says to ask about it if you think it was in error. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that link.  It says that Wiktionary does not include entries for adjectives in Hawaiian which is a good enough explanation for your reverts.  I was very confused as to why the entry for "wikiwiki" on Wiktionary lists it only as a verb when most other dictionaries list it as an adjective.

You can add edit summaries to reverts though.  Click "undo" and then at the end of the automatically provided "edit summary" add a space, an em dash, a space, and then your edit summary (" --- Wiktionary does not use Hawaiian adjectives").  The edit summary can have up to 800 characters.

The increasing use of templates on Wiktionary and on other wikis is a serious problem.  Wiktionary is not as bad as some other wikis, but it makes it very difficult to make edits since template usage is very poorly documented.  As far as I know Wiktionary still does not have a standardized documentation or user manual for all of the templates in use for the dictionary.  Malformatted templates will produce errors so I try to avoid templates whenever there is a possibility that I might not be using them correctly.  As long as the Wiktionary definitions are understandable by humans (as opposed to bots) that is good enough for me and I figure if someone else wants to add templates in a later edit, they can.  That is part of the process of collaborative editing between users with differing levels of wiki know-how.

— I found "Wiktionary:Templates" which is still only moderately helpful.  Part of the problem is that templates on Wiktionary have become almost like a second language in addition to the actual MediaWiki markup language which is itself based on (and still uses much of) hypertext markup language (HTML).  Learning how to use HTML and MediaWiki markup is useful since it is consistent between all of the Wikimedia wikis.  You can write your markup exactly the same on every Wikimedia project.  Templates are problematic because they are specific to just one wiki so if the wiki markup becomes overly template-dependent, it essentially equates to learning a new language syntax that can only be used on one specific wiki.  One thing I do like is the assisted translations tool.  If there were more tools like that to quickly add simple entries, that would make editing Wiktionary a lot easier without needing to learn how to use templates.

Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp The reason for template use is because they do a huge amount of processing behind the scenes that isn't visible to most users, which can get extremely complicated. Just think of the amount of work that needs to go into transliteration alone when dealing with a translation section with 300+ terms, for example. Theknightwho (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary policy for Hawaiian adjectives

Other users adding Hawaiian words to Wiktionary are also likely not going to be aware of Wiktionary's policy about Hawaiian adjectives. I opened a new discussion about this on the policy page at "Wiktionary talk:About Hawaiian#adjectives". Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

edit summaries

Going through your talkpage and your contribution history, I see that you have performed a number of edit reverts without adding an edit summary explaining why you reverted the edits.  You should always add an edit summary when making edits to Wiktionary so other users can understand why you made the changes that you did. Nicole Sharp (talk) Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp, when using the "revert" tool, which many of us admins do with some frequency for the savings in time and effort, there is no option to enter a customized edit summary. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Query

Why my edit on हिंदी has been reverted?

I have provided enough sources. গহীনঅরণ্য (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@গহীনঅরণ্য That's the problem: we're a descriptive dictionary based on usage. We don't reference definitions- only etymologies. You basically tried to turn a simple definition into an article paragraph about the evidence for the definition, complete with a phony "usage" example to paraphrase the main point of the reference in Hindi. You also trashed the formatting: you put a # on the headword line and you added ref tags without a reflist tag, so your footnotes ended up in the Marathi section.

Besides which, you provided nothing to show that "हिंदी" was used with that meaning in Hindi. The reference said in English that the language was called Hindi, but nothing about what language the people were speaking when they called it that (Urdu, perhaps?). Even without the formatting problems, anyone could challenge the sense as not used, and without 3 examples of usage that meet the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion it would be deleted- no matter how many citations in reference works you were able to dig up. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Query

Sir, why my addition on हिंदी has been erased? How can I keep my infos in this page? Rihantel (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

wacipi

Hi, what was the reason for the reversion on wačhípi? Pingnova (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pingnova: You can't just make up your own language names. See our Entry layout page and our List of languages. This is a dictionary with seven and a half million entries edited by hundreds of people from all over the world, so formatting is very important to make it all fit together. So are categories. If you go to Category:Dakota language, you should be able to find all the entries in the language. Adding "Dakota and" to the header does nothing but make a mess- either way, it doesn't show up in the categories as Dakota. You would need to add a Dakota section with the proper headword template for that to happen. As for mutual intelligibility: I wouldn't know, since I've only studied Lakota- but it wouldn't surprise me. That doesn't mean that you can just merge everything without asking. Besides, having two languages using the same word for the same thing isn't justification for combining headers. Do you have any idea how many languages have ma as a word for mother? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Why were my edits reversed?

My edits were reversed, no reasons why

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/72653268&markasread=30714177&markasreadwiki=enwiktionary

Mimibar (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mimibar: apparently, Μύριαμ (Mýriam) is Greek (I just checked the Septuagint, and the actual Biblical spelling is Μαριαμ (Mariam), but that's not relevant here). Miriam, however, definitely is not Greek. It would be like an "English" entry for "νταγ" with nothing but an "Alternative forms" section linking to dog. Also, please read our Entry layout page- even if we allowed a Greek entry on that page, you left out pretty much everything that's required for every entry- no part of speech header, no headword, and no definition. If it were on its own page, I would be justified in deleting it on sight as "no usable content given." Chuck Entz (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

shtjerrë - Albanian

Hey, I believe you made an error when you reverted my edit at shtjerrë. The source (Orel:1998) clearly states that the Albanian word was borrowed to Romanian, not from. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@FierakuiVërtet: You were so preoccupied with that one tiny detail, you completely forgot about the context (see target fixation). Quito is a place in South America. Centipedes have one pair of legs per segment. "Helium" is a six-letter word. Like what you wrote, these are all statements of fact- but in a discussion of the origin of Albanian shtjerrë they would be utter nonsense. Also, strictly speaking, one can only borrow from, not borrow to- borrowing is a form of receiving, not giving. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't ! revert ! ask !

şer You are wasting my time. I don't have any interest in playing a wannabee linguist, I have other things to do. I don't edit without checking TDK or without a quote from Google books.

Rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page. I assume you can read or say you know better than TDK [[8]] or a native. I can forgive if someone tries something in a foreign language, but not this. Admin or not.

Revert back — Kindly give back my 10 minutes back. I did Ask reason for rollback! Unless it is the format , your rollback for the sense is was insulting.

I leave etymology to the linguists - Native, fluent speaker etc. But here I have to discuss the sense and waste my time is like trying to teach my mother how to suck eggs. Yes, my mother used this sense. and no she is not from one horse town. I will add a Google books result. In case you don't deign to give a feedback here or my user page, I will take to TeaRoom. Flāvidus (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Flāvidus Sorry, I was tired last night. It has nothing to do with the Turkish. First of all, you got the part of speech wrong: a noun is a word for a person, place or thing. An adjective is a word that modifies a noun. Your definition says "child": a person. It can't be an adjective. Second, you added a part of speech header without a headword template (see WT:EL). The correct solution is to remove the Adjective header and merge it with the Noun section, which I have now done.Chuck Entz (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz It happens all the time, I mean at the end of the day — to err is human. Do I need a cup coffee now or from time to time? Asking for a friend.

Yes, I made a mistake too, first of all, I run with the idea that it was intentional (sorry), which of course was wrong from my part.

Secondly, It can't be an adjective. Wild child etc. isn't an adjective either. Sorry I was tired too. I thought I knew about head templates, I will confer to (see WT:EL) again.

Thanks for your time. Flāvidus (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

MilanSzulc21

I noticed MilanSzulc21 over on Commons, and I see they're here too, doing interesting stuff. It seems alright to me, I suppose, though I barely understand it. I noticed, however, that this user appears to have at least 3 prior accounts, abandoned in sequence, possibly just forgets their passwords or something. There have been no blocks to date. Just FYI. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Marriage

Hello, why did you revert the older definition of marriage? It was from the same source, and Wikipedia also has the same definition in etymology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology Captchacatcher (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Captchacatcher: It was already covered by "The state of being married." The difference between the various concepts of what constitutes marriage is a matter for an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

As for the Wikipedia reference: it only vaguely fits your definition, and only in reference to a Latin word. Etymology is interesting, but it doesn't determine meaning- otherwise "nice" would mean "ignorant", "glad" would mean "slick" and "sad" would mean "heavy". Also note that the same Wikipedia article, under "Definition" quotes someone as saying "definitions of marriage have careened from one extreme to another and everywhere in between". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem to be a bit of an activist post if it avoids the fact that until relatively recently, marriage has been considered a union between a man and a woman? This history is accepted in academia by every "side." Words change, but to me it just seems like an activist listing when our original definitions relate to man and woman, and it showcases a history of the definitions. And again, the definition I cited comes from the exact source as the one after it. It's strange to not put the older definition down. Captchacatcher (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who changed things. Yes, it was for a long time pretty much universally considered to include a man and a woman, but that detail isn't necessary to use or understand the word- so including it implies it's there to make a point. Please read WT:NPOV. Feel free to discuss the matter at the Tea room. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

biblically accurate

Why was my edit reverted? 91.2.162.202 20:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

it was definitely borderline. There was nothing individually that merited reversion. What I had the most trouble with was adding an image of an angel, something that would be considered traditionally as biblically accurate in the literal sense (no doubt the original artist(s) thought so), and labeling it as an example of a "biblically accurate" (in the new sense) human being. It just made things more confusing, IMO. That said, after thinking about it, I probably shouldn't have reverted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the page now (sans angel image). If anything else should be changed, tell me. 91.2.162.202 21:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Stochastic terrorism" is a noun

The definitions given use verbs suchs as "incites" and "persuades." You reverted my edit changing these verbs to noun forms like "inciting" and "persuading" but I think my change was correct. If you agree, will you please revert yourself? Not a big deal either way, but if you had a reason for change, I'd like to know it. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Read the sentence. You overlooked the preceding "The use of mass public communication, usually against a particular individual or group, which". Your changes basically made it say "The use...which...inciting". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies! You are right, thanks for correcting my error. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

about “Sunquat”

很抱歉，我的英语不好，而且我担心意思会表达错误，所以我就直接用中文说了，也许你可以透过 google translate 或其他的翻译工具来大概明白我的意思。还有你直接就回退了，真的很没礼貌。

那么为什么 Sunquat 也被称为 Lemonquat ？而不是sun☀相关的其他字根与"quat"的结合？可见合理的解释就是，sun来自中文（粤语）的“酸”，意思是“acid”，所以"sun"和kam一样都是英语来自粤语的音译词，就像在我们这里，有些人会在开玩笑时按照中文（闽南语）读音把“打耳光”音译成“sand tree pay”，意思是“slap in the face”，但是这不代表这就和 tree🌳 以及 pay💴 的英语含义有任何关联，他就只是一个音译罢了。Nkywvuong (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I just left a message on your talk page- in English. A year of beginning Mandarin 36 years ago isn't enough for me to read Chinese, let alone write it. I did use Google Translate to figure out what you said, and I think I addressed it in my comment. If what makes etymological sense conflicts with actual reality, reality always wins. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Translation in case anyone needs it: "Sorry, my English is bad, and I'm concerned that an incorrect meaning would be understood, so I'm saying this in Chinese. Perhaps you could use Google Translate or other translation tools to sort of understand my intended meaning. Also, you reverted [my edits] directly, which is really an impolite act.

So why is sunquat also called lemonquat, but not the compound of some other sun- related word with quat? One could see that a reasonable explanation is that sun comes from 酸 in Chinese (Cantonese), meaning "acid[ic]", so both "sun" and "kam" [in kamquat] are also phonetic borrowings from Cantonese into English. This is like how some of us here would jokingly use "sand tree pay" to mean "slap in the face" according to the pronunciation of 打耳光 in Chinese (Min Nan) [note: the word is 搧喙䫌]. But this does not mean that the English words "tree" and "pay" are related in anyway - it's just a phonetic transcription."

– 11:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC) wpi (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on the page of 'On God'

I believe this was in error. There's no example on how the phrase would be used, I provided one and it was reverted ザアンノウンエディター (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You provided an example of how to use it wrong. To start with, the entry has God capitalized and you didn't. I'm unfamiliar with how this is used, so I can't say much about your sentence beyond the fact that Google can't find a single use of it anywhere on the internet. It strikes me as something a non-native speaker might say, but what do I know? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit to "inner city"

My edit to "inner city" put the definition in line with other definitions of the term - see Wikipedia, Cambridge Dictionary, dictionary.com, Collins Dictionary, the BBC... Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eldomtom2: You changed the definition from one for a noun to one for an adjective. You obviously either didn't understand or didn't pay attention to the details of what you were copying. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Does my new edit meet your approval?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not wrong, so I won't revert it- that's all that matters here. It does seem to match the usage a bit better, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi, I need you to update these stats, thanx.22Pikachu9988 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how to update it. You might ask at the Grease pit. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you and I love you 22Pikachu9988 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Bruh

Indonesian maxwin is a real informal term in gambling. Which part of the entry was promotional? I have tried to search for non-advert-y examples and the media I ended up using was the least promotional I can do. RXerself (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@RXerself Sorry for overreacting, but you have no idea how many times I've had to deal with links to Indonesian gaming sites disguised as just about everything else. There are extremely prolific bots that do nothing but plant these everywhere in order to increase the sites' search engine ranking (would you believe there's a college student from a coastal town in western France called Paris who is interested in Computing and Information Science, Taxidermy and Norwegian art and who just happens to link to such a site on her user page...).

I decided to get a little patrolling in before bed at the end of a long day, so I was a bit tired. If I had looked for other contributions like I normally do, I would have seen that you're a responsible, experienced editor (I'm sure I've interacted with you before).

At any rate, even after a a few hours sleep, the wording in the link itself reads like a press release when I run it through Google Translate, so it may not be the best for NPOV (though I haven't actually visited the site). It's probably better to just to do without the link unless someone challenges the entry (not that I would delete it either way). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand. The cultural background of the term itself is shady. Sorry for dealing with the spammers. Lika @Equinox said below, perhaps next time if there is some non-adverts news outlet reporting on it I'll add it then. RXerself (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

lol, "maxwin" sounds like the worst possible spam term, like "PUMP UP YOUR WEB HITS BRO". It is unfortunate but maybe RXerself could find some real texts and printed book citations (WT:CFI) so we could have a good page. And then we better protect it from the spammers. Equinox ◑ 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverting an edit on the etymology of "science"

I don't think it's necessary that, in the etymology of science, under "Etymology 1," it is indicated that science is a doublet of "shit." Does this really add anything, and is it really professional? 2601:19B:1:59D0:E970:78E7:6AA1:2BA0 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

RFV

@Chuck Entz Hello honourable sire, How can the rfv templates be removed in those entries.Thanks. कालमैत्री (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Through the regular process at WT:RFVN (in this case- some other languages have their own RFV forums). Even if it hasn't been posted yet, you need to at least ask at RFVN. And it's not just me: removing rfv and rfd tags out of process has always been a blockable offense. A wiki is a community, and you have to get consensus for things like that. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

A sense of déjà vu...

when seeing the etymological ramblings of new user PapasUlysse, evocative of those of ApisAzuli. Nothing conclusive yet, though.  --Lambiam 18:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The thought had entered my mind, but they didn't seem to be going completely off the deep end like Rhyminreason/ApisAzuli typically did. If it is them, they won't be able to hold that up for long and I'll have cause to checkuser them. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You said the same thing about ApisAzuli in 2021 ("I'm not so sure it's the same person. AA is a lot better informed on the historical linguistics and doesn't indulge in anything close to the insanity of RRs long-distance comparisons"). Do you find RR's more and more convincing over time? I must say I don't. PUC – 16:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Overly broad block 2600:8800::/32

The block on 2600:8800::/32 is inappropriate. It is unduly broad. Please narrow it.

I assume this is inadvertent. A /32 block in IPv4 space affects a single user, which makes sense, whereas a /32 block in IPv6 space makes no sense. In this case, 2600:8800::/32 affects a huge number of Cox customers in Arizona. I don't know the exact number, but I reckon it's closer to a million than to one.

I don't know what you're trying to do, but if you can't do it with a /120 or some such, please explain.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=2600%3A8800%3A7000%3A3aa%3A2f20%3Ad62a%3A4ed3%3Ac5f7&blockType=&limit=50&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist Jsd (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jsd: I moved this to the correct page- that page was for conversations from last year. As for the block: look closer. That block only applies to one page: cisgender. The odds of someone in that IP range needing to edit that specific page out of seven-and-a-half-million-plus entries are pretty small, and they can always leave a message on my talk page or at the Beer parlour, etc. I almost never do year-long site-wide blocks on IPs, and then only when it's a very specialized range like a school, or an anonymous proxy that's only used by bots for spam. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked User Made an Edit Anyway

Hi. User 2600:8800:2220:D900:F1C7:E6F0:4DA8:BACB made an edit today despite being blocked for a year in August… ChecksMix (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ChecksMix: see the exchange immediately above. They're only blocked from a single page. It's interesting that I'm getting complaints for blocking too broadly and not blocking as thoroughly as I should within a day of each other. As for the reverted edit: it doesn't seem nearly as POV or disruptive as their edits at cisgender- I'm not sure I would have reverted it, myself, even though the old wording was better. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ok alright then ChecksMix (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ronna- and Quetta-

What's the justification behind reverting my edit that Q and R weren't randomly picked out of a hat? 203.145.95.43 09:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it was already explained in the following paragraph, and the choice was arbitrary in the sense that it wasn't named after or abbreviated from anything. The factors you outlined limited the number of possibilities, but the choice within those limits was arbitrary (for instance, why reverse alphabetical order?). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edit?

Could you explain what was wrong with these edits? StarTrekker (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@StarTrekker Gladly: Wiktionary allows translation tables only in English and some Translingual entries. Otherwise you end up with translations scattered all over the place- if someone decides to put translation tables in the Swedish entries, then other translations get added to one place, but not the other, because most who are adding translations aren't going to bother checking elsewhere. Not only that, but if someone adds an incorrect translation in multiple places, it will generally only get corrected in one of them. The result is that none of the translations are as complete or correct as they could be. If there isn't an English term for a concept, one can always create a Translation hub, though that should be only be done when absolutely necessary, and the name should be chosen so that people will be able to find it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Loz

I put the attested pages with the word "loz". That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirect *αρτίοτητα → αρτιότητα

Hi there! I was wondering why you restored the entry "αρτίοτητα" which earlier today I moved to a new page with the correct spelling "αρτιότητα". The former is not a word in Greek (and in fact violates a core principle of Greek recessive accent: the antepenultimate is as far back as it gets); see here). Perhaps this is because I didn't use the Move function for creating this particular redirect? That's how I proceeded for the corresponding inflected forms (*αρτίοτητας → αρτιότητας; αρτίοτητες → αρτιότητες), which you didn't revert. I suppose ideally those pages shouldn't exist in the first place rather than redirect to the correct spelling. Cheers x Φρύδια (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

gray fox translation

I used the names from the linked Wikipedia articles themselves for the translations of gray fox that you reverted here. Why would that be wrong? –Vuccala (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala It's a common rookie mistake, but we've had lots of these fail RFV over the years. Encyclopedias need to write about things that the article creators don't know the name for- so they routinely make names up. Case in point: the Old English Wikipedia article on the platypus. The language died out half a millennium before anyone in Europe even knew Australia existed, but there it is. Most of the made-up stuff isn't nearly as obvious, but it's still wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the purported translation could be checked in the wikipedia and/or wiktionary of the language involved or at a website that offers some vernacular names, like Fishbase or USDA GRIN (for plants).

It is also possible to populate a translation table with {{t-needed|[your langcode here]}}, especially for languages used in the normal range of the organism or the languages used by academic biologists (French, German, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.). Finnish has very good coverage of organism names at Wiktionary. This works well for the charismatic macro-organisms even outside their native range. DCDuring (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala: The other possibility is using {{t-check}}, but both are best used sparingly: the people doing the translating or checking are volunteers who have their own stuff to work on, and you don't want to ask for too much. Really, though, spamming translation tables with translations from other wikis is just not a good idea. For one thing, the bogus redlinks might get made into bogus entries that will mislead people until someone notices and gets them deleted. I've seen some of those hang around for a decade or more- with millions of entries, things just don't get checked very often.

Another issue I forgot to mention: always use {{t}} unless you know that the Wiktionary for the language in question has an entry with that exact spelling, in which case you would use {{t+}}. That's because {{t+}} links to the page on that Wiktionary with that spelling, and too many of those links you added went to a page that basically said in some other language "Sorry, but we don't have an entry for that". It's not as bad as adding bogus content, though, because someone runs a bot every once in a while to update {{t}} and {{t+}} to reflect additions and deletions on other Wiktionaries, so any mistakes will eventually get fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thank you for all the tips – I understand now and will be careful when adding translations. I'll make sure they're as attested as any other entry. –Vuccala (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Just a follow-up of appreciation: I finished checking all the translations I had added on that day for attestability, and of the 22 I had added, only 6 of them ended up actually being attested outside of their localized Wikipedia articles. You were totally right. Thanks! --–Vuccala (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Capital letter in Clown World

Why did you revert my capitalizing of "heil Hitler" to "Heil Hitler"? It's German and it is written with a capital "H". https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=clown_world&oldid=76258169 You can compare it with the German speaking Wiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlergru%C3%9F

@Chuck_Entz would be great if you could comment here. Otherwise I'd revert your revert.

09:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Commie block

Not exclusive to EE, but also CE, hence I thought it would be more appropriate https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=commie_block&oldid=prev&diff=76671450 Rejedef (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rejedef: when it says "especially", the idea is that it's giving just a part of the range, so you don't need to be complete. The main reason I reverted you, though, was the way you put the added words inside of the square brackets, converting a link to something we have an entry for into a redlink to a sentence fragment that we don't want to have an entry for. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Tl B. or not-l B., that is the question…

I shall happily do as you asked, but I only started using {{tlb}} like that because I saw a bot replace an {{lb}} of mine in the definition line of an entry for a monosemous word with {{tlb}}; i.e. I don't think everyone's on the same page about the proper usage. Just FYI; I don't mind what's done. 0DF (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

myhr724

Could you delete this please? Somehow it seems I had terrible timing and recreated it after it was deleted without realising. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

wherefor

I'm going t keep making tis chang if NO REASO is give Afm2105 (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Afm2105: You used a separate header which isn't one of the limited set of headers that are allowed (see WT:EL) in the wrong place (it really has to do with the etymology) to say something cryptic, with the unnecessary phrase "an author" (everything written is by "an author"). On top of that, you misspelled "where" (you seem to have problems with leaving out random letters). This is a dictionary, so spelling and formatting are very important, not to mention that everything should be concise and to the point. If you persist in adding misformatted, misspelled, unclear and probably pointless things like this, you will continue to be reverted and blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

KamilekLebioda

Can you check if this is Shumkichi (indef blocked)? Benwing2 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Hybrids

Theres [Category:en:Hybrids] but its unintegrated. Just create it instead of removing it from other languages, and Ill add it to Polish entries. KamilekLebioda (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Calques and semantic loans from the same language el

Hello, and my best wishes for the forthcoming New Year. It is a detail, but just noting it: these were not created by error el sl from el άλογο and calque el from el εμβολιάζω, but were created as in the precise wording of dictionary {{R:DSMG}}. These Cats are, of course, exceptional. Category:Greek semantic loans from Greek (=SemLoans.el.el@elWikt) and Category:Greek terms calqued from Greek (=Calques.el.el@elWikt). Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 00:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It's still a word though

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=yeke Lunatone3000 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lunatone3000: The OED doesn't treat Middle English as a separate language like we do. Their attestation requirements are different from ours as well. A Middle English entry might work, if you learn how to format it right. The formatting on your attempted modern English entry had serious problems, and Middle English has its own peculiarities. See WT:EL and WT:AENM Chuck Entz (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

On OED it says 'Old English'. It's from before 1150.

The link only says 'Anything from before 1150 ... is not considered Middle English on Wiktionary.' Lunatone3000 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lunatone3000 @Chuck Entz The OED date it from Old English up to 1500, which means Old English and Middle English entries would likely make sense. 1500 is really, really borderline for (modern) English, and the fact it’s attested around that date as ȝeke makes me feel it’s definitely still Middle English. Theknightwho (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)