Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:JohnC5

Archive – 2014201520162017


Why can't we change the module:de-noun so that it displays the accusative declensions in the second row and the genitives at the fourth row? It's important because it's then easier to compare. See Frau, Innenstadt, Mann.

For the definite article: Both of the nom. and the acc. declensions are the same for neuters/feminines/plurals.

The dative is the same for masc. and neut.

The genitive is the same for masc. and neut.

The gen. pl. is the same for fem. and pl. as well as dat. fem.

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer listing the accusative next to the nominative as well. —Rua (mew) 00:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri, Rua: I'm fine using either order (I've certainly seen both). I'll mention that de.Wikt uses the current ordering, but I don't care too much. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm very excited to see the module change. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We should be careful about this. I don't recall ever seeing the order nom/acc/dat/gen. When one is accustomed to nom/gen/dem/acc, this change seems confusing and difficult. Note that we use this same order, nom/gen/dem/acc, for Russian, Latin, Ancient Greek, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Belarusian, and Serbo-Croatian. —Stephen (Talk) 10:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This is probably not worth the effort, but I'd like a gadget that would allow each user to use the order s/he prefers / is most accustomed to. I think the grammatical tradition of each country (language?) differs about this: for example, the usual ordering in the French grammatical tradition for Latin is "nom., voc., acc., gen., dat., abl.". --Barytonesis (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be changing such things without consensus from the editors that work with the German entries, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: I created a script for reordering cases in declension tables: User:Erutuon/scripts/changeCaseOrder.js. It currently works for Ancient Greek and Latin. — Eru·tuon 00:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
In theory I like the idea of basing the order of cases on syncretism. For instance, a similar order for Ancient Greek (nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative) would show syncretism between nominative and vocative, and nominative and vocative and accusative, more clearly by putting these forms next to each other. But it's unfamiliar and somewhat confusing to me. I experimented with this order in Module:grc-decl/sandbox; the result can currently be seen in the appendices linked from Appendix:Ancient Greek declension tables. — Eru·tuon 22:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Somehow your script didn't work for me after I applied it for German: User:Mahmudmasri/vector.js. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri: In order for the script to find a table, the table needs the class inflection-table-language code: like this. The same should be done for all German declension tables – though honestly, I need to come up with a better name for the class, because the script doesn't affect conjugation tables: perhaps declension-table-language code. — Eru·tuon 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri, JohnC5: See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/March#German case ordering. Let's discuss this more widely. – Jberkel 10:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I made my vote. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


this edit is IMHO a mistake, in Latin nouns from verbs are regularly past-participle + -or

  • amo, amatus, amator
  • edo, esus, esor
  • invenio, inventus, inventor
  • pingo, pictus, pictor
  • colo, cultus, cultor, etc.

By going back to ine-pie, you are only confusing the reader. compare with etymology of eater. --Diligent (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diligent: I'm fully aware that -or was a productive suffix in Latin, but there's comparative evidence for this word being inherited from Indo-European. To say that it is created synchronically in Latin would be a misrepresentation. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we at least, mention the standard construction and link it with edo, esus ? --Diligent (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Diligent: I've added the surface analysis. Also, the suffix is -tor. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 09:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


Hey John, I sent you an email, when you have a moment. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: Thanks for the heads up, but I haven't received anything from you today, as best I can tell. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I sent it 5 days ago. :3 --Victar (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Victar: I responded to that email 4 days ago. :V For further context, I'm not sure what we can do about this issue as it stands. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Weird, I don't have a reply in my inbox nor in spam. --Victar (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, do you know if there is any rule that determines whether a stem takes the "-vant-" or the "-mant-" suffix in Sanskrit?--Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144: Yes, Ryan Sandell did a paper about it at the 27th annual WeCIEC. I'll try to get it for you. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 10:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thanks! --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 14:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stems in consonantsEdit

I find the declension templates of great use and I thank you for your contribution thereto. Now, while creating स्पृध्‎ (spṛdh‎) I couldn’t make the template work: this is because no template to that effect has yet been developed, right? Something like this but, you know, encoded for the Wiktionary. Thanks for your attention! —This unsigned comment was added by Gfarnab (talkcontribs).


Thank you for your ἀγγούριον corrections: so, we have to add prosody in lists too... It seems i have to stop adding words, because i really don't know prosody. About the ety of ἄγγουρον: I have seen at el:αγγούρι more info, different from αγγούρι.ety, that might be interesting (and I am unable to cope with). About choosing between 'References' or 'Further reading' headings: as a user of wikt, i always wondered why not ref.footnotes at specific data as in wikipedia (I mean: this info at ety, that addition, etc, come from this ONE source -as one footnote for multiple references-). Further reading i would add, when i have read it, but have not used anything from it. Is this any close to the policy of grc@en.wiktionary? P.S. Excuse my adding ancient greek things... I do it only when they coincide or affect modern greek entries. I do not mean to burden you with more work. Thanks, sarri.greek (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek: No worries about adding AG entries. We all make errors when editing. In regards to the "References" vs. "Further reading" headers, there was a recent vote where the practice was changed to "References" being primarily for the <references/> tag, and everything else goes under "Further reading". As to the etymology of αγγούρι (angoúri) and ἀγγούριον (angoúrion), I saw the source at αγγούρι (angoúri) which claims that ἄγουρος (ágouros, cake) is involved, but I find the semantics ("cake" to "cucumber") and the appearance of a nasal (ἄγ- (ág-) to ᾰ̓́γγ- (áng-)) very hard to believe. The etymology at el:αγγούρι seems to agree with mine at least at the beginning. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 20:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. I just wanted you to know about this ety (which is why I left message within-text for future editors). Ok, I'll use Furth.Reading if not ref. (I was comparing to the Wikipedia 'Sources', where a ref can be repetitive a.b.c.d (placed in many places in the page), ultimately linking to the bibliography source. Have a nice Sunday, sarri.greek (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Latin loansEdit

The "edifice" variants in English and French are not actual descendants. They are loans. It is actually phonologically impossible that either could be a descendant. So I am reverting your revert. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"Loan" means the same thing as "borrowing". The entry was already correct. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge The entry as it seems quite unclear. It is listing it under a list of "descendants"-- which are absolutely not the same thing as loans. Nowhere is it made clear that the relationship between these and Latin and the relationship of the others with Latin is not the same. This is actually very problematic, the distinction is very important to linguists. --Calthinus (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus: To clarify, this is the method that is used by the entire project. The arrow before a descendant is the correct notation for a borrowing or loanword. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates your inexperience with this project. Also, the administrators of this project are well aware of modern linguistic concerns. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 05:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Mea culpa. Apologies guys. I was under the impression that the system used on entries like directus was standard.--Calthinus (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus: Yeah, directus needs to be cleaned. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 05:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Can I at least ask what the reasoning is behind this? It seems much more clear and informative with whether it is a borrowing or a descendant explicitly stated? If I didn't pick up on the arrows surely many readers don't. --Calthinus (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus: Hmmm, an interesting point. This has just been the practice for quite a while. It might make sense for us to add some alt-text to inform the user. @Metaknowledge? —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 05:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it into consideration -- give me a ping if you guys reach a conclusion on the matter? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you are making a distinction that linguists don't actually make. Borrowings are still descendants. If someone said to you "Direct is descended from the Latin word directus", would you respond, "No, you're wrong, you nincompoop! It's borrowed!"?. That's just to say that our current system is not incorrect. However, it could be improved; I like the idea of a tool tip on the arrow that says "borrowing". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I think it would be nice, but I fear that the markup might displease others. Perhaps we should bring this up in the BP? —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The arrow already has a tooltip- can you not see it for some reason? DTLHS (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And you are right, excellent! But I've been conditioned only to expect a tooltip when there's a dotted underline and question-mark mouse, like for m.—Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That's hilarious! Yeah, I had expected to see the dotted line, as Meta mentioned. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I think you're misrepresenting my position, and I also think you don't understand what the issue I've raised is. You say that the distinction between a proper descendant and a recent loan (i.e. French descendant droit versus the modern loan direct) is trivial to linguists. This is not true.
Some explanation seems necessary -- I hope I don't come off as pedantic or preachy. In Historical Phonology especially, this is an extremely important distinction, especially where concepts of diachronic predictability and Neogrammarian regularity (or lack thereof-- note the disputes between "Neogrammarianism" and "diffusionism") are concerned. Thankfully with "direct" and "droit" it is obvious to anyone knows French historical phonology as -kt- clusters could never survive in French. But it is not so obvious all the time and presenting loanwords as descendants (which would be expected to undergo regular sound shifts under Neogrammarianism) is actually effectively disinformation. Note that which words are loans and which ones aren't is a critical factor in determining the sample sets for Historical Phonological research. --Calthinus (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the information is important, but it seems like something that should go in the etymology of the descendant term, not in the descendant section of the parent term. DTLHS (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And yes, in a perfect world it would be in both places, but since we don't have the technology to do that it's important to not duplicate information. DTLHS (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't have the technology to do that? All that is necessary is six characters-- "(loan)". Or you could even make it two: ln. It is really not that hard to make it clear to hte reader at all, without taking up too much space. Or maybe you could change hte arrow so that it says ("ln") on top, I don't know if that's possible. But as Wiktionary is actually used by many people with interest in the field I do think it would be very helpful to make this actually clear.--Calthinus (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about additional information such as the date of borrowing. DTLHS (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay I didn't realize that. Yes that would also be helpful but I didn't want to ask for too much haha. I'm fine with the date of borrowing being only on the descendant term's page though I'm sure in the future it would be great if there were a convention established for succinctly marking that. I'm just trying to argue that it has to be clear that a loan is a loan and not a regular (double-entendre here! :) ) descendant, and the arrow is ... not clear enough. --Calthinus (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus What do you think of the new format? (see aedificium). DTLHS (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS: I like it :). Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Now may I have a talk?Edit

Please? -- 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are not willing to talk, please guide me how to bring your behavior under common consideration. -- 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You specifically suggested me to come to your talk page. I did just that, seconds after your suggestion. Now please act to your words. -- 17:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You need to give people some time to respond. Conversations often run quite slowly around here. The problems with your edits are threefold:
  1. We don't provide "false friend" information very often/almost ever, particularly for distantly related languages. In particular, the fact that two words do not share the same etymology is normally considered enough.
  2. The template {{af}}/{{affix}} has all the functionality of {{suf}}/{{suffix}} and thus is preferred in all cases.
  3. If someone reverts you, you should wait until they respond before going around undoing it. Just because you are impatient does not mean you are right.
*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Also FYI, the text that occurs when we do a "rollback" (If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.) is automatic, so those are not "my words", per se. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I assume the words are there also to guide operators in their course of action. -- 17:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I was answering to you when some dickhead threw another block. I had thought that suffix is to be preferred over affix because to my understanding it links the suffixes to some collection which affix does not. I am happy to provide relevant false friend information. It's not impatience to expect dialogue, do not pretend otherwise. Thank you for discussion. -- 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I certainly am not pretending that you are impatient, as you have shown yourself to be by starting using offensive terms and immediately redoing edits you knew had been reverted. I would request that you calm down and wait for a discussion to conclude before you start doing something that you know has been removed for a reason. PS: I'm not sure you know what the word "admittedly" means based on this edit.*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not see a discussion even begin, because the operators are lurking in the coffee room, throwing random rollbacks. I wouldn't have made the last two edits before your talk if they appeared before those. Anyway, you're quick to rollback edits (in minutes), so an hour should be enough for any power hungry operator to step down and show willingness for a dialogue. Chuck didn't. And you summoned your brainless verdict of an edit war. And oh, you don't have to worry about my English. It's not perfect but there I knew what I was doing. You just did not get it. -- 18:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
lol, those people are volunteers, not "operators". No one works for Wiktionary. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You could also have looked at JohnC5's userpage and read that he doesn't have a lot of free time to spend on Wiktionary.... 😊 — Eru·tuon 01:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't respond because I had to leave for work (90-minute+ commute both ways), and I may be old-fashioned, but when I'm at work, I work. I never do Wiktionary business during the 9 hours I'm on the clock. Also, don't forget that we're in different time zones. It's now approaching 9 pm here. Expecting people to respond within an hour is totally unrealistic. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Thank you @JohnC5: for your corrections at κάθομαι synonyms. And you've done them all! I would correct them myself, according to your pattern. I always copy your corrections. John, by the way, about the look of tables and the row 'Derived froms' at adjectives (ἀγαθός): I do not 'get' the logic of the order of cells. I tried this for fun if you care to take a look. sarri.greek (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek: Yeah, the 'Derived forms' section is supposed to be different than the section above it. A similar this happens in all of Latin and Ancient Greek conjugations with their participles and infinitives. I think you solution looks nice, but we don't need that much information. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @JohnC5: for looking at it. Maybe one line for masculine, and the adverb under it, alone. Or take away the adverb completely. It is not serious, but looks buffling. PS. I try to do your prosody. :) About fonts+prosody (ugh, I see Palatino at my PC). How does one go about proposing fonts at Proposed New Characters @Unicode Would be wonderful. sarri.greek (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek: You might want to ask @Erutuon about both the layout questions and the Unicode things. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 00:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok @JohnC5:. Of course, he is very busy, and you all are, with more serious problems. Thanks. sarri.greek (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not add "Baltic" etymologiesEdit

As mentioned in my edit comment, we do not recognize "Proto-Baltic" as a language and thus do not reconstruct it. Please don't do it again. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 22:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The etymology *wējas has been taken from the article vējš. Its current version states: "From an earlier (still dialectally attested) vējs, from Proto-Baltic *wēyas".--Ąžuolas (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ąžuolas: That etymology should be updated. The editor who wrote it had a long habit of ignoring the principles of our reconstructions. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 22:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The etymology *wēyas is correct and corresponds to current versions of this word in Baltic languages. The source is "Karulis, Konstantīns (1992), Latviešu Etimoloģijas Vārdnīca (in Latvian), Rīga: AVOTS".--Ąžuolas (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ąžuolas: That is all very well, but we do not believe there was an intermediate Proto-Baltic stage between Proto-Balto-Slavic and the Baltic languages. The most modern theories have the Baltic languages splitting into East and West Baltic dialectal continua directly from Balto-Slavic, and then breaking up further. You can add a Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction, if you format and research it correctly, but the scholarly consensus is that Proto-Baltic did not exist. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how all of this is relevant. Even if we admit that the internal consensus in English wiktionary prevails over the primary source, the Slavic forms did not develop from *wēyas. You can check the respective articles yourself: *větrъ comes from *ueʔtr- (has different Baltic descendants), yet *vějati comes from *wḗˀtei (has no Baltic descendants). They all stem from the same Indoeuropean lemma.--Ąžuolas (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ąžuolas: They may come from the same Indo-European root but not the same lemma by any means. They are different formations from one another. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. "Proto-Baltic" is a defunct language family. Wiktionary doesn't have a language code for it, so you shouldn't be allowed to create entries for it anyhow. --Victar (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on proving some theory, I would be worried about missing piece of information. I’m not sure why it should be impossible to add ancient lemmas that are specific to Baltic languages and have no relevance to Slavic ones. And why exactly one single word (which we all agree is correct) should require a meaningless hour long discussion.--Ąžuolas (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read Proto-language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • wēyas is correct or not?--Ąžuolas (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you don't understand, *wēyas never existed because Proto-Baltic never existed (at least that's the scholarly consensus). That's not ancient, it's reconstructed. Please read the link Metaknowledge posted. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
A reconstruction is an intellectual construct based on the shared characteristics of the languages considered. I can construct "Proto-Old English-Lithuanian", which will be an odd version of Proto-Indo-European lacking certain features that both languages have lost, such as the ablative case. Likewise, "Proto-English-Tocharian" will miss the satem-language distinction between different types of Proto-Indo-European velar consonants. That just shows that reconstruction is an imperfect tool that's only as good as the data you start with, not that either of those two proto-languages were ever spoken. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Are we sure these "Proto-Baltic" reconstructions by Karulis aren't, in fact, "Proto-Eastern-Baltic" reconstructions? The common ancestor of Lithuanian and Latvian is decidedly more recent than Proto-Balto-Slavic. --Per utramque cavernam 08:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Lint errors are a real issueEdit

Lint errors are a real issue. My edit of 09:48, 28 May 2018 of User talk:JohnC5/2016 had edit summary Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links; <tt> → <var>; <font> → <span style>; <code>...<code> → <code>...</code>. In other words I fixed lint errors including:

And I believe this was accomplished without changing the appearance of the page, except that under the new linter just released within the past month, <code>...<code> extends the "code" behavior to the end of the paragraph, while under the old linter, <code>...<code> behaved like <code>...</code>. So I restored the appearance here to what everyone had seen until very recently.

Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error. Cheers! Anomalocaris (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: For future reference, you should start a discussion about why you're making these edits when you do and link to it so users understand why. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 06:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
JohnC5: For future reference, you should read and understand an edit summary before you roll back an edit. Even if someone does not know that <tt> and <font> are obsolete HTML tags, and even if someone has no idea what "Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links" refers to, anyone should recognize that HTML tags are closed with an identical HTML tag preceded by slash. <code>...<code> → <code>...</code> is a clear statement that the editor found one or more <code> tags closed with <code> instead of </code>, and the editor fixed the closing tag(s). If you paused to understand this, you would have known that my edit fixed some real errors. Take a look at my contributions on English Wikipedia. I provide painstakingly detailed summaries of the changes I make. Few editors provide as detailed edit summaries as I do, and I believe my edit summaries set a standard that other editors should aspire to. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: Ok, there is no reason to be so self-righteous about a project to which you are so new. You do not seem to understand our policies:
  • In your first comment you ended with "Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error." This could mean that you don't realize that the rollback text (" [] If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.") is automated and not controlled by the users. If this is the case, it demonstrates your inexperience with the project. If you did realize that was automated text, then you were just being snarky, which is not appreciated. Seeing your second comment beginning with "For future reference, [] " as a mockery of mine leads me to believe that you are just being snarky. en.Wikt does not appreciate that sort of negative behavior because we are a smaller community than en.Wiki.
  • Making sweeping edits to many pages, even if semi-automated, needs to be cleared with the editors before taking place, no matter how well-intentioned. I'm startled no one blocked you for your editing spree, especially since you were editing other users' pages. You need to try to follow the protocols of the projects you are editing, even if you are serving a higher trans-wiki mission.
  • Don't just come to users' talk pages and insult them. I responded perfectly cordially to inform you of our protocols and restored your edits, but you decided to insult my intelligence and ability to read. That is not acceptable behavior. Perhaps, you did not mean to sound rude, but if that be the case, you need to reread your messages to ensure that they cannot be read in a negative way, since it is so hard to control how language is read.
  • Your edit summaries on en.Wiki are immaterial. We tend to be somewhat insulated here (in part because our policies differ so drastically from en.Wiki), but it is not my duty to read your long edit summaries on a different project to discover why you've edited my user page. I did read your edit summary initially, but did not know about the in HTML5 compliance issues (because you did not allude to them or read link to a Wikimedia article). A simple link would have been so easy to explain everything and saved me having to be mocked needlessly by you.
  • You edited User:Saltmarsh's signature, which is very much forbidden without permission. If you did get permission to edit signatures, you should have linked to it.
Overall, I may have been a little quick in my rollback, but this was due to a preponderance or protocols that you violated, which could have been explained if you had just courteously asked the project before going around making these changes. Please do not be so snarky and self-righteous (especially on an admin's userpage!) for it gets you nothing. You had already gotten your edit restored, and yet you still felt compelled to insult someone giving you advice. That type of uncivil behavior is exactly how users get themselves banned. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
JohnC5: Thank you for your detailed thoughts here. I appreciate your time and effort, especially as an Administrator, to provide counsel and advice.
My first reply here, with its alleged but unintended snark, was triggered by your statement, "For future reference, you should start a discussion about why you're making these edits when you do and link to it so users understand why." Your subsequent reply clarifies that you are calling for full-blown discussions. (If you point me to the protocol calling for starting such discussions, I will comply). But what I understood at the time was simply "Write better edit summaries with links to a page explaining why lint is bad, so other editors will know you're doing good." I am sorry I didn't understand that you were calling for a full-blown discussion, but if you reread my first reply with the understanding that I thought you were saying "write better edit summaries", then perhaps you will see it as I intended: a sincere response.
I wrote the preceding paragraph after writing everything below, so, sorry if some of the following is overly detailed; it seemed necessary before I wrote the above, and now I'm too exhausted to decide if it's all still needed.
In the event that you are not able to provide a link to a protocol calling for discussions before sequences of de-linting edits, I accept that edit summaries that link to Special:LintErrors, in the absence of Wiktionary:Linter (see below), could help some editors understand why delinting edits are purposeful and correct.
I would like to respond to your points in the same order you made them.
I made my first edit to Wiktionary in 2006, I made my first edit to the main space of Wiktionary in 2009, and I created my first new entry (plutogenic) in 2015, so I am not new to this project, even if I haven't had a lot of experience.
My comment above, "Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error" appeared at the end of a detailed explanation of my edit, and I chose those words both because they summarized my thought, and because I was literally following instructions, " [] If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page." I couldn't care less (then or now) if those words were automated. Those are the words in the edit summary, and I responded accordingly. This is probably the first time any of my edits on any Wiki has ever been rolled back, which, if true, is a testament to the quality of my work. I have long been aware of the rollback right, but as far as I'm concerned, an edit rolled back is not fundamentally different from an edit reverted with "undo" or by any other method, at least in the sense how the editor of the rolled back edit is allowed to respond. In the future, if I make an edit on any wiki, and that edit is reverted with an edit summary that includes language along the lines of "If you think this rollback is in error, please [reply somehow]", and I do believe the rollback is in error, I will probably again reply explaining why my edit was correct, and conclude, "Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error." I don't think this is offensive in the least, and I think most rollbackers would smile in appreciation.
For future reference, replying to a comment that begins "for future reference" with "for future reference" simply means, "just as you believe that that there is something I should keep in mind in the future, I also believe there is something you should keep in mind in the future." And I would say it again. Even the most prolific and experienced editors and rollbackers should read an edit summary and ponder its meaning before reversing or undoing or rolling back an edit.
Every edit I make is considered individually; I do not know how to make automated edits on any Wiki.
I agree that every editor on every Wiki should try to follow the protocols of the projects they are editing. You are probably aware of this already, but Wiktionary is less comprehensive than English Wikipedia in providing help and guides for editors, or at least less transparent in its organization. Many templates are undocumented. Help pages that in Wikipedia would be categorized to help users find related help pages are uncategorized here. If there is a page here corresponding to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Linter, I haven't located it; Wiktionary:LINT is not the corresponding article.
I didn't come here to insult you or mock you. I appreciate that you restored my edit.
Editors on any Wiki have no obligation to delve into the background of editors on that Wiki or any other Wiki, although as a Pending changes reviewer in English Wikipedia, I do sometimes look at an another's editor's editing history to help me evaluate an edit that already raises my eyebrow. I didn't reference my edit summaries in English Wikipedia to say "this makes me a great editor", I referenced them to say, "I believe in writing good edit summaries; I believe that mine are as good as or better than most other editors; I value quality edit summaries; I wish other editors would take the time to detail what they did, as I do; a good edit summary provide other editors insight about the edit. Moreover, like my edit summaries in English Wikipedia, my original edit summary here did provide detailed information to inform other editors that the edit was doing something useful."
Thanks to your comment, I have searched for guidelines here on Wiktionary regarding editing other user's talk pages and signatures, and other protocols I have violated, but I haven't found what I was looking for. Kindly link to these guidelines, and I will do my best to abide by them.
Please do not confuse replying using the same words and phrases with incivility.
Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: Thanks for the clarification on these points. I won't respond to each in turn but give just generally mention that we are deficient in explicitly written policies, and just go by general practice (I know this tends to get on many Wiki editors nerves). I can say that it is frowned upon to edit other peoples' comments and especially their signatures. I believe that our bureaucrat, @Chuck Entz, can confirm this, if he's not too busy. An even though you were doing this on an edit-by-edit basis, a heads up to the community would have been useful. Regardless, please be mindful of these factors and be careful when posting comments, since the written word is so poor at delivering one's emotions faithfully. Otherwise, carry on. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 08:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Linter allow editing other editors' comments, user pages, user talk pages, and signatures in certain limited cases and with restrictions and caveats. I think those policies are good in Wikipedia and I think they would be good in Wiktionary as well, but written policies and widely recognized customs should be followed. Widely recognized customs that haven't been reduced to written policies should be so reduced with all deliberate speed.—Anomalocaris (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: While we observe some policies on Wikipedia, we entirely ignore others. Indeed, when we do follow the same policies as Wikipedia, it is because they are sensible, not because they are on Wikipedia. As an aside, this might be useful to you. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 09:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JohnC5".