Open main menu
  1. 2012                5. 2016
  2. 2013                6. 2017
  3. 2014                7. 2018
  4. 2015


soy boyEdit

Metaknowledge my dear fellow, in sincere love I highly suggest you respect and heed the clarification for accuracy in that etymology section. Everyone could learn from it, both men and women. Xenoestrogens are the Roman leadpipes of our era.--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear: you need to stop editing that entry. You are not the first (and will not be the last) editor around here who is capable of perfectly productive edits but has a strong opinion about a particular topic that conflicts with the neutral and fact-based enterprise of writing a dictionary. The solution is for you to leave that entry to others. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So when you leave a water bottle in the sun for an hour and it has a funny sweet taste, you think that has no effect on your body that could be negative?--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing this with you (and it's not relevant to the entry's etymology). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
For your own good by my own agape, here are the fact based studies for you to review just to start, from NCBI itself:
Screw the entry, if for nothing else you should see for yourself for your own benefit. Or do you want to be infertile and get cancer, inter alia?--Sigehelmus (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you missed the bit above where I mentioned that I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Please stop posting on my talk page unless you want to discuss something relevant to the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So be it, shame on me for having earnest concern. Good day. I will sincerely and innocently presume your intentions are purely benign, of course. Not like people skeptical of xenoestrogens would listen to a wiki anyway, pssh.--Sigehelmus (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Xenoestrogens aside, I have to point out as a historian of Late Antiquity that the "lead pipes" theory of the 'fall' of Rome is utter bollocks. (If your post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, please ignore this..) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead pipes are actually a remarkably good analogue for xenoestrogens. They both have some negative health effects, but those effects are marginal and wholly irrelevant to the civilisation as a whole. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hahha, can we turn "shame on me for having earnest concern. Good day" into a meme please? Equinox 14:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


On the subject of memes, explain your regular vandalism here: Lysdexia (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a synonym, it's a hypernym. A catchphrase is only a very small part of the range of things a meme can be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So he didn't care to edit appropriately either time instead of click out the work. However meme says "that is transmitted verbally". catchphrase refers to the same level concept. Lysdexia (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note the word "or" in that definition. That opens it up to other things that aren't "transmitted verbally". There's nothing inherently verbal about a meme in either definition- unless there's some verbal aspect to rickrolling that I've missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Don't edit my indent levels; I deliberately don't increment replies so that the whitespace doesn't eat commentspace but keep the indent level where I enter the thread, and may use different indent levels within the same comment for quotations.) The other clause refers to expression which is included in phrase, one of which admits rickrolling:

From Late Latin phrasis (“diction”), from Ancient Greek φράσις (phrásis, “manner of expression”), from φράζω (phrázō, “I tell, express”).
  1. A short written or spoken expression.
  2. (grammar) A word or group of words that functions as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence, usually consisting of a head, or central word, and elaborating words.
  3. (music) A small section of music in a larger piece.
  4. (archaic) A mode or form of speech; diction; expression.

Lysdexia (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I can almost hear the semantics screaming from being stretched beyond recognition, but I know you sincerely and deeply believe in your own infallibility- so I won't waste much more time on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Michigan pronunciation of theaterEdit

I'm not sure I understand why you reverted my addition in the first-place, as it's certainly a common colloquial pronunciation of the word, especially in Michigan, well-documented at that. As such, I'll revert your rollback upon the addition of a complimentary audio-file. Учхљёная (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown a great track record, so I was suspicious, but the addition of "nonstandard" and the fact that what you recorded does match the IPA is enough to satisfy me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to have a Michigan pronunciation, I would think we would also have a Southern U.S. pronunciation, which (to mix phonetic styles a bit) is something like Θee-ATE-ər. bd2412 T 21:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also heard a few Americans pronounce this with ~2 syllables, like /θeɪ(ᵊ)tɚ/ (someone mentions this here). No idea if it's specific to some particular region, or worth including. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I hear myself use a 2-syllable pronunciation, no marked diphthong, but I'm no good at IPA. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

About "boyfriend" pronunciationEdit

Hi, you reverted my edit on the page [boyfriend], and I am not agree with the reason you gave, which was: "That's just a simplified version of the same transcription we already have", so in my opinion what I wrote was not a simplified version, it was indeed another pronunciation, because it lacked of the second stress. So in my opinion it should be accepted.
By the way in that page, in the recording they pronouced boyfriend in that way. More over in the page of [forvo] you can hear both pronunciations.FanNihongo (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you're talking about the page boyfriend, right? Secondly, I think you're wrong, but I am willing to concede that I could be misunderstanding the situation, so I'd rather somebody more knowledgeable adjudicate. @Mahagaja? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to hear a difference between /ˈbɔɪˌfɹɛnd/ with a secondary stress and /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ without one. It's entirely a matter of personal taste whether to show the secondary stress in that word or not, but it definitely makes no sense to show both versions as if they were different, because they aren't different. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Mahagaja and @Metaknowledge I am a hispanophone, I am learning English, and it took me a lot of time to understand the secondary stress(I mean hear it and how to pronounce it). I am someone who tries to speak English correctly, I do hear the difference, so for example when wiktionary says that the word "boyfriend" is pronounced /ˈbɔɪˌfɹɛnd/ and then I hear the recording saying /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ then that pronounciation should be added. So if you Mahagaja are admiting both pronounciaations are correct then if you both don't mind I will change it as /ˈbɔɪ(ˌ)fɹɛnd/FanNihongo (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@FanNihongo: The more I think about it, the more I think that if you're hearing two different pronunciations at all, what you're hearing is /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ vs. /ˈbɔɪfɹənd/, i.e. the difference is in the quality of the unstressed vowel, not in the presence vs. absence of secondary stress. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja:, Thanks for your explanation. That must be what is happening. Now that you mentioned it, I am not detecting the sencondary stress in [forvo], it is as you say. FanNihongo (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Do you know anything about Subi, a Bantu lect the ISO recently gave the code xsj? They say it is not particularly closely related to Shubi, which we merged into Rwanda-Rundi a while ago. Unless you know of a reason not to, I'll follow their suit and add the code. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@-sche, thank you so much for dealing with this year's crop of code changes. I've read about Shubi, but I'd never heard of Subi before now, and I can't find any resources. The code request form mentions an attached wordlist, but I suppose the wordlist isn't posted on the website? Absent that, the request mentions what languages are most closely related and lexical similarity, which is enough for me to think that the code is probably merited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Proto-Altaic articlesEdit

Hey! So, the title really summarizes this, I was wondering why you deleted all the articles on Proto-Altaic reconstructions? Most of the pages were adequately sourced, and I daresay that their deletion should promote a particular side of the debate on its existence, rather than being descriptivist as this wiki is intended to be. I assume there's a thread that details this, so I'd appreciate it if you could link me to that. Thanks! -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 15:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

Wiktionary:Votes/2019-01/Banning Altaic. Per utramque cavernam 16:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


Sorry for the late overhaul, which is not something I'm fond of doing. Should the obsolete sense be added to the FWOTD section as well? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I often omit senses that I think are less interesting, but it's arbitrary. By the way, there are a bunch of Dutch FWOTD nominees that need quotes translated or other minor touchups. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll look into them. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The account you just blockedEdit

I'm not going to go into detail, but the user you reverted and blocked is the sockpuppet of a vandal, and certainly deserved an indef block. I was wondering why they were limiting the edits on that account to one low-grade offense. Now I know.

That said, you didn't know that at the time you blocked them. I'm not going to moralize, but you do need to be careful not to let people like that push your buttons. It just plays into the power-tripping that keeps them going. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. I gave that account an indef block because they were either the same person from yesterday or the sock of someone just as immature. If you're obliquely commenting on how I "fed" the vandal yesterday, I think it was better to waste a bit of my time than to let the images sit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not commenting on your previous actions, which I agree with. If you believed that it was the same person as yesterday, then my comments don't apply. Never mind... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You guys talking about Wonderfool? --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
We're talking about someone blocked for using {{quote-journal}} to link to a dismemberment video, who asked for an explanation on their talk page so they could "learn from their mistakes"- someone so addicted to the cheap thrill of shocking people that they'll lie about anything. Does that sound like WF? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
After a certain number of drinks, but before a certain (larger) number of drinks, perhaps. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


You reverted my edit on the page kvetch. You ask for support of my edit, I speak Yiddish, the origin of this word. Weitzhandler (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That might be fine for the entry for Yiddish קוועטשן(kvetshn), (though, even there, you should demonstrate that people have actually used the word that way). This is the English entry, and you should be able to show usage by English speakers speaking English. See our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


So where would this go? Citations page? I still think it's a useful quote to understand the context. It's a half-mention, that's why I added brackets. – Jberkel 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Crappy cites or non-durable cites can go on the citations page, yes. This is both crappy (i.e. misleading) and non-durable, so there's really nothing of value besides the notability of who said it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

why did you revert my changes to Template:yi-phonetic spelling of?Edit

I am rewriting all uses of {{deftempboiler}} to use a Lua equivalent. There should be no change in behavior except that bad parameters will be caught and all parameters of {{m}} should be supported. Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Already undid my revert. You did change the behaviour in this case, so I reverted in case I didn't have time to deal with it right away. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Do you think I would or can put that? Osbri (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think I would or can put "lambón"? Osbri (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot understand you, so repeating yourself won't work. If you can't communicate in English, use Spanish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I asked you if you think I would put "lambón"? Or "if you think it's correct to put "lambón"?" Osbri (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish word lambón is correctly spelled with the accent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking some would put or write "lambon" or I was thinking it would be an alternative spelling. I think I would add it then. Osbri (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be an alternative spelling, but a misspelling, and it is not common enough to enter into the dictionary. Also, the entry was formatted very poorly; please see the changes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My botEdit

I have fixed the entry layout to the best of my knowledge as per WT:NORM. How do I make a few edits for you to check? Sinonquoi (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked. Please run a limited number of test edits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Added 3 entries. Do check. Sinonquoi (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There's still an issue that Ultimateria alerted you to. It looks fine otherwise, but @Rua should check, because she knows NORM a lot better than I do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks ok to me. It would be useful if the user page of your bot would link to your own user page, so that people can find who it belongs to. —Rua (mew) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
So do I get rid of the "extra" line at the end or leave it be? I will add a link in a sec. Sinonquoi (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
If by "extra line" you mean the ---- dividing language sections, then it should only be there if there's another language section on the page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


What are you talking about specifically? DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

[1]Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I actually moved that from accedere where it was added (with the comment) by BiT on 10 June 2007‎. DTLHS (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; there was no indication, hence why I pinged you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


Why did you roll back Welsh "gallu" as a modern example of the PIE root of Latin "Gallus"? It seemed like a pertinent example. 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It was poorly formatted, and I considered cleaning it up, but it did not contribute much, so I simply reverted it. Latin words that come from old Celtic sources do not need to reference modern Celtic languages, as if to demonstrate that the root really exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

{{pos a}} et alEdit

I see you deleted these per a failed RFD, do you think it's fine to just remove their transclusions? Personally I like to remove that info when I come across it but I know many editors actively add part of speech to links. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's really stupid of me, I thought they'd already been orphaned. Someone should just run a bot to fold them in as a parameter to the linking template. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

con#la, com#laEdit

One of the most commonly "wanted" (redlinked) Latin terms, according to Berkel's published table, is con#la. It appears in many etymologies. Looking up con online in L&S and in the Later Latin glossary doesn't yield anything. Should those etymologies instead refer to cum#Latin or to Old Latin com#Latin? Should we have an L2 for con#Latin? I don't have ready access to the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Is there someone else I should ask about this? DCDuring (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You can feel free to show me some examples. Where I've seen these, like in compute#Etymology, it's an error for con-. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This search has mostly offending items. But if con- is a good entry, don't bother. I thought I remembered that we didn't have Latin prefixes because the candidate terms using them were "really" compounds of Latin prepositions and other words. I think Encyclopetey took that position. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
He may have thought that, but it doesn't make much sense, and luckily that is not how we operate. In any case, the etymologies will still need to be fixed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I got all the offenders in that search. There may be more, not found in that search, but not many. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, the com ones need to be fixed in the same way. (They should also use con-.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring, a reminder, if you want to fix the remaining ones. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm frying other fish, eg. snapper. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Swahili Terms at 16 PersonalitiesEdit

I added a number of terms at Wiktionary:Requested entries (Swahili). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You've alphabetised them rather oddly. In any case, I don't think they're all attestable; for example, I only see two BGC hits for mwamurishaji (and none for the plural). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


How was the IPA "yáː" wrong[2] I got it there <--Ndołkah (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation in one place (your talk page). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Modifi aliaj homoj diskutoj.Edit

Saluton. Kial mi ne rajtas por modifi aliaj homoj diskutoj? Mi ĵus faris ĝin kun bona fido, por resumi la diskuton. Parenteze, ĉu ĝi kontraŭas la regulojn? FanNihongo (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is universally considered to be very poor form. See w:WP:TPO for the guidelines which we tend to follow as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Understood and thanks for your answer. FanNihongo (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".