User talk:Metaknowledge

Romanian translationsEdit

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but since you were involved in the discussion at his talk page, I hope you don't mind me contacting you. I've monitored Baican's translations and today he has instigated a conflict due to this article I have proposed for deletion. I did my due diligence when I proposed this article for deletion, so I don't appreciate being accused for "copy-pasting". Does any user deserve this kind of treatment from a fellow user? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: I'm sorry that you've had to deal with this issue again. I cannot find any uses of the term in either the form Baican entered nor the definite form on Google Books, so I cannot speak to attestation except to say that I can't find any. As to his accusation, it's undeserved, but there's not much we can do about that. If he personally attacks another user or does something that he has been warned about before on his talkpage, he may be blocked. However, as someone who's been involved, I'd prefer if someone else were to do it — ISMETA or Chuck Entz, perhaps. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Metaknowledge! Thank you for your advice! He started adding superlative adjective entries again which have been deleted before. I marked them once again for speedy deletion since they don't fulfil the requirements for inclusion. If more incorrect translations are added and if he continues this editing war (he has on several occasions reverted my corrections), I'll talk to ISMETA or Chuck Entz. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Tell me if there's anything more I can do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One noun to addEdit

In case you haven't noticed, I added גריווע ‎(grive) to a translation table in the entry mane. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Block timeEdit

Hey MK. I'm due a wiki-vacation. Can you block this account please, and any others of mine you might happen to spot in the upcoming 25 years or so, please? Ta. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I can't promise re future incarnations. Enjoy your freedom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

re: Kikuyu etc.Edit

Thank you for your comment, but I only posted what I could attest. There are quite a few resources about this language although I have not accessed any of them. By the way, I have a question about this. Reading WT:CFI#Number of citations I thought that obvious attestation was strictly compulsory. Did I misinterpret it? Yours sincerely, Eryk Kij (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@エリック・キィ: Indeed, it is not compulsory, and if you look at the business about durability, you'll see that your citations are not actually useful for supporting the validity of the entry per Wiktionary policy. (I can't speak for other resources, but I'll say that the Swadesh lists, though usually not containing anything that's outright wrong, are somewhat less than 100% reliable.) But in all honesty, you needn't worry much about attestation as long as you're adding verifiably correct words from reliable sources. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
All right. Thank you. I remove Swadesh lists at least and will someday find out more reliable sources about them. --Eryk Kij (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have almost nothing to fix since there is no obvious error there. Leading on-line Lithuanian dictionaries include the term starting with a lowercase letter as you did. If I do something, I would like to add See also section indicating parlamentas et vice versa. --Eryk Kij (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

This was my first attempt to add a word to Wiktionary. Thank you for the correction. I should have been more observant. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caeruleancentaur: No worries. Please ask me if you have any further questions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you againEdit

I didn't know what the "t" meant. As some entries don't have it, I was simply doing copy and paste using one of the other languages. I'm retired and I've had some small education in Haitian Creole. I really like it and I noticed that Haitian Creole words were missing in so many of the entries that I decided to add them when I could. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yiddish book from 1543 fully available on Google BooksEdit

Just thought I'd share my find, in case you're interested (although I couldn't verify the publication date from within the book): --WikiTiki89 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's very, very cool (although hard for me to read). I have a lot of work to do with contemporary Yiddish first, though! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
On second look, it seems to be handwritten, not published. The script is vaybertaytsh, which is similar enough to modern cursive Hebrew (although it took me a while to figure out that the letter that looks like
Pentomino Y2.svg
is a ג, and interestingly that נ is written in its final form ן when preceding it). --WikiTiki89 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of "cite meta" to "quote-meta"Edit

I have been working on bringing some coherence to the {{cite-}} and {{quote-}} templates. Essentially, the former are now for citing references in "Reference" sections and on talk pages, whereas the latter are for quotations in dictionary entries. I would like to propose that {{cite meta}}, which is used by many of the {{quote-}} templates, be renamed {{quote-meta}} for consistency. The template is currently protected. Should this be discussed at the Grease Pit or elsewhere? Smuconlaw (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that needs discussion. Traditionally, WT:RFM would be the place to do it, but that's a rather slow venue, so WT:GP would fine, I reckon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll start a discussion there. Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: FormattingEdit

Thanks for the comment and I will add the gender and translations next time. :) Jackninja5 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you a human or a robot?Edit

I intended to revert my edit myself, and you did that for me. That's good. Do you use some program to help edit? -- 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult, but I do like to pay attention to recent edits, especially by anonymous users, so I can remove vandalism quickly. For future reference, you can use the 'Preview' button to check your changes to a page before you save it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That's neither a compliment nor an insult. I edit that page so that I can have direct links to those French words. And I was just about to revert my edit when I found you had already done it. So I think maybe you are a robot account since you edit so quickly.

I did that editing beacause I'm learning French and I want to start with simplest words one by one. So I add direck links so that I can look up those words more quickly. I was about to revert it and then just view the old version. That way, I don't affect any other users and I can still look up words more quickly.

So, that's not an insult, though it may sound like so. I asked that question simply because you edit so fast that I'm curious how you manage to do it. Do you use some program or so? That maybe a silly question, but trust me, I'm not insulting. Feel sorry fot that. -- 05:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I do have a gadget enabled that makes reverting a little bit faster, but for the most part it's still a manual effort to identify problematic edits. In any case, good luck with learning French! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, both for your editing and your words. I always respect wiki contributors like you, for your efforts to make wiktionary a valuable source. -- 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

When I want to try out links, I preview the edit and use right-click or ctrl/cmd-click to open the the link in a new tab. That way I can try all kinds of links without having to save the original edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea. But actually I saved that editing simply for myself. Since I'm not a wiki contributor, so I'm really selfish, I edited for myself and revered it so as not to affect others. I guess it's not proper to do something like that, though.-- 06:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Eh, how is a newgroup not about the Internet topically? It exists entirely on the Internet. Equinox 23:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I guess you're right. I suppose what we really need is greater granularity in those categories. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha, thank you.Edit

Should the Norman dialects be deleted from Module:languages/datax? —JohnC5 05:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Last I checked, they hadn't all been switched over, so we were leaving them in the module to above module errors. If that's no longer true, go for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed all the references to roa-jer in Mainspace, Appendix, Reconstruction, and Template (see here). There are a fair few mentions in talk pages. Should we delete it or move it to mod:etymology languages/data? —JohnC5 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
roa-grn is also cleaned out (see here). —JohnC5 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know; maybe @embryomystic, -sche will be able to tell you whether or not to add it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, everything's been migrated over. embryomystic (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
So, should we move it to etymology languages or delete? —JohnC5 18:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin declensionEdit

Are you sure that the genitive case is still present in Vulgar Latin? --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Romanian has always had one, so at least in the eastern half of Rome, it never vanished. We could just put a regional footnote next to the case. --Romanophile (contributions) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on my reading, it does not seem that simple. Also, Romanian does not seem to possess a distinct genitive form, just genitive usage of a shared genitive-dative form. —JohnC5 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. There’s also a theory that their vocative case does not come from Latin, but I haven’t looked into that much. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There was no single Vulgar Latin, so having a declension table for it is a little silly regardless. I had a source for what I did there, but I don't remember what it was; feel free to change it if you have references to back you up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There’s no unified form of Vulgar Latin. That is correct. Still, I think that a declension table is salvageable. If you look at conjugation tables for Old French, they have various different forms for the regions and dates, so we could do the same thing for Vulgar Latin. The most obvious disadvantage is that the tables might look crowded. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


I honestly thought that I broke a rule until I noticed that you had recently created this entry. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too lazy to click a couple times more so that I could add an edit summary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No big deal, I was just confused for a moment. By the way, have you already seen this? --Romanophile (contributions) 05:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait, arma ignifera can’t mean gun? Why? --Romanophile (contributions) 05:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to explain, but it seems only to have been used when the author was trying to calque firearm (or arma de fuego, etc) in their native tongue. So when translating from English to Latin, it wouldn't be appropriate to start at any point other than firearm and get to that term. Also, you got the gender wrong. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, I was projecting the Romance interpretations onto a Latin word. Thanks for catching that; I was being a bit arrogant there. Still, how would somebody translate gun into Latin? --Romanophile (contributions) 06:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries, diachronic changes are nearly impossible to predict if you're looking backward. The default catch-all term is seemingly sclopetum; I guess I should add another sense there. (I've never really thought much about firearms in Latin before, and I don't read a whole lot of New Latin in general, so this is largely new lexical territory for me.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How does somebody say vandalism in Latin? --Romanophile (contributions) 15:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're speaking New Latin, you can go with vandalismus, which seems to have seen limited use as a borrowing back from French. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I was actually hoping for something more antiquated in this case, but I suppose that this shall suffice. --Romanophile (contributions) 17:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought about it for a while, but nothing came to mind. The closest equivalent concept the Romans had to a vandal was a grassātor, but he was more concerned with rioting, hence the meaning of the abstract noun grassātiō. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
corrumpō and dēcolōrō may mean deface which is close to vandalize. Theoretically corruptiō or dēcolōrātiō could be used. Apparently, w:Lex Aquilia had laws against “burning, breaking or rending” (ūrō, frangō, rumpō) and the Wiki article says “Note that rumpere (rupture) was generally understood as corrumpere (spoil), and thus came to encompass a very large number of different sorts of damage.” If this be the case, then it seems like corruptiō or ruptiō would be what you want. I guess you could go dig through medieval legal texts, but that sounds deadly dull. —JohnC5 21:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice find, John. To me, the noun vandalism and the verb vandalise occupy somewhat different semantic zones, so those nominalisations don't make as much sense to my ears. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

seeing all your creationsEdit

Is there some special page on the project that lets you see all of the entries that you’ve created? I’m trying to find it. --Romanophile (contributions) 04:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

X!'s Tools has a function for that, but be warned that it's exceptionally slow. [1]Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
In Special:Contributions just check "Only show edits that are page creations". --WikiTiki89 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Could you please explain this revert to me, because I think you are in error.
As for my edit:

  1. The entry once was incorrect (when it was {{misspelling of|}}). So it could still be incorrect.
  2. "Probably" and a text without sources look like it's just speculation by a wiktionary user.
  3. In Lewis and Short's it is "caelum (coelum; cf. Aelius ap. Varr. L. L. 5, § 18 Müll.; Plin. 2, 4, 3, § 9; Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 52, § 129)", which should mean that "coelum" was used before medieval times.

-Poskim (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point; I can't source that and I'll trust the texts L&S cite. I've changed it back to your version, but I added in a bit about it being standard by mediaeval times. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Bellman-Ford algorithmEdit

Please explain. I change such entries to proper nouns regularly. It's "the XYZ algorithm", like "the Eiffel Tower", one specific thing. Equinox 02:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You oughtn't to. Please read W:Proper noun. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Rather unclear and vague. So do you object because (it claims) "only single-word proper names are proper nouns", and the algorithm's name is more than one word? Equinox 03:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, here's the relevant passage: "Common nouns refer to a class of individual entities, whereas proper nouns name a unique referent, and mass nouns refer to non-individual referents. In English syntax they can fulfill the same functions, but proper nouns behave different in that, like mass nouns, they cannot take the determiners "the" or "a" - this is a consequence of the fact that since they denote a unique referent they cannot be indefinite, and they do not have a plural form except in special cases where they are used as common nouns." Note that BGC turns up uses like "the Bellman-Ford algorithms make each router periodically broadcast its routing tables to all its neighbors". Your edit summary indicates that you have the concept of mass nouns confused with this, by the way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't considered it might occur in the plural. Ignore the edit summary though: I made a mistake there because of mental crossed wires. Equinox 04:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It's also the business with determiners; your statement opening this thread doesn't square with the linguistic description of proper nouns in Wikipedia. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Why so? It says "some [proper nouns] may be taken to include the article the, as in the Netherlands". Equinox 04:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I can explain it, but I'm sure you can use your sense as a native speaker to see that though there are some exceptions (the Netherlands are also an exception in being a plurale tantum), "the France" sounds wrong unless in very specifically crafted common noun usage ("the France of Napoleon's time"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I just don't see why "the Bellman-Ford algorithm" shouldn't count as one of the exceptions. Equinox 04:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

En dashes as L2 separatorEdit

I noticed in this edit you accidentally used en-dashes, rather than hyphens, to separate the L2 section. I wonder if you made the same mistake anywhere else. I'm also baffled as to how that could have accidentally happened. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea on either count. It can't be a common mistake I've made, though, and it should be easy to search for if you are so inclined. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this is another case of some autocorrect software "correcting" more than it should? (If this happened inside an L2 header, e.g. "Wuvulu–Aua", I'd blame copy-pasting and Wikipedia's insistent use of en-dashes.) As of the 2016-02-03 database dump there was only one other page like this, which I just changed. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I disable autocorrects... I can only imagine that my finger was resting on the opt key, and given that I'm not really able to see the difference between - and – in the editing window, my odd mistake was left. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh you're an Apple person. That explains everything. --WikiTiki89 15:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
That actually made me laugh out loud. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's another case from after this discussion: diff. Look out for that opt key! --WikiTiki89 00:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Oy gvalt. Maybe it's worth adding a filter to prevent any such edits getting through. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. --WikiTiki89 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to entry for "person".Edit

I recently added some Scots definitions for person and corrected (and added) some Scots translations for person, only to have my edits reverted. If this was done in error by a program, then please modify the program to ignore my edits or something along those lines. No offence, but as a native Scots speaker, I know what I'm doing. John Gordon Reid (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your formatting was very problematic, but the semantics of the translation are as well. To give more specific translations, you can use {{qualifier}} after the translation in question, but in this case, I think that the distinction you're making is akin to that in English; then Scots translation human then belongs at human#Translations instead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the {{qualifier}} code, the Scots translations look much better, and I've added Scots "Human" to the translation chart for Human. But my reason for making the distinction in the translations for "Specifically a Human Being" has not changed. In Scots, you never conflate "Genus Homo" with "Homo Sapiens", and it's sadly very common for native English speakers to conflate the two, (and even with "person" for some reason). Juggling the nuances of two different languages is quite a challenge.John Gordon Reid (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I had to fix it, though, because you used two lines, and the specific epithet should never be capitalised. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The relevant entries look quite good now, thanks for your input.John Gordon Reid (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You've spent a lot of time talking about the phrase "Genus Homo" as if it meant something beyond merely a taxonomic category used by scientists. Could you explain why the average speaker of Scots would delimit a common word like bodie by whether the referent was a hominin as opposed to an australopithecine? Are you saying that w:Homo erectus can be referred to as a bodie, but Australopithecus afarensis can't? Why? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a tough question, (but a good one). The best that I can say is that the basic idea of (genus) Homo has been in the folk consciousness for, as long as there's been a folk consciousness, and Australopithecus really hasn't entered the folk consciousnes at all. And because of that, I myself see no reason to extend the meaning of the word "bodie" to include Australopithecus. Of course this is not my decision alone, but the decision of everybody that speaks Scots fluently, (whatever his dialect), I've just not seen any evidence of such a change. And as for my somewhat unorthodox use of taxonomic nomenclature, I simply decided that it was the best way to convey exactly what "bodie" really means in Scots, even if it obscures the fact that it's primarily used as a vernacular word.John Gordon Reid (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Judging from Books, it seems that some Latimers used diaereses to avoid confusion with diphthongs. Is there any reason to exclude these spellings? --Romanophile (contributions) 10:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd include them (cf. poëticus), but I don't think we have consensus on that, as WT:ALA will unhelpfully tell you. If you want to, create a thread on the talkpage there and see if you can rustle up a consensus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


I believe that, like the phrase below, it shouldn't have a full stop at the end because it's not a sentence. Antondimak (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's common dictionary format to do otherwise, and WT:Entry layout specifically states the following: "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop." —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


I’m curious, does Yiddish have any derogatory autonyms? --Romanophile (contributions) 00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Not counting offensive terms used to refer to other groups of Jews, but ones aimed at one's own community, ייִדענע ‎(yidene) comes to mind as one that's often derogatory. There's also זשיד ‎(zhid), but that's not organic, as it's a borrowing from Russian. The language itself is what most commonly gets hit with a derogatory autonym: זשאַרגאָן ‎(zhargon). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
ייִדענע could suffice as a hyponym of זשיד. --Romanophile (contributions) 00:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Nah. The former has some specific stereotypes attached (which I tried to document in the entry), whereas the latter is just a slur. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, all right. Fair enough. Sorry for my inaccurate addition. --Romanophile (contributions) 00:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I'm glad you asked, because it's always good to notice more words I have left to add! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What are the slurs for other Jews, such as the Sephardim? --Romanophile (contributions) 13:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a lot of direct day-to-day interaction with Sephardim among the Yiddish speakers in Eastern Europe. If you want slurs, you need to look for sources of tension. The Chassidim had a slur for the non-Chassidim: מתנגד ‎(misnaged, literally opposer), but this evolved into an actual term for the non-Chassidim (see w:Misnagdim). There is יעקע ‎(yeke) for German Jews. I'm sure there were slurs between the Polish, Galician, and Lithuanian Jews, but I don't really know what they are (I have read that פּײַליש ‎(paylish) was a humorous way for Lithuanian Jews to refer to the Polish Jews and לוטוואַק ‎(lutvak) for Polish Jews to refer to the Lithuanian Jews, both based on cross-dialectal hypercorrections, but I don't know if you can call them "slurs" and they probably are not citeable). --WikiTiki89 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

How well‐known is Yiddish?Edit

How many Americans do you think are conscious that Yiddish (at least) exists? --Romanophile (contributions) 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Using a Fermi method, I would estimate that about one-third of Americans know that there is a language called Yiddish. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: the consciousness of Ladino is probably lower, possibly because it’s had a much less influence on English. Ladino might be somewhat well‐known (more‐so than Yiddish) in Latin countries, but I don’t have a good reason for that.
I know that this remark is going to upset somebody, but it seems like Americans are especially linguistically illiterate. Almost everybody knows English, therefore they don’t have to spend time learning foreign languages. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
No need to look for other explanations when there's an obvious answer: demographics. There have been multiple large waves of immigration by Yiddish-speaking people from Eastern Europe in the past couple of centuries due to various pogroms and the Holocaust. Ladino-speakers, on the other hand, migrated mostly to the Middle East, and several centuries earlier. There are some interesting exceptions like the conversos in New Mexico and a few smaller communities here and there, but not really big enough to avoid being mostly absorbed into mainstream US culture before being noticed.
As for US ignorance of non-English languages: the country was settled when transportation and communications technologies were just starting to take off, so we have a small linguistic variety spread over a huge area and little isolation to allow for any significant differences to develop- most of the barriers are cultural rather than geographical. That means we simply haven't had as much exposure to other languages until recent decades except along the Mexican border. Plus, we speak the leading international lingua franca, so most of us have been able to live our lives just fine without learning a second language. The rest of the world doesn't have that luxury, so they're forced to be better at learning other languages. There again, it's demographics. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi, this is from the user "Chackoony" on Wiktionary. Would just like to thank you for the patience and help in showing me how to work the Wikipedia terminal commands. Sorry if I've put this message in the wrong place! Chackoony (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for deleting some of the pages relating to {{quote-book/source}} that I tagged. However, could you make two changes?

  • Please undelete {{quote-book/testcases}}. The template {{quote-book}} still exists, and so the /testcases page is still in use.
  • Please delete {{quote-book/source}}. As I indicated, I tagged its talk page as the template page itself is protected and so can't be edited. You have deleted the template talk page but not the template subpage itself. However, {{quote-book}} (the main template page) should not be deleted.

Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I got rather confused when deleting. Might be better next time to leave somebody a message explaining what to delete rather than tagging them, but it's not your fault that I messed up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure who to message, so I explained in the {{delete}} tag why I was tagging the template talk page rather than the template page itself. Anyway, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello Metaknowledge, you wrote in the edit summary "looking at Google Books seems to confirm it as masculine". Could you please be so kind and give me any example which seems to confirm this gender of the Latin word Sprea? Older dictionaries often say something different and L&S has for example "Mosella, ae, m. and f." which would mean that Latin rivers can indeed be feminine. Greetings, Boðberi (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why we try to use evidence in the wild rather than dictionaries. You can have a go and look for yourself — a couple minutes of searching revealed "unde curvum Spream nuncupant". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I know the advantages of real examples while I also know the advantages of dictionaries. I just wasn't able to find any example indicating the gender. Now I found this: "et ad plagam Spreae Lusaticae occidentalem" (in Urkunden und historische Nachrichten). I guess Lusaticus means Lusatian, refering to the region Lusatia. So the example should mean "and at the western region of the Lusatian Spree". Doesn't this example proof that it is also feminine? -Boðberi (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems good. We should say it can be both m and f. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to add it. Thank you very much. -Boðberi (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello. What's the reason for the revert? -Ikiaika (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the statement should be softened rather than removed. There are nearly no such words, although I just thought of one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there are Latin words spelled with 'w'. At least proper nouns in New Latin, like Westphalia or Westfalen which is Vestphalia, VVestphalia or Westphalia in Latin, depending on the orthography.
Also, even when there would be no 'w' in Latin, it could be that there is a form like "walri" for "walrus". For example, in German the Latin word compositum was also spelled with 'k' instead of 'c' but declined like a Latin word, that is Kompositum, genitive Kompositi etc. The German wiktionary has examples with "Kompositis", "Kompoſito" and "Kompoſiti". In the same way a Latin 'v' could have been replaced by 'w' while keeping the Latin declension or at least the Latin plural.
But I see, you already re-corrected the entry. -Ikiaika (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Native SpeakerEdit

Hello. How is adding "anglicism" before the translation helpful? We're already saying that in the etymology section.

PS: Next time you should tell me that when you're reverting (in the edit summary). 20:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that this term is viewed as an anglicism in formal German, unlike (for example) Handy, which is obviously from English, but is the standard term, rather than being a more anglicised equivalent. If a German speaker can demonstrate that I am wrong, I would be happy to have the context label removed.
Also, we don't have time to explain every reversion. You should be thankful that I created the vote that led to the default rollback summary suggesting that the rollback be discussed if it was made in error. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. 00:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


The label "vulgar" is repeated twice in the entry you rolled back. When adding "obscene" label it becomes "vulgar" for some reason. [2]

Hmm, I didn't know that. Sorry. It might be worth indicating that in your edit summary next time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Can you send me an e‐mail? I would just send you one, but I can’t send mails through Wikiprojects any more. --Romanophile (contributions) 22:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Why can't you send mail? Is it a technical problem? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I don’t know for sure why I can’t, but it’s probably not a browser issue. I already complained about it here, but it was never resolved. --Romanophile (contributions) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Maggidim (talkcontribs) has been removing certain parameters from many Latin declension tables. It seems a little fishy to me, can you check this out? --WikiTiki89 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

All I see is removal of loc=1, which is certainly appropriate for country names; the rule I was taught for Classical Latin is that (besides lexical exceptions) it is to be restricted to "cities and small islands". I'll take a look at some more of their contribs now, but if anything else pops out at you, please leave me the diff and I'll check it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying about the locative case. But in this one he removed the singular-only parameter: diff. --WikiTiki89 23:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I've added it back in; theoretically, I suppose all such nouns could be pluralised, but no plural forms are attested (unsurprisingly). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Except from a few words like domus, only cities and small ilands have a locative. In Medieval Latin or New Latin the locative maybe was used more freely, but then this has to be proven and then there has to be a note.
Removing the num=sg was a little mistake which can happen when one fixes many entries. Only a few countries should have a plural like China, Korea, Germany, Sudan, Kongo, but it should be very likely that a plural is not attested in Latin.
Many of my other edits improved the categorisation of Latin words, and sometimes derived terms or related terms were added.
Some entries for ilands still mention a locative. But I doubt that Australia or Cuba are small. Even Malta and Cyprus should be too big to be small.
-Maggidim (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maggidim: Thank you for your contributions. My inexperience with Latin combined with your one mistake led me to incorrectly doubt your edits. --WikiTiki89 14:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Vote eligibilityEdit

Hi, I just saw the strikeouts. I didn't realize there was any voting eligibility criteria (perhaps the details could be added at the top of that page?).

I simply saw the suggestion in IRC to take a look at the vote, and so I did! I've also been active in a few logo votes at Metawiki over the years, and if I remember correctly there generally aren't any criteria there beyond being active in one of the wikimedia communities. I hope my struck-out votes can at least remain, so that my ideas might be read and considered. Let me know if I need/ought to do anything else, otherwise I'll leave it at this.

Thanks, and hope that helps. Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

They are at the top of that page. Take a look.
I don't know who was advertising this vote in IRC; that's not necessarily a bad thing, but IME the community hasn't been very active there, and I try to keep most communication on-wiki.
We're not Meta. That's why this vote exists here in the first place.
I have left your votes, as you can see. If you want them to count, you can feel free to become a Wiktionarian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on it... :) Quiddity (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
As Chuck quoted below, the criteria must be met "by the start time of the vote". --WikiTiki89 14:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh, I was just stopping by to ask about this. While not a very active contributor on this project, there are multiple senses, citations added within 1 year. What is a "wiktionarian"? - Amgine/ t·e 03:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The relevant part of the voting policy: "Their account must have at least 50 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote.". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

buy & sell in YiddishEdit

I recently read a rumour that Yiddish contains hundreds of words for purchase and vend. Is that true at all? I seriously doubt it. --Romanophile (contributions) 06:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Eskimo words for snow is reporting for duty, only with an antisemitic twist. And as for why these ideas aren't left for dead in a little-seen blogpost: דער עולם איז אַ גולם ‎(der oylem iz a goylem). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, I was pretty sure that this was a racist lie, but I’m surprised to see anybody gullible enough to credit it. Although I would be curious to see any synonyms of פֿאַרקויפֿן and קויפֿן… I believe that there were at least two words for ‘buy’ in Proto‐Germanic: one Latin and one native. --Romanophile (contributions) 07:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There's האַנדלען ‎(handlen), which is something like "to engage in trade", and I see that מיסחרן ‎(miskhern) apparently exists with similar meaning, but as I haven't ever heard the latter used, I'll check to make sure I have the shade of meaning right before I create the entry. I try to take extra care with verbs, because it's always so hard to document them accurately if I don't have native input. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

New version of Template:R:Webster 1913Edit

Hi, I created an updated version of {{R:Webster 1913}} at {{R:Webster 1913/sandbox}}, and wonder if you can replace the old version with the new one as the template is edit protected. I am proposing to update the old version for two reasons: (1) to bring its formatting in line with other templates through the use of {{cite-book}}; (2) unfortunately, it appears that the University of Chicago has discontinued its online version of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. The link created by the old version to is now generating a "server not found" error. I'm not sure how long this has been going on for. I tried looking for a new online version of the Dictionary at the University's ARTFL Project website, but there doesn't seem to be one. Thus, the new version of the template removes the external link. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: consists almost entirely of Webster 1913 material. It is available online through The Free Dictionary. It might be possible use template code like:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}&button=Search

I don't know whether is possible to jump to the first occurrence of The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: header. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I found three other websites that we might be able to use. Which one do you think we should use?
SMUconlaw (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the first one is preferable. I tried searching connascency in all three, and the first was the only one that recognised my input and sent me to the appropriate entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I added to {{R:Webster 1913/sandbox}}. Try it out. I'm not entirely sure what the text within the braces is supposed to indicate, though (e.g., "Con*nas"cence (?), Con*nas"cen*cy (?)") – stress? hyphenation? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's stress. It seems to work well, and it links to the entries right, which is my chief concern. I'll replace the real template now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. By the way, I noticed there are a whole bunch of "R:Webster" templates. I think we may have to check if all of them are working. {{R:Webster 1828}}, which also relies on, clearly doesn't. Can we find an alternative source for the 1828 dictionary? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Smuconlaw: 1828 isn't protected, so if you find a replacement, feel free to change it yourself. If you can't, we should still remove the dead link. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Smuconlaw, DCDuring: So...JohnC5 14:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Mmmm, I'm not keen on getting involved in a potential edit war. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The first source above has the etymology, but the others don't. The others also have extraneous content, as did the Collaborative. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the shorter version of the displayed reference info. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we do something about this user? I know that technically they aren’t breaking any rules, but their apathy towards simple instructions is quite consistent with a troublecauser. --Romanophile (contributions) 08:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It was it? Very strange behaviour, and although the entries aren't wrong, they aren't formatted perfectly either. I don't really have the patience needed to clean them all up a bit, which is really what has to be done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


I don't know when I'll get around to adding the entry (or maybe someone else will), but the most common pronunciation I know of is /ˈd̪ˠoːnˠəl̪ˠ/. There is a Connacht variant with /uː/, and perhaps a Munster variant with /au/, though I'm not sure about that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Template:R:Webster 1913Edit

I object to your deleting Template:R:Webster 1913 out of process and replacing it with another template. I ask that you restore the revision history of Template:R:Webster 1913 if possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Refer to the section above on this topic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
#New version of Template:R:Webster 1913 does not contain anywhing useful. In particular, it does not contain anything like evidence of consensus on deleting the template.
Can you please post here below the content of the deleted template? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
<onlyinclude>[{{urlencode:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}&use1913=on {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}] in ''[[Wiktionary:Webster's Dictionary, 1913|Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary]]'', G. & C. Merriam, 1913</onlyinclude> [[Category:English reference templates|Webster]] —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The content is available from the The (access to entry for location is and The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 at DCDuring TALK 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused what the issue is here. The template was changed to the standardized {{cite-book}} format. What's wrong? —JohnC5 02:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, -sche has restored the revision history of the template, as obvious from template logs. In the logs, I see Metaknowledge deleting the template on 11 May 2016 and -sche restoring the page on 23 May 2016. Before that restoration by -sche, the history was lost via deletion by Metaknowledge. Thanks to -sche for restoring the history and to Metaknowledge for posting above the previous template content. Problem solved. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Rollback on May 17 2016Edit

Hello Sir/Ma'am:

Was your rollback, undoing my edit to the dictionary entry which is a legitimate meaning of the word, automated or with intent? Please reply if you wish upon MarkWilliamVinerMD my account, as I'm simply not logged in. Or here is alright. Here's my source. and I quote "woman (n.) Look up woman at "adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."" End quote. 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your addition was poorly formatted and a copyright violation by copying word for word from another dictionary. Please do not do that again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".