Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Metaknowledge

  1. 2012
  2. 2013
  3. 2014
  4. 2015
  5. 2016
  6. 2017

Moroccan ArabicEdit

Thank you for your interest to a great language which is neglected - even denied - by its users. Most of speakers will not accept the appellation "Moroccan Arabic", calling it "darija" (slang). But it is a general problem in all the "small languages".

I am not a native speaker, but I have learned it since the 1970ies. Since 2009, I used it systematically in Walloon Wiktionary, mainly translating Walloon words, but also in own pages. See Wiccionaire:arabe marokin.

I learned the language in Rabat, but I am living in Doukkala rural area since 1989, where it is my work language.

It would be better to discuss problem points in this talk page: Copene:Wiccionaire:arabe marokin.

I give you my opinion on "hamza" letters (أ إ ؤ ئ) over there.

--Lucyin (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lucyin: I'd like to keep the conversation in one place and preferably on this Wiktionary, where the page in question is. Moroccan Arabic seems to have a fair use of the glottal stop to me, especially in borrowings from MSA. We can't consider the colloquial languages to be entirely independent of MSA influence, especially among educated speakers, and really they are both points on the same spectrum of formality. Did you see any errors or points of discussion in my attempt to represent how Moroccan Arabic is spelt or pronounced? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I ordered Richard S. Harrel's A Short Reference Grammar of Moroccan Arabic (ISBN 9781589017610). It's coming tomorrow, so I should be able to help more with Moroccan next week. --WikiTiki89 14:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    Harrell is really the only good source out there, which is, in a way, a bad thing. Anatoli has his graded introduction to Moroccan Arabic, and I have his dictionary of Moroccan Arabic (the phonological introduction of which I used to help build WT:About Arabic/Moroccan). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'm make sure to use my critical reading skills and not take anything he says for granted (which is what I always do anyway). --WikiTiki89 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi MK. You like aWa. Any chance you could run it on Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2011/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2012/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2013/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2014/Unresolved requests --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not got the necessary user rights - thanks goodness --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes you do. Pretty sure anyone can enable it in their prefs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope - I am level 1 user - this is a level 2 user thing --WF on Holiday (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Are there instructions anywhere? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Is there some way to get bots to make pages for conjugated verbs, & derivative verbs? Thank you. Anjuna (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

For derivative verbs, I don't think they should be created by bots. In many cases, they may have specific unexpected meanings that have to be added by a human. For example, -andaa (prepare) has the stative form -andika (write). However, conjugated forms, infinitives, and noun plurals could and should be created by a bot. My thinking is that it would be best to wait until there is more to be done, on the assumption that whoever runs the bot will not want to do so all the time, and that way I can bother them less often. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson and User:יבריבEdit

Not sure where best to post this information, but I suspect that User:BedrockPerson (see also w:User:BedrockPerson) and User:יבריב are the same person and that his claim of poor English skills was a total lie. I'm not 100% sure, but it's a strong suspicion. Both accounts also wreaked some havoc at Wikipedia as well (and both at Wiktionary and Wikipedia, the edits largely overlap). Also ping @Chuck Entz. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit elaborate, but it could make sense. BedrockPerson never claimed to know Hebrew, though, right? And then יבריב claimed to be a native speaker. So do they actually know Hebrew? (In any case, they're both permablocked for just cause, so it doesn't really seem to matter.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
BedrockPerson's Hebrew seemed far more abysmal than יבריב's, though. — Kleio (t · c) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@KIeio: Could you give some examples? --WikiTiki89 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Mostly based on the creation of this entry, the definition of which as given by BedrockPerson betrays a severe lack of understanding of how Hebrew actually works. Recall also זרתסטרא, which has since been deleted. The few samples of Hebrew writing by יבריב on their talk page in contrast are actually sorta coherent (though not as fluent as I'd expect from a "native speaker", tbh - "זה האחד חיבור"??), more so than I'd expect given how elementary BedrockPerson's mistakes were. But looking at the overlap between their edits your suggestion does seem plausible, especially since יבריב does seem to have been lying about a native speaker. — Kleio (t · c) 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually if you look at יבריב's edits in Hebrew entries, you'll find similar kinds of mistakes as in BedrockPerson's edits to מנדעית and זרתסטרא. Such mistakes do not necessarily have to do with fluency in a language. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Another point is that the IPs who are making edits similar to those of User:BedrockPerson and User:יבריב locate to various locations all over the US (I specifically remember seeing at least California, New York State, Massachusetts, and Missouri). --WikiTiki89 15:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


You might want to delete some of these too. —suzukaze (tc) 01:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'm helping WF do his spring end of summer cleaning. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Thought you are from the US? Accidentally revealed your love for British spellings? :) Wyang (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

People do seem to notice this every few months or so, which I think is rather funny, considering that I've been writing like this the whole time. (I think the last person to question it was JohnC5.) Anyway, I have a personal orthographic norm that is purely suited to my own aesthetics, and mostly matches Canada in 1900 or thereabouts. In the real world, I often have to stifle it and remind myself to write like a 'Murican (and I do keep to 'Murican spellings for writing Wiktionary definitions), but I can relax and write as I would for myself elsewhere on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!JohnC5 21:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting! The words "1900" and "Canada" do ring a (very faint) bell, but I guess I'll need to be more alert (despite the background of growing senileness). Wyang (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:User lang subcatEdit

What is your consideration of making the phrasing in it grammatically singular? Dokurrat (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's already singular. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think they were asking why you changed it (actually the sub-templates) to make it singular in the first place, back in 2013. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably because a userpage can only belong to one user. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea; that could be it, although rather few people use them on their userpages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh that's for categories. Then either really should be plural, or it's meant to mimic the box that appears on the userpage, in which case it should be singular. --WikiTiki89 15:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I'm gonna change it to plural. Dokurrat (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Vorziblix for adminEdit

Pings aren't working? User_talk:Vorziblix#Admin --Rerum scriptor (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That ping sure as hell isn't going to work, given that you got my username wrong. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

straw poll, etc.Edit

I do not think a beauty pageant conducted on a wiki could be other than informal. Likewise most any voting system including the ever-touted Extension:SecurePoll is unlikely to comply with any form of rigor, or be resistant to social hacking. Which does not make them unuseful. Merely untrustworthy. - Amgine/ t·e 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Still sounds like you don't get it. Rigor, resistance to social hacking, utility, and trustworthiness are all unrelated to the dichotomy at hand. (Plus, let's say you actually disagreed with how the term is used in Wiktionary jargon, like how I see consensus as having a different meaning than how we apply it — even in that case, you'd be breaking the rules of pragmatics by ignoring the distinction between regular use and Wiktionary use that you are familiar with.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
<shrug> If you say so. My concept of consensus in this case is we agree to abide by the results of whatever-you-call-the-event-involving-Chuck, and my understanding of the dichotomy is we do or do not have enough active community members to convince the WMF we can serve as a check on misuse of the CU. But I am of the opinion you have a different view of my ability, or maybe right, to reach such conclusions. - Amgine/ t·e 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

French reflexive/pronominal verbsEdit

Hello. Could you tell me what's the policy with reflexive/pronominal verbs here, and especially for French? I don't know if I should create se taper and redirect the reader from taper to there for the relevant senses, or add all the information to taper. Also, what about English and a verb like bring oneself? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The standard seems to be documented here: Wiktionary:About French#Verbs. Of course, the standard may be imperfectly followed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to thank you for your answer, so: thank you. I'll abstain from working on them for now, in fact! --Barytonesis (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


Your entry-creation showed up on my watchlist., so as I always do, I checked to see how it got there. It turns out that I had deleted the previous entry in error due to a massive block of Persian text (apparently copypasted from Persian Wikipedia) that pushed the previous content off the screen. I can only guess that I was half asleep and didn't think to check anything

I've now restored all the good edits to the edit history. Could you see if there's any content from the previous version that would be worth restoring and merging with your version? Since you took the trouble to create a perfectly good entry, I don't want to mess with it until you've had a chance to look at everything yourself. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I merged Vahag's original version with mine. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Dude. Seriously. The root מצץ is supported by Strong’s Hebrew (which is cited on the page) AND is in literally every etymological work regarding Hebrew I can find. Why are you so insistent on removing obviously correct information?

You aren't careful enough to be trusted on, well, anything. You've been permablocked for a reason. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok wow. Um…legitimate question: are you retarded? You just immediately see what I do and assume it’s not right? You haven’t even looked at the sources? What kind of horrible admin are you? To what depths of incompetency can you possibly sink to?
And well, complain all you want. As long as I see you dumbasses redact correct info out of spite, I won’t stop. Ever. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:B1 21:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I have checked, the Arabic verbs you have entered in סדום do not exist, and “صداما‏” is not even a possible verb form, not to speak of a citation form, also I do not see it in Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon entry linked (because there cannot be such inventions), so there is no correct information from you, and no spite. And maybe you just should not relate the word for matzo מצה with the word for “suck” if you are an IP. This looks like a prank; one wants at least a better explanation about the relation. Yes that connection is made, but if you would say that this connection is made because matza is sucked from humidity, it would be less of a problem, and even little suspicious if you would mention another possible history. But yes, actually it is justified to revert edits of you for the sole sake, for the sole formal reason of their coming from you, if you have been banned for being devoid of sane judgment. So why do you sometimes enter wrong, sometimes enter correct information? It’s a shame for you too if it is for us one that we remove correct information because it comes from an only randomly correct contributor. As there is presumably somewhat of an incompetence in you, I recommend you that you grant yourself a vacation of online dictionaries to build your knowledge of languages as well as your character, instead of “not stopping” here, so you can return as a different person with more adequate competences in say five years. Or are you nothing more than a piece of spite that has no hope of being someone else in the future? Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


I thought it is an elegant way to mark the nunated form to explain the t – it links to the lemma form anyway. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 07:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Our standard is to link to the lemma form unless there's a really good reason not to, and since it wasn't borrowed from the indefinite form specifically, a good enough reason is lacking. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Palaestrator verborum: tāʾ marbūṭa is a problem for etymologies but let's keep it consistent, as you may have figured out, we don't provide the nunation. I'm not 100% sure on the compound words, though - with or without ʾiḍāfa, whether we should provide the final vocalisation or not. If we don't, we have to romanise manually. رَاحَةُ ٱلْحُلْقُوم (rāḥatu l-ḥulqūm) is an example of my hesitations. I chose to provide the ʾiʿrāb in this entry - to show e.g. how the term would be pronounced by Al-Jazeera announcer in the nominative case in the pausal form (i.e. the second part lacks ʾiʿrāb). Nothing's perfect. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits to Wiktionary:About SwahiliEdit

Why were my edits reverted? It was very helpful to know what words were being defined in the examples. Habstinat (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that, in all of the other "About" language pages that I could find on Wiktionary with examples, the word being defined in the example was specified somewhere in the text. Habstinat (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Habstinat: It was a little messy, and not really necessary (the words are used as examples, but the entries themselves don't necessarily look quite like that). On a related note, I've seen that you've added some words in Swahili, and although I appreciate your interest in helping, I ask that you not create any more for now. You need to learn some Swahili before you create entries or you are bound to make basic mistakes. I'll clean up the ones you've already made later. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks -- I agree I should have been consistent with the way I linked the words, but that's an easy fix. I'll heed your advice, but I do want to help -- what's wrong with the words I already created? Would it be better to create them and stick a "please review" template on them to have another set of eyes? How best can I contribute to Swahili here? Habstinat (talk)
There are a lot of mistakes in your contributions thus far, as well as problems that (ironically enough) you could have handled had you actually read the About page that you edited. For now, you can help with Swahili entries by adding images or other work that does not easily lend itself to mistakes, and if you study Swahili, you should be able to progress to the point where you can eventually add entries. If you need resources for learning, feel free to email me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I read the About page several times, but not having been familiar with editing Wiktionary before it's possible that I misinterpreted or made mistakes on some of my created articles. I'm currently enrolled in introductory Swahili classes at my university but would be eager to see any useful resources you know about -- I am having a lot of trouble finding material outside my textbook. Habstinat (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you have a class, then you'll be well on your way to making entries once you complete the introductory sequence. If you want to discuss textbooks and other learning materials, I'd be happy to do so via email. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you are using {{bor}} without the notext=1 parameter. I want to notify you that the way this template works will change very shortly, following Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/November#Template:bor: Replace notext=1 with withtext=1. The sense of the parameters will be switched: whereas before you needed a parameter to suppress display of the text, in the new situation you'll need a parameter to include the text. The withtext=1 parameter is only temporary, to facilitate the transition to the new format. You can use it for now if you really want, but the goal is to get rid of it. —Rua (mew) 21:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's too much extra typing. When the template behaviour changes, my behaviour will change to match it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Recent additions to the category"Edit

Is there a way to see more of the recent additions to a category than the 10 most recent ones? Historierummet (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, although you could get a version of Recent Changes that would just show Azeri. But you won't see many changes — I just happened to want to add a couple words. There's lots of work to be done with Azeri, so I think just adding more common, everyday words would be your best bet. Feel free to ask me if you need any help with anything. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Cheers Historierummet (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, @Historierummet, if you're having trouble figuring out where to start, you can take a look at WT:RE:az and the Azeri column at Appendix:Turkic Swadesh lists for some entries that people might especially want. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And then I guess I can remove an entry from the list if I create a page for the requested term? Historierummet (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
For the request list, yes. For the Swadesh list, no. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


Hey, I have a dumb friend who's getting some nonsense tattooed on himself in Latin, I thought perhaps you and @JohnC5 could give your two cents. Thanks for any help.

"There will always be decay, there will always be others" > "semper sit tabes semper sit aliis" or "semper sit tabes sed aliis"? --Victar (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the original means, so the translation will necessarily flawed. I also think that if your friend is stupid enough to get something tattooed that he can't understand, it's hardly your responsibility to ensure it's correct. But you should know better than the suggestion you made, just by looking at our Latin entries and knowing a tiny bit of IE linguistics. The grammatically correct version would be: "Semper tabes erit, semper alii erunt." with word order being free and the first verb being omissible since it's essentially repeated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir and the stupidity of tattoos you can't read. The original is "There will always be decay, there will always be others". The word order makes complete sense to me. Thanks for your help! --Victar (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm but not condone this course of action. Metaknowledge has not led you astray. —JohnC5 08:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a "categorical imperative" to provide a deliberately wrong translation to anyone who is having this kind of tattoo. Nobody asked me? Oh! Let's work it out in the car park, slut. Equinox 22:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".