1. 2012                5. 2016
  2. 2013                6. 2017
  3. 2014                7. 2018
  4. 2015                8. 2019

mbili and sufuriEdit

Please fix. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I get for not waiting for CAT:E to update... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring?Edit

Can you prove that I did edit warring? If not, I have to report you? Where can I do this? --Meatbowl (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can: it's in the edit history for all to see. By the way, you should be happy I haven't reported you, because your other accounts are globally locked, and this one would be as well if I cared enough to do something about it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

lobo del marEdit

Hey. This should be lobo de mar. Can't move it as am a n00b. --AcpoKrane (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely real — why don't you make it an alt form? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

pontic revertEdit

Thanks, man. I didn't even catch that distinction... I hope that you might do me a favor, though. I tried, in the reverted addition, to provide a couple of links to Wikipedia pages, as I have seen done before on Wiktionary, but I screwed them up a bit (the links worked, but left a confusing presentation on the Wiktionary page). Do you know how to correctly do that, and if so, will you give me the "short course"?

Sure. Inline Wikipedia links should use {{w}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that means inside double curly brackets, one should put "temp|w: (followed by the title of the Wikipedia page)", would that be correct?
No. It means that you should use the template {{w}} and feed the title as a parameter. For example, use {{w|Khan}} in order to generate Khan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with that. The proper use of templates on Wiki platforms remains largely an unknown to me.


Is google books the only source you can look in? Sources of other places show the part of the chainsaw as a dawg. I see nothing in any help articles about having to use books. --Tadfafty —This unsigned comment was added by Tadfafty (talkcontribs).

Well, in my last revert, I summarised the pertinent part of WT:ATTEST for you. If you can't find it in any books or other durably archived media, we're not likely to be able to include it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
How is dawg not just a different spelling of dog? Definition 9 of dog would seem to include the chainsaw-specific definition. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't easy to find a citation of dog in the chainsaw-specific sense, but I have included it at definition 9 for dog. DCDuring (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

speculate and speculaEdit

Hello, Metaknowledge.

There is a matter which I would like to raise regarding the etymologies of English verbs in "-ate"; I will illustrate my thoughts about this using the verb speculate as a subject. It seems that the etymologies of these words often indicate the Latin past participle as the origin, which is a seductive thought, since the Latin p. part. of verbs is indicated by -atus (though the "-a" is part of the stem here). It seems strange to derive a verb, though, from a participle, which essentially has an adjectival function. I did a bit of speculating (sorry, but I could not refuse the pun) on this, and I think that such etymologies may be questionable. My rationale, using the subject speculate, follows: (i) "-ate" first appeared acting adjectivally in participial forms (e.g. "speculate" as a participal) adapted from the second participle of the Latin first conjugation in the late Middle English period, meaning before the end of the 15th century (see here:, (ii) later, most of these participle forms took the "-ed" suffix (e.g. "speculated" as a participle), then, (ii) from the from the 16th century onwards, "-ate", having become independently productive in verb formation ("morphologically transparent"), was used to form verbs from Latin nominal stems (e.g. "speculate" as a verb) (ibid.), (iii) "speculate" as a verb in particular (not as a participle), first entered English in the "Early Modern English" period, specifically in the 16th century (see here: › dictionary › speculate, under "Did You Know?"). Does it not seem more sensible, then, that English "speculate" particularly as a verb was formed within English in the 16th century, by suffixing an independently productive "-ate" to the base of Latin speculatio, rather than speculate being a borrowing from Latin adjective speculatus? I would tend to think that most of these English verbs in "-ate" have been derived similarly, and I would like to have your thoughts on this.

While I am at it, I would like to indicate that the etymology at specula seems to be questionable, in that it indicates a direct derivation from specio. The problem with this is that -culus/-cula was not suffixed to verbs, but rather to nouns to form diminutives thereof. I think that the etymology there should read as follows: "specula From speciēs (a seeing, a viewing, a looking) +‎ -culus (suffix forming diminutives of nouns)", what do you think?

Re -ate: I don't know if this is knowable. As for speculate in particular, Etymonline calls it a back-formation.
Re specula: Who says diminutives can't be applied directly on verbal stems? That would be an obstaculum to certain other etymologies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As pertains to specula, you are quite right: it is specio + -culum. Thanks for that. Concerning speculate, I think that by indicating it as a back-formation, what is meant is a back formation from English speculation, which is ultimately from speculatio through French spéculation. In such a case, it seems that English or French "speculation" rather than Latin "speculatus" should appear in the etymology. If it is determinable that "speculation" predates "speculate" in the lexicon, then I think one has the answer. That may be difficult, but the OED, to which I do not have access, may indicate the first appearances of these. I guess that I would rather think it produced within English from speculor + (16th century English) -ate as opposed to a borrowing of the participle directly from Latin. Another possibility, of course, is that English -ate was suffixed to the stem of French spéculer. It just seems strange to me that a Latin participle, which does not have a verbal function, would be borrowed directly into English as a verb, especially given the intervening French influence. Something to mull over at leisure... Take care.

Inadvertent deletionEdit

In this edit you also deleted a contribution of mine.  --Lambiam 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I have no idea how that happened, seeing as I created a new section using the +. In the future, if someone inadvertently removes your contribution, I recommend that you simply replace it yourself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

rape apologistEdit

Hello Metaknowledge, you deleted rape apologist that have been created by an IP on several wikis. on the French Wiktionary, we are wondering what to do with this entry. So, could you explain a bit why you have chosen to delete it? Is there no specific meaning (i.e. it only means rape + apologist)? Or something else? Thank you in advance. Best regards. Pamputt (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for Metaknowledge, but the entry deleted looks like a rant about attitudes the contributor doesn't like disguised as a dictionary entry. The definitions are more accusations than definitions. The first definition is almost salvageable, but the rest have the fatal flaw of defining a behavior-based term (an apologist is someone who does something) based on what the person thinks. The last definition is arguably a call for mob justice, and would be disputed by the mainstream of human rights advocates. Basically, the whole entry is an indirect way of saying "people like this are rape apologists", without saying what a rape apologist is. I would have deleted it as "no usable content given". That's even before considering whether it's sum-of-parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pamputt What Chuck said, and: if defined accurately, it seems like it mostly just means "rape + apologist", as you say ("an apologist for rape"), like also google books:"lynching apologist", google books:"crime apologist", etc. That some of the Books and raw Google hits are applying "crime apologist" to criminal defence attorneys doing their duty to defend their clients, or to proponents of reforming the legal system, shows that the tendency to accuse people one doesn't like / whose position on something related to X one doesn't like of being "X apologists" extends beyond what was seen in the now-deleted entry. It also extends to other words, e.g. people can be accused of being "rape fans", "fans of rape", not to mention "supporters of lynching", etc. But I concede that "rape apologist" seems to have recently become a more common collocation than the others ("crime apologist", "rape fans", etc), and at least slightly less obviously literal than some of the others ("lynching apologists" and "supporters of lynching" might be more likely to be limited to people who explicitly defended or promoted lynching or lynchers, and "rape fans" / "fans of rape" may also be more literal), and if fr.Wiktionary is more tolerant of SOPness you might reach a different decision than en.Wiktionary probably would about whether or not to keep it. - -sche (discuss) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

red clump -- and countability in generalEdit

My understanding is:

  • Some things can be counted: one apple, two apples; one dog, two dogs.
  • Some things are an indiscriminate mass that we don't normally count: some rice; some sugar; the data. (We can say "two sugars" if we are comparing them from a technical standpoint but it's not normal.)
  • UNRELATEDLY: there are things of which there can only be one, or there only happens to be one, such as universe or protagonist or Eiffel Tower. Let's call them "uniques".

I believe that uniques are not grammatically uncountable. If we say that "red clump" or "universe" etc. is uncountable, purely because only one exists, or because we can't find a plural attested, we are saying that it doesn't have the grammatical countability property. But that's not true. We know very well that it's a singular thing that could have a plural if we ever found a second one of those things. Equinox 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A careful perusal of BGC suggests we've been saved here, and a plural is attested. But I seem to remember arguing with you about something like this before. Your examples of uniques are terrible: there are probably multiple universes if we believe modern physics, there are definitely multiple protagonists because multiple novels exist, and Eiffel Tower is a proper noun. The issue here is definitional: if we found more red stars where the red clump is, we wouldn't get a new clump, just the same clump comprising more stars. If we found a bunch of red stars clumping elsewhere, they wouldn't be at the H-R coördinates in the definition. I modified my definition to encompass any clumping of red stars, but if there hadn't been cause to do that, your edit would have been deeply misleading: implying that we can't attest something because it hasn't been written about enough, when in fact it would be a meaningless concept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It's very easy to test countability of uniques: for every unique X, you should be able to say "there are no other Xes." Chuck Entz (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
As Chuck's example implies, proper names can readily form plurals without any implication as to the existence of multiple referents. Ultimately, we are only concerned with the behavior or words, not with the existence of referents or even concepts. DCDuring (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Whether there are other Xes is not grammatical though, is it? Countability is a grammatical property. That's why I carefully said "there only happens to be one". You seem to be accusing me of the exact thing I was describing as a mistake to avoid. Equinox 12:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lazuri and Georgian scriptEdit


You just deleted my entry for "magurale" due to Latin alphabet. In Turkey, there is 1.6 million Laz people, approximately 300.000 of them speaks Lazuri natively and all of them uses Latin alphabet to write in Lazuri. What is your purpose for enforcing Georgian alphabet in Lazuri entries? --Magurale (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(p.s: Lazuri and Margaluri are different languages.) --Magurale (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There was a lot more than the script that was wrong with the entry- if I had seen it first, I probably would have deleted it as "no usable content given". I left a message on your talk page with our welcome template, so you can see what Wiktionary entries require. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help meEdit

Can you help me in this matter: by preparing a Template for Telugu-English dictionary:: or suggest someone who is best suitable. I am working on an Telugu-English Dictionary (1862) by Peter Percival (1803-1882) in English Wikisource. Can someone help me and prepare a template for the Telugu dictionary entries in here. Here is its commons link: [1] Thanking you. Stephen G. Brown has helped me earlier in making the Template:R:te:CPB, which was very useful. This template may also work in similar way.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961:   Done, see {{R:te:TED}} (and feel free to rename it). By the way, what's the deal with {{R:CPB}} and {{R:te:CPB}}? Can one of them be removed in favour of the other one? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly Thank you very much sir. I have started using the template. See this page: జ్వాల... the link is taking to the wikisource page; not to the book page. Which one is better.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: What do you mean by the "book page"? And could you please answer my question about CPB? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
{{R:CPB}} is taking us to the search page whereas {{R:te:CPB}} taking to the concerned page. If possible, you can combine both of them. What I mean "book page" is the page printed on the book; where the scan page (which is different) from it and does not corresponding to it.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Re TED: I see; the scan page number was simply easier. Would you like me to change it to the printed page number?
Re CPB: It sounds like {{R:te:CPB}} is superior, so if you can switch over all uses of {{R:CPB}} to {{R:te:CPB}}, we can delete {{R:CPB}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
{{R:CPB}} requires no page number, unlike {{R:te:CPB}}, and therefore, it is much easier to use and enter. But if you want to delete {{R:CPB}}, please use the deletion process and ping me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your blockEdit

Why did you block me? J3133 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked you from private messaging me on Discord. You are not blocked in any way on the Wiktionary Discord server nor on Wiktionary itself. Please stop wasting my time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course I meant the Discord PM block, not a block on the Wiktionary or its Discord, that is obvious. As for the "wasting my time" response, if merely trying to have a discussion results in users being completely blocked, I would say it's the opposite, you are wasting the users' time by failing to discuss. J3133 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@J3133 Meta has a history of bullying other editors. If it were up to me, they wouldn't have blocking rights on either Discord or on Wiktionary. The fact that Meta is failing to engage in productive discussion or explain their block confirms this. Purplebackpack89 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Purple, I have every right to block someone from DMing me off-wiki. You seem a bit confused. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

tree of lifeEdit

"(religion) A term used in the Hebrew Bible that is a component of the world tree motif." Any ideas about this? Clearly a tree isn't a term, so it needs a real definition. How does it differ from the other senses? Equinox 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Our current senses #3 and #4 are awful, but the problem is that it's a symbol with lots of meanings in Judaism: some are mystical (like what #4 is describing), some are biblical (possibly failing WT:FICTION?), some are physical (the poles in a Torah, or a metaphor for the Torah itself). I really don't know what's attestable in English, but if you want to be thorough about it, you could replace the offending sense with several specific ones. See Etz Chaim for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Admin hammerEdit

Hey MK. Can you use your good judgement to get rid of a few of the crappy entries in Category:Requests for deletion in Spanish entries? Some are very clear cases. --Alsowalks (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah, due process is awarded to all Spanish entries in good standing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It's because of my new album. I've recorded all the songs already, and am hoping to get signed. I'll give you a free CD if you come to the launch. --Alsowalks (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit for the word nigger? —This unsigned comment was added by SillySympathy3 (talkcontribs).

The definition wasn't correct. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


I really don't think my Trump edit should've been reverted. A lot of people will think about Donald Trump when they hear the word trump. Dictionaries are meant to be descriptive of how people use words.

Also, if the Churchill entry, for example, is allowed to have Winston Churchill as a definition, I don't see why the same can't apply to Trump.

Lastly, next time you're going to revert an edit of mine, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tell me why. It's just frustrating if I have no idea why my edit got reverted. —This unsigned comment was added by SillySympathy3 (talkcontribs).

I had to revert a bunch of entries because you were making a mess. In this case, I think you're right. I'll edit the entry to show you what I think a good format is for this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think that format is better? I only see a slight difference but ultimately you're still adding a definition that includes Donald Trump like I did. SillySympathy3 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's basically the same — my revert was in error there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Old English: Is hit swāEdit


Why did you delete the entry? The phrase is an attested phrase from the period.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I told you why in my deletion summary. Please see WT:SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete my additionEdit

What gives bro Joe goes (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your definition is obviously wrong, to the degree that it doesn't even match the part of speech in your example sentence, and I doubt it exists anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of missing synonyms in the language dataEdit

I did not intend to move or merge any languages – not my business to meddle in remote fields –, but like missing words are still entered into the mainspace so those language datasets still need to be expanded with missing alternative spellings/synonyms, otherwise people do not find the language they want to add a term in and compare terms instead of by language code by plain text as at عدس‎ because they did not find the language category or language code (they can look the codes up sometimes in external sources like Wikipedia but sometimes Wiktionary has codes for elsewhere codeless languages and not everyone is that smart), so I wanted to help out and expand/add fields aliases and scripts. I informed a user that he could search at Category:Language data modules to find the language code but this cannot be said well if the used spelling of the language name cannot be found by the search box for lacking alias field. I think it would clog the Grease pit, make a mountain out of a mole hill, and double work (for somebody would have to look again whether the synonym is true, and perhaps nobody would do anything?), if every time I find one missing alternative spelling or synonym I create a new section at the Grease pit. Or should I do that? Or should we open another project page for quick fixes proposed in this matter to keep the people with template editor flag small? People would not watch it, like the module talk pages. And it’s not WT:RFM if it isn’t moving or merging, and WT:GP is filled with various and sundry technical questions, but this is a recurring issue. So what would be ideal for these data lists is if there was a system like some wikis have where changes can be made but do not go live instantly but editors make changes and the changes have to be confirmed to go live, but this isn’t here. I hate to ask, you see, and many envisaged changes are already forgotten before formally proposed. I have never seen anyone specifically proposing aliases, and for the said reasons they fit no existing section, so what is left only is to ask for template editor flag, which could be at the Grease pit because it is not a recurring technical issue but for which there is no formalized procedure either as far I remember so I – perhaps somewhat impertinently – did it in an edit summary. You may of course move this talk or ask around but I did not want to bug more readers of the Wiki-pages, wanting to keep my fingers away from all changes but the incontrovertible ones. —Why do my messages end up longer than everything anyone has written to the same page? I must be the most circumspect person ever. Fay Freak (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, last things first, I have told you for a while that you would benefit from learning concision. But to the point, it seems like you have a reasonable request for being a "template editor", so I will nominate you for that momentarily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about reversionEdit

Hey quick question, my edits on קוגל were reverted, could you please tell me why? WikiMaster111 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was wrong. I'll put it the correct etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Arabic spellingsEdit

(Re ياس.) Comparing e.g. كُوْنِڠْ, we don't seem to have a dedicated template, although another possible way of doing it seems to be {{spelling of|CODE|Arabic|WORD}}, like on سارسەنبى. - -sche (discuss) 06:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks. That seems less than ideal; I think we once had something like Category:Afrikaans terms in Arabic script, and it seems like it would be useful to have that back, via a template that puts it in said category. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree it'd be useful to have a category. Ever since it was deleted, I've had a hard time finding the entries when things like this come up. For Romanian there is Category:Romanian Cyrillic spellings. For Afrikaans, I think there used to be a catch-all category, and then it got split by POS like Category:Afrikaans nouns in Arabic script. I see I deleted the latter (which was empty at the time) following this discussion, which however showed support for a catch-all/POS-agnostic category. "Afrikaans terms in Arabic script" (etc.) sounds good, but then we probably want to standardize the Romanian category's name to match. - -sche (discuss) 08:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)