Open main menu

Please note that if I rollbacked your edit for no clear reason, it sometimes happens that I click the button by mistake. When I catch that, I revert it back, but if you catch it before I do please do not be upset. I apologize if this happens. Thank you for understanding.



changes astumpEdit

Never seen it, but apparently "starting at episode 6 of season 3, Return of Birdgirl, Peter's hands have been changed to stumps": so it must be a pun on afoot. Equinox 19:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Peter Potamus seems to make up a lot of words: for instance, "out of talc", I think meaning "out of luck". PseudoSkull (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Are ya going through the bathroom cabinet looking for missing chemical words? Haha, I did that once... sunscreen has lots of good nonsense in it. Equinox 22:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox I'm going through all sorts of stuff to look for all sorts of missing words. It's surprising how many can be found just by watching TV or reading random products or books or manuals and stuff like that. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving discussions between forumsEdit

This is always tricky, because people can post a response while you're executing the move. I always use this sequence:

  1. Change the template in the entry (if there is one) to point to the correct forum, i.e. "{{rft|lang=ro|month=February|year=2018}}" becomes "{{rfv-etymology|lang=ro|m=February|y=2018}}".
  2. Create the destination discussion (If there was a template in the entry for the previous step, you can click on its "+" link), with {{movedfrom}} at the top, followed by the text of the source discussion. The first parameter should be a link to the old discussion in the form of wikitext, as if you were going to link to it in square brackets, but without the square brackets: "[[Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/February#Etymology of iarăși]]" gives you "{{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/February#Etymology of iarăși}}" or "{{movedfrom|WT:Tea_room/2018/February#Etymology of iarăși}}"("WT" and "Wiktionary" are interchangeable, but don't use shortcut like "TR" for "Tea room"). If you know how, you can alternatively copy the link in the table of contents of the forum subpage and undo the URL encoding: "" gives you "{{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/February#Etymology of iarăși}}" once you've removed the "", changed the underscores back to spaces and substituted the unicode version of "iarăși" for the "iar%C4%83%C8%99i". I always preview the edit to make sure I spelled the template right (I tend to use "moved-from", for some reason), and command-click (Mac) or right-click (Windows) on the previewed link to open the target in a new tab, so that I can be sure the link goes where it's supposed to. It's a good idea to add a signed comment saying you moved it and explaining why.
  3. Replace the text of the source discussion with {{movedto}} (the parameters work the same way as those of {{movedfrom}}) and optionally a signed comment below it explaining your move. Leave the header as it is so links to it will still work.
  4. Update the destination discussion with any changes made to the source discussion between the middle two steps.

There's not much of a rush for first two steps, but the last two should be done as quickly as possible to avoid edit conflicts. It might help to prepare the text for the source-discussion replacement in a Notepad/TextEdit window beforehand so you can just copypaste it in and click "Publish changes". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thank you for taking the time to tell me about this, and I apologize that I was unaware of this formality/method. In the future, I will do it this way. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unattested hall of fameEdit

Can I recommend my favourite plant: the no parking whitebeam? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Actually, this does seem to have an entry: no parking whitebeam, created by Equinox in 2016. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, wow! — Ungoliant (falai) 21:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I added it because it was on the word list you sent me! Equinox 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A word for liking snowEdit

chionophile? I think this is a biological term for organisms that survive in snow, rather than people who enjoy it, but it might be the best you will get. Equinox 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


Are you sure about those genders? It’s very unlikely that the name of a little-known village is masculine in Portuguese. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Hey, sorry. I always assumed that in Romance languages, proper noun borrowings were usually assumed to be masculine by speakers, but it's pretty uncommon (though still possible) for them to be referred to by definite articles. But, for instance, in Spanish, don't you think they might say "Interlaken es muy pequeño." to describe it? Idk, I've seen this done before. But I wonder if these kinds of proper nouns can even be classified with a gender at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They can be classified as having gender because, like in your example, they have to agree with adjectives and participles that are used with them. It’s hard to find conclusive evidence of the gender of placenames; I usually try searching for "placename foi" for Portuguese and "placename fue" for Spanish, and look for examples of an adjective or participle modifying the placename (which is uncommon because most of the time "placename foi/fue" is followed by a noun phrase (“Interlaken fue nuestra segunda base de operaciones”), or the placename is not the head of its noun phrase (“La estación de Interlaken fue inaugurada [] ”. Plus there are other pitfalls: “O fechamento da Interlaken”, where Interlaken is a travel agency, not the Swiss village. Failing that, I go for é/es instead of foi/fue, but these usually have a lower percentage of useful hits.
Here are some examples of what you are looking for: “Enfim, Interlaken foi perfeito”, “Interlaken é perfeita para fazer bate e voltas de um dia”, “Interlaken é repleta de lojinhas”, “Interlaken é considerada a Meca dos esportes radicais da Europa”, “Interlaken es conocido como el "Paraíso de las compras"”. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi. You've been around a long time and are a good editor and I have seen you report vandalism, so maybe you could use the anti-vandal tools. Interested in admin vote? Equinox 04:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits on ƿuduEdit

Dear PseudoSkull, I see you reverted my edits on ƿudu. I just added more information to this page, that's all.I don't quite understand why it couldn't stay that way. Birdofadozentides (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides Now I must clarify that I do not know the Old English language. However, I found many ELE inconsistencies in the entry. First off, I see that the entry had a major formatting issue. Template:alternative form of was places right below the L2 header (under "Old English"). That's a pretty big boo-boo; that template is meant to go under an L3 (POS header) at least, not under the language (L2) header. It may have been a mistake, but if not, please see Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. As for the rest of the entry, most of the content seems to have been copied from wudu, except the derived terms were modified slightly to fit the latter entry. According to the previous version of the entry, ƿudu is an alternative form of wudu. Wiktionary does not include extensive information except under extenuating circumstances, such as definitions, etymologies, or derived terms, and especially not all of the aforementioned, for alternative form entries. From the looks of the edit you made, it seems to have been in error all because of WT:ELE stuff. I'm going to ping buddy @Leasnam here, because he knows ever so much more about Old English than I do, and he can give a better assessment of the entry and what to do with it if needed. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
PseudoSkull, I see. First, I should've moved that teplate, sorry. And second: yes, I've copied that information form the main page, I just wanted that page also to have this information. If just seemed too empty. At least I can be glad this ƿudu page exist. I guess that's all.
And sorry for bothering

Birdofadozentides (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides: there was certainly some very good stuff added to that page. Thank you ! But as PseudoSkull pointed out above, it was incorrectly formatted per ELE and some of the content was redundant, being already found at wudu, to which the entry points. I have added back those parts which would be helpful to someone viewing ƿudu, as in how the term is pronounced and inflected. :) Leasnam (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Leasnam:, thank you so much! I'm sorry, I don't know much about programming, I should've been more carefull.Birdofadozentides (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Lojban voteEdit

Did you just remove a user's vote? - Amgine/ t·e 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to. I reverted myself back. It's my damn phone, I try to click one thing and it's so slow it clicks another thing (the rollback button). Apologies. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
<grin> Yes, I just saw the fix and came here to say nm, and you e/c'd me. - Amgine/ t·e 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

prendre son piedEdit

eew. Could you come up with a less-crude (less-fantasy) exemplar? also, the originator. - Amgine/ t·e 22:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amgine Feel free. Translating whole sentences into French is barely my thing, and when I do it I have be checked. I was only reverting what immediately looked to me like IP vandalism. Perhaps it wasn't, but they didn't give an edit summary explaining their removal of the usex either... PseudoSkull (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam added the usex, btw. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Amgine, PseudoSkull: You don't like my usex?
I'd suggest copying the Céline quote from fr.wikt (it's the second one). I guess you're still working on your usex, but in its current form it's agrammatical. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, rereading this, I think it might have come off the wrong way. Sorry about that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I ignore where in the francophonie 'avoir crescendo' is an expression, but if it exists somewhere at all 'a crescendo' does not translate as 'crescendoed', plus such mistranslation comes after Pseudoskull reverted a usex which, albeit coarse, was correct French.
He doesn't know what he's doing, she wrote. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
PseudoSkull didn't delete the usex, she restored it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


You are now an admin. Use it wisely. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Culpepper"Edit

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Culpepper. While I admit that I was lazy in formatting the link, I added it because of the entry/article’s request for an etymology, which the Web page provides in its first paragraph. May I please re-add the link, this time formatted as a proper reference?:

“Culpepper Name Meaning, Family History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms”. House of Names. Swyrich Corporation, 2018. Accessed 3 April 2018.

As for the formatting of the “References” section, I was merely followed the practice of Wikipedia, with which I am much more familiar. However, you are apparently correct.

DocWatson42 (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for the polite response to the reversion. I don't blame you for the formatting error; Wiktionary's entry layout formatting is indeed complex and difficult to get used to. You may refer to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained to figure out what type of sectioning is appropriate for what. As something you should always remember though: L2 headers are only for language sections. Please remember to never have an L2 for anything else.
It may have been a bad decision to remove completely though. I see the reason for the reference was to provide etymological information. I had thought you added the reference simply to prove the surname's existence (for this, we use quotations of actual usage, and not sources that explain meaning, etc. of the term). In providing etymological information, I think it's best to add that yourself if you know it from another source rather than to simply add a reference and nothing else. To do this, you should follow the instructions at WT:Etymology. Please remember that the etymologies should not be copied verbatim from another source, since that is likely copyright infringement. I honestly don't remember myself ever adding references in English necessarily, so I'm of little help with their formatting (and that wasn't my concern anyway). As for the etymology itself, I'm also pinging (in the edit summary) Leasnam, who is very good at his job with older English etymologies. I have some trouble trusting sites like this; once I looked up a term on this site, then found one on another site and it said a completely different thing. The one this site gives looks quite plausible to me though.
Good luck, and happy editing! PseudoSkull (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to benchEdit

Hi, why did you revert my edit and don't even care to give reasons for it? This is very impolite. The word bench is often used as a figurative term for substitute players. There are tons of examples

etc etc etc! --RipCityFTW (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@RipCityFTW I apologize for not giving an edit summary. You replaced one definition with another. That's generally not acceptable here. If you don't think a definition belongs, you would be better off bringing it up in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English or Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English. Otherwise, you should add a separate sense instead of replacing an existing one. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion of my BLAH BLAHEdit

Just kidding! Have you thought about putting {{subpages}} on your user page? This would be helpful when idiots like myself are thinking "where's that user-name etymology page I saw once?". It will also help you not to forget what subpages you actually have. Just a thought. xox Equinox 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and no I hadn't thought about doing that yet. But   Done. Quick link: User:PseudoSkull/Etymologies of usernames PseudoSkull (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a worthy page — although sometimes it asks more questions than it answers (yes I can tell it's "purple + backpack + 89" but what does any of that mean?). Anyway thanks! Equinox 23:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
See what you've done! User:Equinox/Dreams. Equinox 01:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Lol, I thought you had created the entry with that picture. I was like "whaaat?" Per utramque cavernam 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


You are welcome 😉. BoldLuis (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


I'm afraid I had to mark this for attention, as the past tense and past participle appear to be wrong. They should be the same as Danish vise and virtually the same as Bokmål. In fact they were right in the first place, but no inflections had been entered, see diff. DonnanZ (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem of the editorEdit

Dear PseudoSkull

I have made a large part of analogy, using the following sources - reformulating them sightly in order this was not a exact copy which would be illegal - and placed footnotes to them which have been eventually deleted, while the content made upon them left.

Because I made every edit (series of edits) from a new account (I did not know that it was necessary to have only one account, that it is so important it is nowhere stated at the page on which one logs in or creates accounts, as well as I was not informed about that during editing and abandonning previous accounts and forgetting passwords - not seeing aby need to remeber or write them at all, and concetrating only on the quality of content I was contributing to the wiki: thinking that this is the main purpose od it), these accounts have been all blocked after some time because of this reason. I do not left any abusive content anyhow - what can be checked. And I have not edited any article since then, leaving only instruction how some article can be improved. Some supsicious (national) motives, very irritating, also came out to light. But I do not whish to engage you to be an adovacate of that case ((although I am personally sure that behavour of this person is obviouesly inappropriate to say the least). Instead, I would like to request you to determine or ask someone at Wiki to determine whether the removal of footnotes to the following articles is violation of copyright or not. In my opinion it is and it is to the evident detriment to the person I do not intend to do any harm. Such a removal of footnotes to sources that were in fact used is also very unethical at least to me. And it should never happen in my opinion, so I am surprised taht someone did that. If you have access to these articels, please objectively compare the pertient current content of Wiki and of that not undisclosed articles. I will be very garteful and much obliged. I am not repsonsible for this infringment since I have cited sources and do not wish to be involved in it anyhow.

In science

  • Analogies are above all used as a means of conceiving new ideas and hypotheses, which is called a heuristic function of analogical reasoning.
  • Analogical arguments can play also probabative function, serving then as a means of proving the rightness of particular theses and theories. This application of analogical reasoning in science is, however, debatable. Probative value of analogy is of importance especially to those kinds of science in which logical or empirical proof is not possible such as theology, philosophy or cosmology in part where it relates to those areas of the cosmos (the universe) that are beyond any empirical observation and knowledge about them stems from the human insight and unsensory cognition.
  • Analogy may be used in order to illustrate and teach (in order to enlighten pupils on the relations that happens between or inside certain things or phenomena, a teacher may refer to other things or phenomena that pupils are more familiar with).
  • Analogy may help in creating or elucidating one theory (theoretical model) via the workings of another theory (theoretical model). Thus it can be used in theoretical and applied sciences in the form of models or simulations which can be considered as strong analogies. Other much weaker analogies assist in understanding and describing functional behaviours of similar systems.

Koszowski, M. (2017). Multiple Functions of Analogical Reasoning in Science and Everyday Life. Polish Sociological Review no. 1/2017, pp. 3–19.

Analogies in statutory law

In statutory law analogy is used in order to fill the so-called lacunas or gaps or loopholes.

First, a gap arises when a specific case or legal issue is not explicitly dealt with in written law. Then, one may try to identify a statutory provision which covers the cases that are similar to the case at hand and apply to this case this provision by analogy. Such a gap, in civil law countries, is referred to as a gap extra legem (outside of the law), while analogy which liquidates it is termed analogy extra legem (outside of the law). The very case at hand is named: an unprovided case.

Second, a gap comes into being when there is a statutory provision which applies to the case at hand but this provision leads in this case to an unwanted outcome. Then, upon analogy to another statutory provision that covers cases similar to the case at hand, this case is resolved upon this provision instead of the provision that applies to it directly. This gap is called a gap contra legem (against the law), while analogy which fills this gap is referred to as analogy contra legem (against the law).

Third, a gap occurs when there is a statutory provision which regulates the case at hand, but this provision is vague or equivocal. In such circumstances, to decide the case at hand, one may try to ascertain the meaning of this provision by recourse to statutory provisions which address cases that are similar to the case at hand or other cases that are regulated by vague/equivocal provision. A gap of this type is named gap intra legem (within the law) and analogy which deals with it is referred to as analogy intra legem (within the law).

The similarity upon which statutory analogy depends on may stem from the resemblance of raw facts of the cases being compared, the purpose (the so-called ratio legis which is generally the will of the legislature) of a statutory provision which is applied by analogy or some other sources.

Statutory analogy may be also based upon more than one statutory provision or even a spirit of law. In the latter case, it is called analogy iuris (from the law in general) as opposed to analogy legis (from a specific legal provision or provisions).

Koszowski, M. (2017). The Scope of Application of Analogical Reasoning in Statutory Law. American International Journal of Contemporary Research no 1/2017 (v. 7), pp. 16-34.

Analogies in precedential law (case law)

First, in precedential law (case law), analogies can be drawn from precedent cases (cases decided in past). The judge who decides the case at hand may find that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of one of precedential cases to an extent that the outcomes of these cases are justified to be the same or similar. Such use of analogy in precedential law pertains mainly to the so-called: cases of first impression, i.e. the cases which as yet have not been regulated by any binding judicial precedent (are not covered by a ratio decidendi of such a precedent).

Second, in precedential law, reasoning from (dis)analogy is amply employed, while a judge is distinguishing a precedent. That is, upon the discerned differences between the case at hand and the precedential case, a judge reject to decide the case upon the precedent whose ratio decidendi (precedential rule) embraces the case at hand.

Third, there is also much room for some other usages of analogy in the province of precedential law. One of them is resort to analogical reasoning, while resolving the conflict between two or more precedents which all apply to the case at hand despite dictating different legal outcome for that case. Analogy can also take part in ascertaining the contents of ratio decidendi, deciding upon obsolete precedents or quoting precedents form other jurisdictions. It is too visible in legal Education, notably in the US (the so-called 'case method').

Koszowski, M. (2016). The Scope of Application of Analogical Reasoning in Precedential Law. Liverpool Law Review no. 1/2016 (v. 37), pp. 9-32.

Restrictions on the use of analogy in law

In legal matters, sometimes the use of analogy is forbidden (by the very law or common agreement between judges and scholars). The most common instances concern criminal, administrative and tax law.

Analogy should not be resorted to in criminal matters whenever its outcome would be unfavorable to the accused or suspect. Such a ban finds its footing in the very principle: “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”, a principle which is understood in the way that there is no crime (punishment) unless it is expressly provided for in a statutory provision or an already existing judicial precedent.

Analogy should be applied with caution in the domain of tax law. Here, the principle: “nullum tributum sine lege” justifies a general ban on the employment of analogy that would lead to an increase in taxation or whose results would – for some other reason(s) – be to the detriment to the interests of taxpayers.

Extending by analogy those provisions of administrative law that restrict human rights and the rights of the citizens (particularly the category of the so-called “individual rights” or “basic rights”) is as a rule prohibited. Analogy generally should also not be resorted to in order to make the citizen's burdens and obligations larger or more vexatious.

The other limitations on the use of analogy in law, among many others, pertain to:

  • the analogical extension of statutory provisions that invlove exceptions to more general statutory regulation or provisions (this restriction flows from the well-known, especially in civil law continental legal systems, Latin maxims: “exceptiones non sunt excendentae”, “exception est strictissimae interpretationis” and “singularia non sunt extendenda”)
  • the making of the use of an analogical argument with regard to those statutory provisions which comprise enumerations (lists)
  • extending by analogy those statutory provisions that give impression that the Legislator intended to regulate some issues in an exclusive (exhaustive) manner (such a manner is especially implied when the wording of a given statutory provision involves such pointers as: “only”, “exclusively”, “solely”, “always”, “never”) or which have a plain precise meaning.

In civil (private) law, the use of analogy is as a rule permitted or even ordered by law. But also in this branch of law there are some restrictions confining the possible scope of the use of an analogical argument. Such is, for instance, the prohibition to use analogy in relation to provisions regarding time limits or a general ban on the recourse to analogical arguments which lead to extension of those statutory provisions which envisage some obligations or burdens or which order (mandate) something. The other examples concern the usage of analogy in the field of property law, especially when one is going to create some new property rights by it or to extend these statutory provisions whose terms are unambiguous (unequivocal) and plain (clear), e.g.: be of or under cartian age.

Koszowski, M. (2016). Restrictions on the Use of Analogy in Law. Liverpool Law Review no. 3/2016 (v. 37), pp. 137-151.

Everyday life

  • Analogy can be used in order to find solutions for the problematic situations (problems) that occur in everyday life. If something works with one thing, it may also work with another thing which is similar to the former.
  • Analogy facilitates choices and predictions as well as opinions/assessments people are forced to do daily.

Koszowski, M. (2017). Multiple Functions of Analogical Reasoning in Science and Everyday Life. Polish Sociological Review no. 1/2017, pp. 3–19.

I have taken some pains to made this content, mastering it as far as I could, wanting them to look spendid and be objective and accurate and not misleding in any inch. But if these content must be deleted, I can do nothing. If the sources have to be hidden, it should be totatly refomulated in order not to infringe these copyrights in my opinion. Otherwise terminology, an order and manner of presentation, concepts and even some words and expressions or even titles are just too similar. I am not going to say that the aformetioned articles are the only sources on that subject but in fact I do not know any others in English. On analogy in science is Adam Biela, but it is not so concise for sure. So apart from this entry I even cannot help in such reformualtation by mentioning them.


Return to the user page of "PseudoSkull".