Open main menu


2009-2011 2012-2014 2015-2017 2018
If you want an answer from me, please add new messages at the bottom of this page.


Is This Anything to Be Concerned About?Edit


According to me and the Romanian community, it is something to be concerned about. I'll go through his translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, you asked me to come here so I have :) I've corrected my edit – the additional meaning is in Hebrew. Is cross-lingual "see also" not customary? If it is, please re-revert your edits on старина and old chap; if it's not, I'll remove the reference to the quivalent English and Russian words from קשישא. Also, this form has no feminine counterpart, even though the template seems to demand one... I don't know how to fix that. Could you help? Thank you.

User:PalkiaX50, I invite you to this talk page as well. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I think the main problem is that you removed the Aramaic adjective section when you added the Hebrew section. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This was by accident; I meant to state that the word is only noun in Hebrew.
Well, Robbie SWE and User:PalkiaX50, you revert my edits but then I open a discussion and you don't reply? That's not very constructive..—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I haven't had the time to respond because of my responsibilities in the real world. To answer your question – no, to the best of my knowledge, cross-lingual "See also" sections are not customary, and yours especially because they had nothing to do with the main lemma entry. I considered them translations and those do not belong under "See also". Chuck Entz also pointed out that you removed a valid section which is a big no-no. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
... and I replied it was simply done by accident. I understand, please see if it's all right now. Thanks.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Checked and corrected. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Why is the "Translations" section not used in non-English entries? And wouldn't be recommendable to note at least the English equivalents to the word? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
This is an English-language dictionary, so given that it is impractical for translations to be on all pages, they are kept on English pages. All foreign-language words have English "equivalents" given as their definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Μετάknowledge. This indeed sounds reasonable in general, but look at the case in point (קשישא): the mere definition – "Affectionate term of address for a man" – does not fully convey the meaning of the word, not like a reference to the quivalent English terms old boy or old chap.


For improving russata —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Any time, but please look at my changes and try to do the same. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- Not logged in (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2019 (Eastern time)
Is my talk supposed to be red because it's not. -- Not logged in (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2019 (Eastern time)
It is as long as you haven't created a user profile. Take a look at our help pages and familiarise yourself with our templates. Have fun editing! --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

bleedin' obviousEdit


I just noticed that you reverted my edits from yesterday with respect to bleedin' obvious. Would be interested in hearing what your reasoning was? In my view, the contraction should be an alternative spelling of 'bleeding obvious', as I indicated in my edit. On that basis I moved the content to bleeding obvious, which you also deleted. Thanks in advance. -- 10:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: On a sidenote, I'd appreciate it if you'd include the 'why' of edits in the 'Edit summary' instead of asking people to come here and ask you. If you're applying a particular Wiktionary guideline then that would be a great place to mention that, so that I can look it up myself instead of having to spend unnecessary time writing here and you spend unnecessary time answering. Cheers.

Thank you for contacting me! The rollback function does not permit us to include "why" we reverted an edit – it's a fast and efficient tool used by admins to go through the hundreds of edits done on a daily basis. If commenting were enabled, I would've explained it.
When it comes to bleedin' obvious, it had an actual quote from Fawlty Towers. You can't alter a quote to make it fit what might be a "more correct" form of a set phrase – that's the reason why I reverted your edit and also why I deleted the other form. On the other hand, I have no opposition to you recreating bleeding obvious as long as you add real quotes and mention the alternative form bleedin' obvious. As an alternative, you can also follow the example set by for cryin' out loud. Let me know if you need additional guidance. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. The spelling in the quote is not authoritative (only a primary source for the script would be). Here, the same quote is spelled without a contraction, for example. Google has almost 30 million results for the standard spelling, and 245,000 for the nonstandard spelling (less than 1% in comparison). When searching specifically for the Fawlty Towers quote, the standard spelling returns 22,200 results, the nonstandard spelling 13,700. See also from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious. Seeing as it's taken from a TV programme in which the expression was spoken, not written, the spelling of the expression in the entry here should reflect the standard spelling, in my opinion, in the same way that the example you cited (for cryin' out loud) is not the main entry for for crying out loud. Since I had created bleeding obvious with the main-entry content in the same way that for crying out loud has the main-entry content, and used a template in the entry for the nonstandard spelling to link the main entry, I fail to see how this is any different from for cryin' out loud. I've recreated the new entry and moved the content there in addition to providing an additional quote. -- 20:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Nicely done! Thank you for readding the information and for following our guidelines. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

Thank you for correcting the IPA formatting on Middle English "seen!"

VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Any time ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Your rollback to this entry is in error, and so is the definition you restored. What should I do? 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, because quotes confirm the current definition. If you have an additional definition – with supporting sources and quotes – you are more than welcome to also add it too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't intend to do "absolutely nothing." I intend to restore the changes, for the following reasons.
  • Of the quotations previously included, no clear definition follows from the Berdahl quote, and the definition provided did not specifically follow from the Meyers quote either.
  • OED gives 1843 as the earliest recorded use. In that year I found this source, in the sense of the first definition that I added. It's not easily quoted, but that does not invalidate the definition.
  • Berdahl's use of the term derives from Konrad, and Konrad made his meaning clear. 23:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't oppose those definitions, but I have no reason to question the first definition which was added by the original creator of the article and a trusted contributor. I'll let @Equinox chime in so hopefully we'll be able to find some common ground. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Challenging a cited definition requires RFV. Robbie, you should preferably have restored the deleted sense or created an RFV on behalf of this rude IP address. For now I'm going to restore it as not properly challenged. Whether his/her new senses are remotely okay I don't know either, but I have other things to do. Thanks for the heads up. Equinox 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I did restore it only to have the anon revert my changes. Needless to say, I was mildly annoyed but I'll keep an eye on this entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

One of your rollbacks is in error.Edit

This one. Sorry it took so long for me to notice, I haven't usually edited while logged out until recently. 22:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the clavichord was developed in the early 14th century, almost four centuries before the piano. The restored statement that the harpsichord and the clavichord predate the piano is therefore correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right, but that's not why I removed the clavichord. Like the piano, but unlike the harpsichord, the clavichord is capable of making gradual changes in dynamics, even if only within a small range due to its overall quietness. 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I feel that we're nitpicking and we are after all a dictionary. If you still feel strongly about it, I encourage you to delete it again and I promise not to revert it this time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


It wasn't particularly obvious, but all of the edits by this IP were deliberate hoaxes. They basically took random characters and random languages, and mixed and matched them. For instance, at the Thai letter , they said it was obsolete in Thai, but still used by Chewa. As far as I know, it's still used in Thai, and Chewa is an African language. Then there was "ധ⃪", which is the Malayalam letter with some diacritic that I don't recognize- probably from another script. That entry first had a Konkani header, which is plausible- Malayalam is one of the scripts it uses. Then it was changed to Lingala, a Bantu language from Africa, and finally they settled on Pileni, which is a Polynesian language. The part about it being transliterated as s' is wrong- it's d̪ʱ. Then there's ʺ, which is used in transliteration of Cyrillic. First they added a translingual sense for 'A ʺpaoī, ʺ, used in several Polynesian languages.' I haven't been able to find any reference to paoī, but I don't think it means anything, and I've never heard of a Polynesian language that uses anything of the sort. Then they added a section for Saho, which is another African language, and used the language code sah, which is the code for Yakut, which is a Northern Turkic language.

The last one is the only one that you might have been expected to spot: the language categories at the bottom didn't match the language header at all, as you can see here. Not that I'm complaining, since you catch just as much vandalism as I do (probably more). The only reason I caught it was because they hard-coded their "Pileni letters" category instead of using {{auto cat}} and I was going to fix it for them- that, and I was wondering why I had never heard of a Pileni script.

I just thought I'd share this with you so you'd have a better chance of catching them if they try it again. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz; Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not at all familiar with those languages, so I felt that I wasn't in the position to question the validity of the edits. But now I know and will keep an eye on it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


I've taken these variant forms from the Romanian page. I myself have met the word 'păsulă' in my studies. Michael D. Lawrence (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't use proper formatting and you also deleted the qualifier "rare" for fasolă. If these forms are attested, readd them but please use correct formatting the second time around. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Hallo Robbie, you made the last revert on that page, so I contact you. The given form "să cumpăre" for the subjunctive, 3rd person, is in conflict with "să cumpere" on the romanian wiktionary. A search on that wiktionary (and elsewhere) seems to indicate, that "să cumpere" is the right form. I don't know it. Can you resolve the problem? Best regards, --Griot (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done, I fixed the subjunctive and I double-checked the form on DEX. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Robbie. I had the sense of the definition on this page that you "rolled back" from Merriam Webster, which gives for illustrious: "notably or brilliantly outstanding because of dignity or achievements or actions". I feel that the sense of being exceptional or outstanding is more inherent, and therefore more basic than that of being admired, distinguished, or respected. Additionally, the first sense seems to be a prerequisite to the other, which is an action of an observer to the subject's being exceptional or outstanding. Indeed, this is why I placed this definition before the one currently existing on the page. Additionally, i thing it important to retain the sense of brilliance or splendor in the definition, as it carries forward the meaning of the root lustrō forward through the etymology. Would you not say that the subject which is characterized as being illustrious is one which evokes an image or feeling of brilliance or brightness in the mind's eye of an observer? What do you think? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I disagree – your changes only complicated a comprehensive definition which already conveys a similar meaning. To be completely honest with you, I rolled it back because you were trying to make it fit your changes at insignis. Please don't drag other lemmas into your work with insignis. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
While it is true that I was brought to this page by my trying to refine the insignis page as per the recommendations of "surjection", my effort here was based on what I conceive to be a shortcoming in the existing definition, rather than upon on attempt to make this definition "fit" with that page. Again, the sense that I wanted to convey is from Merriam Webster, and is readily available online, and I have difficulty in understanding how you can deny the logic I have related above. I will bow to your authority, however, as you are much more invested in Wiktionary than I am...
Sorry if I have caused you any anguish. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I haven't lost any sleep over it, I assure you. I dislike superfluity and even if you have backup in the form of Merriam Webster, the extra definition was unnecessary and served no other purpose than to align it with the definitions at insignis. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'm glad that you haven't lost sleep...but the aggressive tenor of your responses seem to indicate that a certain amount of anguish may have been caused you. Please be assured that I am not attempting to attack either your intelligence or your judgement, or to be some kind of disruptive 'smart-ass', so you needn't adopt a defensive posture with respect to me. Avoiding the development of feelings of defensiveness is certainly required if one is to "participate in the spirit of collegiality" that you have spoken of elsewhere. My purpose here was precisely to recognize and delineate the difference between the senses of the words distinctive and distinguished, both of which I believe to be encompassed by the meaning of both the English illustrious and the Latin insignis as well. The first sense is, of course, causative of the second; a thing can only become distinguished by its first being distinctive. That is why I think that the sense of distinctive is the more basic (or, "fundamental", as I have said on the insignis page) sense of both of these lemmas. The existing definition of illustrious only includes the sense rendered by distinguished, as a quick check of the Wiktionary definitions of illustrious and distinguished will clearly show. By including the other definition, I was attempting to include the causative and more fundamental sense of distinctive as well, as the Merriam Webster definition does, that's all. Do you follow my reasoning? By that reasoning, I deny having introduced superfluity into the article, but as I say, this is your project and I must abide by your wishes.
Dude/Dudette, in all honesty if you think that is aggressive, you haven't seen me when I'm really angry. I was trying to be to the point – I apologise if it came off as anguished or aggressive, it wasn't my intention at all. Nonetheless, I'm still not seeing eye to eye with you on this one – as I said before, the definition is fine as it is and the sense you want to add only seems like overkill to me. If you want a second opinion, you can try to start a discussion about this in the Tea Room or the entry's discussion page. PS: please sign your posts using the signature button. On another note, why do you keep using different IPs? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "dude" is correct...I am a fellow from Massachusetts in the U.S. Thanks for the apology and clarification. You are certainly right in noting that the instant definition is fine as it is; I only diverge from you in my thinking that it is incomplete, and so might benefit from the addition. The effort of a discussion, while perhaps being warranted, exceeds the attention that I myself am willing to devote to this point. I will leave the matter to you; should you change your mind upon reflection, then tweak my intended addition as you see fit and undo your rollback. Should you not, then that's fine too. The reason for the varying IPs is that I am in "building services", and I use different computers, depending upon which office of my company I am working in at a given time or on a given day. Thanks. If you would like to give me your opinion and suggestions regarding insignis, even if only to say "man, that's crap", then I would appreciate the input. Thanks more.

Rollback on wear and tearEdit

Hello. I would like to know the reason for this roll back: .

Thanks in advance. ——Chanc20190325 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have several reasons: 1) bad formatting, 2) the wording was somewhat off – it wasn't as precise as it could be and would potentially confuse users less well-versed in the English language, 3) "wear and tear" is mainly a state not so much a process, 4) the sense is pretty much already covered in the existing definition, and 5) your contributions are starting to reek of a biased POV (thinking of this) – you seem to have an agenda in reference, to among other things, "aging". Please respect Wiktionary guidelines and maintain a NPOV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explaination. But the bad formatting can be fixed (see: W:WP:IMPROVEIT), and if one definition confuses users, they can refer to the other, existing definition. Maybe, I should have placed that edit on “to wear out” (the process equivalent). And circumcision on either gender being genital mutilation is a fact, not a biassed, subjective opinion. But thanks for the reply. ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You referenced a biased source – you should be grateful that you weren't blocked on sight. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
But I have not done any harm and I have not promoted any company or organisation. If I have promoted anything, it is health and physical integrity. And I have referenced 3 sources. Alright, Foreskin.Life is maybe a bit biassed (realized it now), but has their own scientific reference section at the bottom of the page. They include sources such as . ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which sources you provide if your sole purpose is to deviate from the current quite technical description, to a more subjective definition of a medical procedure. I hope you are aware that in some cases, strictly for men, circumcision is a medical necessity. They can't lead a healthy life without it. You put yourself on my radar and I'll keep a close eye on your edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with one of the original points: rephrasing a definition in different terminology doesn't make it a different definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
“I'll keep a close eye on your edits.” – Thank you for your attention.
“in some cases, strictly for men, circumcision is a medical necessity. They can't lead a healthy life without it.” – Didn't expect to hear that from a scandinavian.  
Circumcision is purely evil. It is medieval sexual mass-slavery. And in USA, big pharma and cosmetics massively profit from it. There are nearly always better alternatives compared to irreversibly slicing off 90% of the errogenous tissue and >20000 nerve endings off unconsenting infants. But these ways are unknown to the general public because many doctors don't speak about it, as much as they don't speak about possible complications, because of how massively profitable this knowledge gap caused by taboo-topics is. If an adult man consentfully wishes to get circumcised, it is absolutely fine (although it is extremely rare. Rare for good reasons.). But not for defenseless children. ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

**Stunned** if I see any of this tinfoil hat crap on my talk page or on Wiktionary ever again, it will be deleted and you will most likely be blocked either by me or a fellow admin. You are pushing an agenda which is not permitted on Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


You reverted the edit on mahatofoka where it had been changed from noun to adjective. The translation, "disgusting", is surely an adjective and not a noun? In the Malagasy Wiktionary, which on the other hand is maintained mainly by bots, it is listed as an adjective (mpamaritra). 20:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you type in "mahatofoka" to the search bar on this site: it will say "Sokajin-teny mpamaritra" and "Famaritana anglisy disgusting, distasteful [Hallanger 1973]". This also suggests that it's probably an adjective. 20:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
There's more to changing the part of speech than just changing the header. You would need to change the headword template as well- the way you did it left it in Category:Malagasy nouns. You also have to realize that there are vandals who go around randomly changing headers just to cause trouble, so he may have mistaken your edit for something like that, since it left the entry broken. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Now I changed both. Is it now OK and if not, why? 07:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Chuck summed it up pretty well. The diff only showed the templates in m browser, not the sense itself so I didn't realise that there was a discrepancy. I apologise for the rollback. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I do think your rollback was in errorEdit

If you think voracious, -vore (as in herbivore), and -vorous (as in carnivorous) are not descendants of the Latin voro, then you need to correct several other pages, including the pages for voracious, vorus, and various other declensions of voro, most of which reference the Latin oro as the origin of -vore, -vorous, and/or voracious. You also need to have a very good explanation for doing so, since my explanation for making the edits is rather obvious.

Secondly, there is not a single English descendant of voro listed on the voro page, so I suggest you think up some examples of descendants and add them rather than removing the only examples and not having a good reason to do so, since there obviously are examples, and I already listed a few.

While you might argue that -vore comes from a different declension, like vorus, the reality is that voro is the root, and vorus comes from voro.-- 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to differentiate between descendants of the verb and descendants of the suffix. Voracious is the descendant of vorāx (from vorō) – not the suffix -vorus. The same goes for your other contributions – the suffixes -vore and -vorous belong at -vorus, no at vorāx or vorō. I know that all roads lead to Rome, or in this case vorō, but if we don't apply some rigour around here we would have chaotic descendants sections. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact remains that Voro is the root of all three, and the proper response for an editor who is knowledgeable in such matters is to correct the edit, not remove it. Voracious, -vore and -vorous all come from voro, whether or not there is another declension of voro in between. I would appreciate it if you would make the necessary changes, not roll them back. Perhaps I and others might learn something from you that way, rather than you making it more difficult for people to learn the origins of these words. A person would look at the edits you made, and if they did not know better, would assume that there isn't a word in the English language that is descended from voro, which is obviously incorrect.
It would be much more helpful to have something like this: Voracious - Etymology - From Latin vorāx, from vorō (“I devour”). as there is in the entry for voracious, but in reverse, i.e. Voro - descendants - English - Voracious, from Latin Vorax so and so declension of Voro
Ask yourself, "It might be easiest to roll it back, but is it right, and is it best?-- 18:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Please spare me the lecture dear anon – as an administrator we rarely have time to explain our reasoning behind every little revert. Your suggestion is not how things work around here and as far as I know, we don't have a direct English descendant of Latin vorō. Saying that there is would be misleading at best. However, I'll take a look at the entries when I have more time on my hands to see if there's anything I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To understand why that's not practical, you have to do some math: Special:RecentChanges has over a thousand edits every day that need patrolling. Robbie was active today (my timezone) for less than 2 hours. That comes out to maybe 6 seconds to spend on each edit, on average (you learn quickly which ones to concentrate on). Out of those thousand edits, 10 required action. If he only had those 10 edits to work on, that would come out to about 10 minutes per edit- but there's the matter of those other thousand edits.
Mind you, these edits aren't all English. Yours was Latin. Robbie is highly fluent in at least 3 languages, and pretty good at several others, but none of us can spot even basic errors in all of them. We do the best we can, but it takes time, and we have to make lots of judgment calls. It would be nice to be able to spend the time needed to properly fix everything instead of reverting, but we're all volunteers and we have lots of other demands on our time. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Civil DefinitionEdit

Defining civil as naturally good is opinionated. Your revert of my change restore that previous position. If I would define anything else as "naturally good", it would be found to be opinionated. We cannot make moral judgment when defining. Please explain your action. NinjaAccountant (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not opinionated as long as it belongs to a specific domain, in this case theology. If people use it in that strict sense and it is labelled that way, you can't just delete it. I will revert you changes, again. If you feel strongly about it, take it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on the absence from other dictionaries of this definition, I will appeal to the tea room. NinjaAccountant (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


On worthy you've reverted my addition regarding "also worthly". This is in error though; I've re-added the "also" section.

Not how the template works - only words that are almost identical are added, e.g. som. Your change will be reverted again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

affirmative actionEdit

you need to support your point of view instead just accusing people of pushing theirs

do you have any argument or evidence?

do you have an explanation of why this definition is not the most accurate and concise? maybe stick to your own language and stop trying to brainwash people.

it seems you have a real problem with that —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Buddy, the only problem here is you and I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so. You don't care about our guidelines and you spread your biased vitriol like there's no tomorrow. I'm gonna give you a break cause the heatwave hitting the East Coast right now might be getting you all wound up for nothing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:List of portmanteauxEdit

Hey Robbie, I was wondering why you undid my edit and deleted two portmanteaux from the list? I didn't see any explanation for this in the page's history description. Now that I see you're an admin I figure there's got to be a reason, so clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You reverted another fellow admin's edits without providing any reason. That's pretty much why I reverted your changes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, reasonable. Chuck hadn't provided a reason for the initial deletion (and I also hadn't realized they were an admin), so I undid the edit then wrote on their talk page asking why they did so. Although, I suppose from the article's perspective I now realize I did basically the exact same thing. Would it be alright to undo your edit and provide a brief description that it had been deleted without explanation then? Thanks! 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Did you mean to rollback all my edits? Chuck only deleted two portmanteaux, but it appears that you also rolled back my addition of another entry to the list and my edit fixing the alphabetical order. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I have no problem with your reverts, but if Chuck thinks otherwise, better talk to him about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not following up on this: I haven't had the time or energy to really think this through. My original problem was with using links to Wikipedia to get around adding entries that probably would be unsuitable for Wiktionary entries. After looking at the body of material already there, however, it seems like this is a more widespread issue with lack of clarity in the philosophy behind the appendix as a whole. I'll try to figure out the best way to bring this up at the Beer parlour. Until that discussion takes place, I'm not going to revert anything there except obvious vandalism. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Robbie. Will you please give what might have been the rationale for the recent rollbacks of the definitions which I added to these terms (I assume here that the rollback was performed by a bot)? The extant definitions appear to be quite specific and narrow, and I wanted to provide a definition with a broader meaning. I am trying to develop a sense for what Wiktionary is looking for. Thanks in advance. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

We're back here again – your additions were pleonasms and you also placed them before every other meaning. IMO, it gave Wiktionary no added value. I'm seriously growing tired of this kind of edits and you're really pushing it with your other contributions too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
They strike me as more vague analyses of the other definitions than actual definitions in their own right. I don't really see the need for meta-analysis in a descriptive dictionary- it's basically a step toward putting a definition in every entry that says "(more broadly) some sort of meaning." Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I provided seemed vague or overly wordy. I came to this page not intending to edit. Rather, in searching for what I felt the problem was with the opinion of an interviewee on an NPR radio program, I finally realized that said opinion smacked of fetishism. Upon checking the definitions here on Wiktionary, though, I felt that those provided were all rather specific aspects of the meaning of the word. For instance: with (1) fetishism does not necessarily ascribe magical powers (though it certainly can) to its object; (2) describes a particular type of fetishism (sexual fetishism); and (3), while getting more to the core of what fetishism is, erringly leads one to believe that it must involve an obsession, which it must not. Rather than being always an obsession, fetishism appears always to be more of a veneration (I believe that I used the word reverence, but I think veneration better), marked particularly by irrationality and extravagance in the truest sense of the word: a wandering beyond what is reasonable. These are the characteristics of fetishism in every case: whether it is sexual, non-sexual, obsessive, non-obsessive, or otherwise. That is what I wanted to convey in the definition that I wrote. As such, my defense of my added definition would be that it was, indeed, substantially different and more elemental than those extant on the page. As for why I placed it first: though I in no way claim to be a lexicographer, I think it axiomatic that the broadest and most "elemental" definitions for a particular term should have primacy of position, with the more specific definitions following. Do you not agree? I agree that I need not have written "most broadly", but only did so in an attempt to convey the reason for my edit. Please, Robbie, do not be harsh with me. I mean no harm, and am only trying to help improve Wiktionary, which I find a very useful tool, as I can... I will try to restrain myself in future should I find fault with the offerings here, though it is hard to do so when the "Edit" button is so easy to click on with the mouse!

Inclusion policyEdit

FYI, our inclusion policy is WT:CFI. Just for your reference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Thrilling read (not the first time I've come across it, though) – still don't think that the entry I nominated for deletion should be on here and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Respectfully Dan, unless you want to come across as a bully – give it a rest. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I cannot compel you to make RFD nomination that make sense and pertain to WT:CFI. It is up to you to up your game. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I and several other contributors think it is a good idea to discuss issues that are controversial or at least question the policies we have enforced. Last I checked Wiktionary is a community where we have the freedom to discuss issues that are perceived as problematic. To restrict that freedom is in my book unacceptable and surely against the very policies you so fervidly uphold. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The nomination you made was not terms in CFI, and did not even suggest that it is a proposal for CFI override. If your say that something is "against the very policies you so fervidly uphold", you should reference the specific policy. CFI overrides are an option, and I have been supporting a range of CFI overrides, e.g. translation hubs years before they became a tentative policy.
I would not write to your talk page because of the single nomination. Rather, I see a pattern of bad nominations.
For reference, the nomination said "I don't even know where to start. Clipping?" Where is there a rationale for CFI override? If you do not know where to start, you probably should not be starting anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I provided a more comprehensive rational the second day and apologised for not doing so in the first place. You are not judge, jury and executioner and I will not indulge this conversation any further. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Chuck Entz (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've taken it to Meta. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Robbie SWE".