User talk:Robbie SWE


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aim to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Nadando 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello Robbie, I'm bothering you for a personal translation request:) My friend's going to get a tattoo and he asked me of which language he should have it. Can you please tell me what "she exists as long as her presence is felt" means in Romanian and Swedish? I don't want it to sound stupid as he'll have it forever; so if you have a better idea to translate with a similar meaning, I'd appreciate that :) Thank you so much in advance! Sinek 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much for your friendly response and for your translations! That really helped but.. It's a bit longer than we expected; it means more pain and more money :D To ask you for your personal oppinion, what would you advise? Something a bit shorter, like "feeling perpetuates her" or anything else you'd like. Am I being too much? :D Sorry for bothering you, and waitin for your answer. Cheers! Sinek 21:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hii! How is it goin? Well I want to thank you for your helps once again, and tell you what happened. My friend chose a Latin translation and we were at the tattoo shop with all translations I found. There was a girl with her boyfriend and they looked at the translations, then suddenly made up their mind! Her boyfriend got "Hon är alltid med mig" and she got "Imortală în sufletul meu". Not my friend, but other two guys will carry your translations forever :) Sinek 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ett verbEdit

Har du lust att bidra med synpunkter i raderingsdiskussionen om verbformen göro, tack? --LA2 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

commas and cedillasEdit

Hello. If you ever want help to move Romanian entries from cedillas to commas in ro.wiktionary, let me know. I've got a script that can do the job. --flyax 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See ro:Utilizator:Flyax/categories. It's not a great "lesson", anyhow have a look. --flyax 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I'm wiliing to help. Here are my thoughts. First we have to find all Romanian entries with a t/s cedilla. That's easy (see the instructions on my ro.wikt page). Then we have to exclude the entries that have a second language section, i.e. Turkish. I don't know if there are other languages using these t/s cedilla characters, so I'll need your help in that. If Turkish is the only language we have to take care about, then this step is also quite simple and we can proceed to renaming all Romanian entries by bot.

The final step is to change each and every instance of t/s cedilla in the entries' body. That will be a bit more tricky because we'll have to exclude again any Turkish (or other as well?) words, existing let's say in translations or etymologies. This is something that may need to wait a bit - we wouldn't want to mess entries up. But I think we'll find a solution. So, what do you think? Do you want me to go on with movings entries for now and wait for the rest? --flyax 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!
Turkish is the only language that uses a s cedilla (Romanian was the only language using a t cedilla). I can recall boş and şah as being the only shared entries with Turkish.
I think you can go ahead and start moving entries on the condition that they remain as redirects (I would also like to explore the possibility of creating a robot that automatically creates cedilla redirects every time an article containing the new letters is created).
I'm concerned about the necessary changes to entries' body: it has to be done but I don't know how to do it. Even articles in other languages containing Romanian translations have to be dealt with.
Let me know what I can do!
Best Regards --Robbie SWE 13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I think that by Friday I'll be ready to move (rename) the Romanian entries. I suggest that from now on we continue our discussion on ro.wikt. I' ll take the liberty to copy these messages there, on my discussion page. --flyax 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


I know we had talked about him before and I was supposed to be watching his edits, which I did a bit... but the sânt thing was just too much for even me, so I blocked him for 6 months. So that'll be at least a break from his viral editing. :) OH, daca nu ma recunosti, sunt Opiaterein :D Numele e nou. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi (Dick)Laurent! Yes, I remember you (an intelligent and hardworking linguist is never forgotten ;-) and thank you for blocking BaicanXXX. I've been keeping him under daily surveillance, but I just kind of stopped bothering to change his incorrect edits (there are far too many). However, the "sânt" thing really p****d me off, because it has never been correct, ever (sînt; yeah...ok, not my cup of tea but still alright; sunt...definitely!). Take care :-) --Robbie SWE 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Salut! I wanted to be sure you spotted this discussion, in case you wanted to comment on whether User:Torvalu4 is correct that many Romanian words are from Albanian, or whether he is pushing some POV. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender of audio in RomanianEdit

What is the gender of this word? The translation table said it was "m f n" which seemed like a mistake to me. —CodeCat 17:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Actually it is an invariable adjective so it is not declined. I guess the person who added it meant that it is "audio" across genders. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. —CodeCat 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Pot deveni tău amic? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your request? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I be your friend? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Aren't we all friends on Wiktionary? ;-) (PS: just to help you with your Romanian: it should be "pot deveni amicul tău?") --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you get my next message? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you double‐check this? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cum se spune «I can speak Romanian» în română? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, what's the plural form of that Romanian demonym? I wasn't too sure about it. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll go back and add the correct forms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Now, for the plural form of Romanian nauruan. Besides, the feminine parameter doesn't seem to work unless I add the plural form, apparently. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC) want me to check it and add the feminine plural? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. I mean, the feminine form doesn't display unless the plural is entered. All I did was to make a guess. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the plural form of niuean? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It's niueni and I added it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Missing Romanian pluralsEdit

Hi Robbie. In case you're interested in Romanian plurals, I recently made a category of Romanian entries missing plurals. Perhaps you could check some, and if you have time you could create the plurals (WT:ACCEL is a good tool for doing this). --Type56op9 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the initiative! I'm gonna take a look and contribute when I'll have the time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking up on BAICAN XXXEdit

He's been contributing more after his warning. It all looks good to me, but I know next to no Romanian, so I'd appreciate if you could check his edits as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've checked yesterday's translations and most were ok. But I don't get Baican's sudden "love" for diminutives and plurals - he added quite a few and he doesn't provide any additional information such as etymology, pronunciation, inflection or what they actually mean. For instance perniță means (1) cushion, (2) pinball, pincushion, (3) hassock, (4) shoulder pad etc. In Baican's latest contributions he includes pronunciation templates but doesn't actually provide IPA or SAMPA pronunciations. Doesn't that mess up the categories - words lacking pronunciation appear as if they do? --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

victorie a la PyrrhusEdit

Eu stau și mă mir cu ce nonșalanță faci tu uz de verificabilitatea modului corect de scriere de la ro.Wikipediaǃ ... Doar dacă mă gândesc că pe acolo se mișcă în voie de vreo câteva luni bune un agramat ca userul Andrei Bacria, mă umflă râsul despre această verificabilitate, des invocată de tine, privind ro.W.BAICAN XXX (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"I'm wondering, with what nonchalance you rely on the verifiability of the correct way of writing on ro.Wikipedia! ... Just when I start to think, that around there for the last couple of months, the ignorant user Andrei Bacria has been lurking, I start to laugh at this verifiability, often invoked by you, in relation to ro.Wikipedia"
(Translation for those who are interested) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Is there a problem with the word?

Jdogno2 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jdogno2! No, there's no problem with the word. I was a bit concerned, because the hits I got on Google weren't convincing enough. However, a fellow user has provided citations, so I apologise for my disbelief. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Just curious, but what was the problem with that etymology? That's basically what the Trésor de la Langue Française says, and it's linked to it at the bottom. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that @Word dewd544! My mouse is on the fritz and it sometimes registers a click even when none was made – the registered click just happened to revert your edit. So your contribution was fine, it was just a hardware malfunction on my side. Promise it won't happen again :-) Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Why did you remove the link to ustensila? Linking to empty pages is a common practice here. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked if ustensila exists in any other language, but couldn't find an example, so I figured that it wouldn't hurt if I erased it. If I acted against a policy I'm unaware of, I can add it again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
But it’s used in Romanian. Is that inadequate? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I contemplated the inflected form, however, that would be a hell of an undertaking, adding the articulate form wherever it coincides with the main article. E.g. consider coapsă, boacă, moacă, lipsă etc. they're definitely unique Romanian words – should we include the inflected forms as a "see also" if they still lead the reader to the same initial article? As long as there is no rule about it, I thought it better to avoid that discussion. But as I said earlier, I don't mind adding it again as long as it serves a purpose. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don’t think that there’s an urgency to add them all, so nobody should feel forced to make all of those links. (An automaton would be more appropriate for that task.) Some entries like cliche and Æsop contain redirections even though the definitions have the exact same links, and people seem fine with them. @-sche, do you have any comments? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no harm in linking to inflected/alternative forms that just lead the reader back to the initial page, or that are linked-to on the definition line or in the inflection table. It's also not a high priority. I wouldn't remove existing links, but I wouldn't normally bother to add them in cases like this, either. Hypothetically, things like ustensila or Æsop might be words in other languages, in which cases the links would be useful. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Then I'll put it back. Thank you for your input! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Does this mean something like ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’ in Romanian? Because that’s what I’m inferring from the 2nd definition here. --Romanophile (contributions) 10:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're kind of right – it is used as a term of endearment, but it's much stronger than ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’. If we take a look at the English definition of life, we find:
"7. Something which is inherently part of a person's existence, such as job, family, a loved one, etc."
She's my love, my life.‎
That's pretty much the connotation in Romanian too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah! It looks like I was 90% accurate. I myself don’t usually see life used in that sense, which is why my guess was imperfect. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated: do you know how to say solēre in Romanian? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends which meaning you're after:
Hope this information was helpful. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is elevator a good synonym of ascensor? --Romanophile (contributions) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, their function is basically the same; to transport heavy loads vertically. However, looking at the definitions in my dictionaries, elevator ([1]) was never mentioned to transport people, only heavy materials or goods in construction sites, harbours, train stations, etc. Ascensor ([2]) is used for both people and goods in high-rises. Then yet again, I personally use lift ([3]) which designates your run-of-the-mill elevator for people (from 3+ people). Hope this helped! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Your feedback is strengthening Wikcionario. I decided to add elevator as a hyponym here, which seems like a good fit to me. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is really weird. I could have sworn that I made the Spanish entry for viață a few days ago, but I looked around on the project and found no traces of the entry. There was no copy of it on my hard‐drive either. I think that somehow my brain tricked me into thinking that I had created the entry when I never did. Probably a side‐effect from undersleeping. Anyway, here’s the Spanish version. I know that your Spanish is basic, but it might still be interesting to look at. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

To be completely honest, my Spanish is much better than I give it credit :-) I took a look at the entry and it seems ok, just did some minor corrections to the expressions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Does însemna conjugate differently depending on the meaning? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile Yes, you're right. When the sense is "to mean, to signify", the verb "a însemna" takes the first declension table (eu însemn, el/ea înseamnă etc.), while it takes the second declension table (eu însemnez, el/ea însemnează etc.) when the sense is "to mark, to note". I suspect it has to do with the etymology – while the English article only mentions a Latin etymology, which definitely is true for the first meaning, DEX also mentions în + semn as an alternative to what I believe to be the second sense. I believe it to be a plausible explanation for the second declension. Hope this helped, don't hesitate to contact me again if anything is unclear. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[4], is the declension correct? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile looks fine. However, historically, the term has been interpreted as being neuter, therefore resulting in a plural form ending in -e. Don't have a more reliable source than Scriban (1939) though. Considering that the neuter is considered archaic, I wouldn't be all too worried about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know any synonyms for ferăstrău? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile first and foremost we have the variants ferestrău, fierăstrău and herăstrău. As for synonyms, we have a couple of (very) regional words: chimilioară, corzar and firez/firiz (source). --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There’s also șegă, but are any of these CFI‐compliant? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, never heard of șegă before, so thank you for introducing it! The variants are CFI-compliant and I think the synonyms are too. However, I can't provide any citations for the regionalisms because they're not a part of a day-to-day Romanian vocabulary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to mention this to you earlier, but I di’n’t remember until I had a dream about it. When people misspell words, it helps me find obsolete spellings in other languages, such as this one, so please never learn how to spell perfectly or else I’ll run out of work to do. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are degustare, degustație, gustare, savurare all synonyms (to you)? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that degustare, degustație and savurare are synonyms (DEX backs me up on this). However, I wouldn't consider gustare as a synonym mainly because it also means "entrée", "snack" and "gustation". --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[5]. Perfect? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile A-okay! I would however also add închide. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Romanian RhymesEdit

@Robbie SWE, can you give an example of some incorrect rhymes that he added? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
BAICAN XXX (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexico City, Merseburger etc.Edit

You're in error.

- 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

According to German Wikipedia ([6]), only Mexiko-Stadt is accepted. Unless you can provide a trustworthy source to back up your allegation that I am in the wrong, your edit will be reverted. Concerning Merseburger; since Merseburgerin implies a woman from Merseburg, it is necessary to underline this differentiation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
WP is not a reliable source, supports my statement (seeärung) ), and I can give a reliable source, namely .
Anyway, "Merseburger" is not restricted to males, which is true for many words in -er, while the word with -in is restricted to females. Of course, in the context the basic form is often used to refer to males while the form with -in is used for females (as in "Zuschauer und Zuschauerinnen"), but it's also quite common to use the normal form for both (as "Zuschauer" meaning "männliche und weibliche Zuschauer"). E.g. one can search for "-er beiderlei Geschlechts", "weibliche -er", "männliche und weibliche -er" etc. and quite often one can find results which without a doubt proof that the basic form in -er is used sexus-neutral.
I'm currently looking at the Begriffsklärung and it implicitly says "Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos" so it isn't confused with "Mexiko, ein nordamerikanischer Staat". That's the reason why "city" is added - to avoid confussion. When it comes to Merseburger I understand that it can be used to mean "a person from Merseburg". However, I strongly oppose deleting the differentiation altogether, because it exists throughout the category of German demonyms. Last but not least, for future reference, please discuss problems you have with other users before you go alleging that they are vandals. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Begriffserkärung" states: "Mexiko als Name steht für [...] Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos". That is, "Mexiko" refers to the city too. Anyway, WP is not a reliable source. Duden instead is a reliable, but prescriptive, source. While it should be true, that the city nowaydays is often called "Mexiko-Stadt" to avoid confusion, "Mexiko" also refers to the city, especially in older sources.
So you see that terms in -er are used sexus-neutral. Thus the restriction with "male" is incorrect. Well, there could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person".
I tried to discuss it, while you didn't even give reasons for you reverts, and you didn't try to talk to me. Also unreasoned reverts IMHO are very impolite.
- 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I happen to agree with the anon. "Merseburger" can either refer to a person of unspecified gender, or specifically to a male, while "Merseburgerin" refers only specifically to a female. Stating that "Merseburger" is a "male from Merseburg" does not account for the "person of unspecified gender". --WikiTiki89 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent. Impolite or not, it's quite clear in the edit summary "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". You didn't do that; you just remade your edits, forcing me to undo them. Impolite or not, I'm never closed to discussing my edits, but you didn't follow protocol. Believe it or not I agree with you in several aspects, however, the way you went about doing these changes leaves a lot to wish for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent." - 1. It's not consistend anyway. 2. It's not becoming consistend when you add "male". It's even more consistend without "male".
"the edit summary" and "You didn't do that" etc.: 1. That seems like an automatic comment, so it seemed to be dishonest. 2. I did do that. Though not at first (see above). 3. Anyway, you could have given a reason in the edit summaries, especially when re-reverting.
"you didn't follow protocol" - might be true, if I don't know the protocol, it's hard to follow it.
"leaves a lot to wish for" - might be true, but same is true for you too. Examples: (a) You could have given reasons, especially when re-reverting or even re-re-reverting. (b) You could have tried to talk to me too. (c) Instead of the automatic comment - which seemed to be dishonest -, you could have used a real comment.
""Mexicopolis" is the prefered form in Latin" - That's unlikely. googleing for "Mexicopolis" only gives a few results. "Mexicum" instead is quite common - especially in older source, that is, when Latin was more common. Of course, "Mexicum" for the city could have been more popular back then as the country was a part of Spain.
"male person" - That's still incorrect, and you even said that you know it's incorrect. Again: "[T]here could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person"."
Labeling German "Mexiko" dated: Duden doesn't support that and Wikipedia doesn't support that too. Thus, it's unsourced. Also I doubt that it's dated. When the context is clear (like one is talking about cities or Mexico City or one is talking about historical situations), it should still be ok to just use "Mexiko".
- 21:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC), 21:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a valid source at all. As for Duden, it is a secondary source. We only accept primary sources as evidence (much unlike Wikipedia), unless it is something that is difficult to find evidence for. To find a primary source, search Google Books for quotations using the word. --WikiTiki89 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, "dated" is a statement. Statements needs be sourced. Thus, he should have to proof that it's dated.
As for counter-proving:"Stadt+Mexiko" from 2012 or 2003 (could be a quote) has "Mitte der Stadt Mexiko","Stadt+Mexiko" from 2016 (according to google) has "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." Thus "Mexiko" still refers to the city, (especially) when the context is clear. Also, though just for clarification, "Stadt Mexiko" is not a name per se, and one can also find "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Die Stadt Marburg zählt um die 70.000 Einwohner" etc. - 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where your experience lies, whether it's with Wikipedia or with German Wiktionary or whatever, but you should know that at English Wiktionary, we have our own rules. If you want to say it's not dated, please prove it with direct quotations that use the word, not with citations of other sources. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The google book results above should count as quotations of uses. In case of"Stadt+Mexiko" with "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." it's undoubtful. As for"Stadt+Mexiko" , the book (from 2012) quoted the title of another work (from 2003). In case of the other work it's a usage too. Do you want to say that a title doesn't qualify as usage? Even if titles don't qualify, one can find many more results from the 21st century."Stadt+Mexiko" ("der Stadt Mexiko", 2009),"Stadt+Mexiko" ("der heutigen Stadt Mexiko", 2011 according to google),"Mexiko+eine+Stadt" ("Mexiko eine Stadt der Spaziergänger", 2003, though could be a quote from another work from the 20th or 21st century). In fact, "Stadt Mexiko" (similiar to "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Stadt Marburg", ...) should even be prefered over "Stadt Mexiko-Stadt". - 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty good evidence. I just somehow managed to skip that part of your previous post. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


To prevent further unreasend reverts by you:

  • e.g. "Anglokanadierin" is either derived from "Anglokanadier" or from "Kanadierin", but not from Kanadier.
  • it doesn't make sense to collect all words with -kanad- as releted terms. Terms with -kanada- rather belong to Kanada and terms with -kanadisch- rather belong to kanadisch. Maybe you can take a look at other entries, there's done this way, too.

- 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lame ReversionEdit

"Referring to a person without a disability as “lame” is offensive to many as it suggests a derogatory characterization of the physical condition from which the term was derived."

Regarding the change I made from "many" to "some" and your subsequent reversion. I can't think of any way of proving that usage is considered offensive to many and my personal experience would suggest it's not true, that it's not many but a very small minority of people who find it offensive. On the other hand it's very easy to prove that it is considered offensive by some. Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Let me ask you this instead: do you have substantial "proof" supporting your subjective personal experience? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. My belief is as subjective as yours. It can't be proven either way that "many" people find the usage offensive without a substantial amount of research. I was hoping you'd either point me in the direction of research proving that many people find that usage of "lame" offensive or allow me to change the sentence from an unsubstantiated assertion to one which is easily proven. Let me ask again: Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Here's the thing, getting hung up on semantics – some, a few, many, a lot of etc. – is deflecting attention away from real issues: people habitually and callously using terms considered derogatory by people with disabilities. Do I have proof? No, unfortunately I haven't been able to find an empirical study dealing with this subject (not entirely sure if such a study is necessary though, I mean, do we need a study to confirm that a majority of people of African-American descent consider the N-word derogatory for it to be a fact?). However, you just have to search for "lame" and "offensive term" and you'll find some 400,000+ hits, quite a few of them linking to blog posts from people with disabilities, where they talk about how they feel when the word lame is used in everyday speech. To be completely blunt, as a rollbacker who keeps a close eye on anon edits, any arbitrary change which doesn't substantially improve an article, gets reverted. It's not personal; it's just us trying to maintain a form of consistency around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I remain a sceptic, and totally reject the equivalence with "nigger". Keep up the good work! —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

If I may butt in, in my personal experience, I've never heard of anyone being offended by the word "lame". It's too pervasive of a word; and it's its use for people who actually have a disability is nowadays a bit old-fashioned. As for the words "some" and "many", these are weasel words used to convey their users' personal impression when the facts are unknown (I'm pointing out the problem, yet I know of no good solution). --WikiTiki89 14:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for butting in! I take your point on weasel words, at very least this is a controversial statement which raises a lot of interesting questions though I'm not sure if this is the best forum to discuss them. I'd never heard of anyone being offended by "lame" until last week, it puzzled me and that's how I found my way here. I wanted to tone that statement somewhat without diving headfirst into what Robbie calls the "real issues", but I can see that was naive. What it really comes down to is two competing subjectives, and as I can't even be bothered to register an account I can see why his should prevail. For the record: I do believe that "lame" is offensive to some for the reasons given, I don't believe it is offensive to "many" because in my experience the term is not used "habitually and callously" and (crucially) isn't taken that way in most cases. I found the comparison with "nigger" especially misleading, a word that's totally rotten to the core.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Japanese 適切なEdit

Hi, You erased this compound, butiIt is often used. Shiromura Nekomao (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Shiromura Nekomao! Can you please show me where I made this edit? Can't seem to find it in my list of contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Is macaronar a slur, or is it just informal? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile DEX lists it as colloquial. However, the term does convey a depreciative tone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know other synonyms for Italians? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile Let's see...if we set macaronar aside, which is popular albeit somewhat depreciative, we have an archaic ital, regional and archaic talian and of course broscar (N.B. slang and pejorative) – funny fact, Romanians believe that it is in fact the Italians who are the true frogeaters, and not necessarily the French (although they might also be frog-loving people). --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Robbie SWE".