Please add a new topic by clicking or tapping the button below (remember to add a subject):

Add a new topic

Archive Archives

քոչարի edit

Dear colleague, your rollback in the article is a mistake, because there are not any sources which claimed that the word was borrowed from Azerbaijani. I hope you will draw attention to the fact. Regards, --Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I trust @Vahagn Petrosyan more than I trust editors removing etymologies from an entry for the implied reason that "there's no way this entirely X concept has a word that is not from X". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can "See also:" be placed nearer to the word and also inside the box? edit

I did not see the small "See also:troop" at the top of this page, which is above and outside the box. My attention was drawn to the content below the box. As a new user of Wiktionary, I want users (and myself) to more easily see the "See also:" link.

Another project by example, Wikipedia, places "See also" at the bottom of the article and "See also" is included within the box.

Maybe for Wiktionary, it would be better to put the "See also:" just above or below the word related to the "See also:" link.

Also, why are Troop and troop on separate pages? The lower case troop has many definitions or meanings, so why does it not have just one more line about it's use as a surname? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "see also" section at the top is used for alternative capitalizations, punctuation, etc. It must be at the top, because it is language-agnostic, while Wiktionary is not; every entry has a language associated with it. There is a separate "see also" heading in some entries, but that is not used for alternative capitalizations by default, unless there is a relevant reason to do so in an entry.
As for why they are separate entries, all Wiktionary lemmas are case-sensitive. The capitalized forms of words only have meanings that apply to those words if they are almost always capitalized (which surnames are), not just at the beginning of a sentence and such like. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Doesn't belong here" was your comment. That was correct, but with no further explaination or policy page link, I learned nothing. This initial interaction was negative and unconstructive. Although Wikipedia is a different project, you may be familiar with WP:NOBITE.
Quoting from that page, "Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of substantive edits, i.e. lasting content; while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large number of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content."
That was my first edit at Wiktionary. I was wrong, so you correctly reverted my edit. However, if you had taken took a few seconds to add a link to a policy page or explained the reasons for your revert, such as you did above in response to my request- that would have been both constructive and most welcome. Thank you for you response. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Surjection.

My name is Robert Dunwell. I am currently the editor of the Karbardian Wiktionary (

I would like to contest your reversion of my corrections.

The current entry is both factually and politically incorrect. It is also highly very biased towards the Adyghean language (NOT Adyghe).

You should distinguish:

Adyghe is ethnonym describing a number of different Northern Circassian peoples. It is used by Kabardians, Cherkesses (North-Eastern Circassains), Adygheans (North-Western Circassians) and others. They all call themselves "Adyghe", and the Adygheans have to right to claim it as exclusively their own, or to claim that it designates only their language.

See the article Circassians in Wikipedia.

Since there are approximately 550,000 speakers of Kabardino-Cherkess and only about 100,000 speakers of Adyghean, the Adygheans have no special title to this word.

Adygheans (Adygheis- with an "i") are Adyghas who speak Adyghean. (адыгеец, адыгейский язык, адыгабзэ, кӀахыбзэ, ady)

Kabardians and Cherkesses are Adyghas who speak Kabardino-Cherkess. (кабардинец, черкес, кабардино-черкесский язык, адыгэбзэ, къэбэрдей-шерджэсыбзэ, kbd)

I kindly request that you revert your reversion.

A number of other articles should be CORRECTED. Rhdkabardian (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your distinction between "Adyghe" and "Adyghean" is completely arbitrary and our entry should reflect actual usage. Not only that, but you messed with the alternative forms and pronunciations as well as removed all translations for no reason. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tweens = 20s edit

There is independent usage, actually, though this sense is undoubtedly rare and, since the use of a homonym for 8-13 year-olds, probably obsolete. kwami (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copt edit

Hello, I am Egyptian Christian and I have noticed that you edited كوفتس as an "ethnic slur" which is wrong as it's a religious slur 15:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? edit

T.O. Honooo (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

まああなたは日本語分からないと思うけど、このUser:えのきだたもつの行動は不当だと思うよ。--Honooo (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confession or Concession edit

I would have emailed you had you allowed me... Maybe then you wouldn't be explaining ME what WIKI is about... Let's CHAT... RAJNI GOUNDER

Votic adpositions edit

Hi, I see several new Votic adpositions; at least -ette was created by you. Can these be slotted into 'prepositions' or 'postpositions'? I don't know much about Votic but we don't have 'adposition' as a recognized lemma type currently. Benwing2 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake - I used adposition for cases where the word can be used both as a preposition or as a postposition, with no difference in meaning and no particularly strong trend favoring either placement. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, so do you think we should add 'adposition' as a lemma type or split these lemmas into both a 'preposition' and 'postposition' entry? Benwing2 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've split them. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cape Coloureds edit

Hi. I can't really find any information about Cape Coloured slurs on the internet besides Hottentot or hotnot. I'm a Cape Coloured myself and I know for a fact that kaffir is also used against us. It is racist if black South Africans call us kaffirs and vice versa. Trissieo (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Historical names of Korea edit

Thanks for reverting the error made by my bot on this page. I was wondering why this edit did not show up on my project. May be I miss-typed something. -- Lee (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinical edit

Clinical in all standard dictionaries record it as an adjective. It should always describe a noun. Subsequently, clinical has no plurality and not a noun either. 10:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The adjectival definition is listed first. If you don't think the word is used as a noun in the sense listed, you should start a request for verification. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts of compare and contrast edit

You reverted and . Can you explain those reversions please? (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's not useful. There's no reason to remove the definition from these pages and move it to a new page for an entry that is used much less often and has an openly prescriptive tone. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I was trying to unorphan that new page. I'll add the link into the derived terms section instead. (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ბერძენი edit

On what grounds do remove a scholarly theory on the etymology of the word ბერძენი? AncapOgre (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan#ბერძენიSURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your rollback is in error edit

I think your rollback at the page dirty old man was in error. What was wrong with the last version, first of all? 01:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop playing dumb. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summit edit

How is the etymology of summit incomplete? It looks very complete to me. 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It clearly reads what is missing. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you made a mistake by deleting the article bärkyyli. edit

The word bärkyyli is commonly used in the finnish language. It was also in the first finnish bible. It has been used by finnish leaders and is still very common in northern Finland. Be kind and restore the article and mind your own business. 11:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it isn't. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you even read the bible? 12:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(the first finnish bible) 12:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think is the "first Finnish bible"? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first Finnish bible translation by Mikael Agricola, if you would know even basic finnish history, you would know. 12:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong. Agricola never translated the BIble. He tried to finish the BIble, but only finished the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament before he died. Just admit you're making stuff up - I'm not going to fall for it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was wrong, i should have specified that he used it in the gospel of matthew, but it is more understandable and accessible to just write bible. 12:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary should be accessible for all people despite of faith nationality or skin color, you should get a real job instead of being a dick and sabotaging other people's work. 12:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary has no interest in promoting words made up by its users. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an offense but... edit

Why did you just deleted two pages I created? You knbow that there isn't anything wrong with those two pages I created. They are perfectly detailed and have great origins.

Plus, I used those websites for suitable citing's and for quotations on a word used. Plus, I just added to increase the number of words in dictionary and I recently discovered those two. But, would you just go on and explain why did you even just cleared out two pages in row? I did nothing wrong on creating definitions. So, it is best to restore those pages you deleted it. If not, please elaborate. Thanks for answering and replying to me! -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:78EA:B348:4ECA:19CE 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brand names are not dictionary material unless they have figurative or genericized uses. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 00:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, why are brand names aren't dictionary materials unlike Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Pixar, FedEx, Zoom, Google, WordPress, Reddit, Twitter, and Discord? Plus, they been on the dictionary, so these two of them should be added on the dictionary site. What does genericized uses mean? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:78EA:B348:4ECA:19CE 00:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the ones you listed have other senses attested than just the brand name itself, e.g. Facebook has the sense "Facebook profile" and the verbs "to use Facebook" and "to send on Facebook". Genericized use refers to cases where the name of the service describes a concept rather than that service itself, e.g. on YouTube, there's the sense "any website that allows users to upload content". One must be reminded that these senses, like all others, must meet any attestability requirements. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ageism edit

Can you explain to me for good what was wrong with my edits on ageism, since you people refuse to address it post-edit? 12:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sense you're adding is completely made up by you. The link you give as a "source" does not suggest anything like what you are writing. You seem really fixated on this topic (no doubt you are the same editor that has been disrupting dirty old man for a while now) and none of the edits you have been doing have been constructive in any way. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know whoth you're talking about, but the reason I'm fixated to this point regarding ageism it's because is true and needs to be addressed and frankly I don't know what made it unconstructive the way I did. Plus, "long-term POV pushing, both here and on Wikipedia"? What do you mean "and on Wikipedia"?! I didn't touch anything on Wikipedia, I simply used it to prove I was right. 12:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"it's because is true and needs to be addressed" is basically an admission of POV pushing. It's the characteristic excuse - "I'm just doing what is right". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wedding breakfast edit

I must have accidentally initiated my edit from an old version of the page. Sorry about that. Thank you for resolving the issue. — Smjg (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proto-Turkic edit

I recently added the IPA for the word *bīr (meaning "one") in proto-turkic and for some reason you have deleted it, mentioning that wikibooks is not a valid source. The phonology of Proto-Turkic is very well established and no matter what source you read, it will be pretty much the same. And you also mentioned that the IPA doesn't match? I don't know what you mean by that but my addition to the page was correct, so i would be glad if you would revert your action. Karen kalantari (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikibooks is not a valid source for anything involving reconstructions much in the same Wikipedia isn't, because anyone can edit it. Not that your source even had /biːr/ anywhere, so it was a complete lie. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number "one" is reconstructed as *bīr here on wiktionary, and its phonemic transcription is very straightforward. This word is made of three phonemes that are very uncontroversial and agreed upon by most linguists including Lars Johanson. Also the source that i provided DID write the phonemic transcription. Karen kalantari (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is so "straightforward" and the correct transcription can be found "no matter what source you read", then surely you can cite a reliable academic source with your transcription. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"manually curated list" for etymologies edit

What list does the bot use to add incorrect etymologies such as to ingressi? -- Espoo (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A list that I scanned through before I let the bot add it. It wasn't incorrect to begin with: that term is indeed an internationalism, as we define it. {{internationalism}} is used for entries where the ultimate source is clear, but the exact route is not. It appears that ingressi is indeed through Swedish (as SES says), so your edit did make the etymology more correct. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As our definition says, an internationalism is a loanword that occurs in several languages with the same or similar meaning and etymology, due to the occurrence of several simultaneous borrowings and/or a chain of successive borrowings happening in quick succession. Since the English ingress means completely different things and is never used to refer to what the Finnish ingressi refers to, our previous etymology ("Internationalism (see English ingress)") was at least very misleading and arguably incorrect. Specifically because these words do not have similar meanings, the English word should not be mentioned as evidence that this is an internationalism. In fact, this is a good example that should be added to our definition to prevent misuse of the term for situations where it's correct to list cognates but not call them internationalisms. --Espoo (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will concede that using the English word as the comparison probably wasn't the best choice, even if for internationalisms the word used as comparison is mostly picked for its etymology even if there has been divergent semantic development. I also thought ingressus was more widely used for this concept, but it appears to be restricted to the Nordic languages (and possibly even adopted to this sense somewhere in Scandinavia), which makes a borrowing from Swedish even more likely. However, I would still not argue this was not strictly a misuse of the internationalism template, which there would be more of a case for if the word had been entirely created out of Latinate parts and only used in the Nordic languages (as opposed to this case where a new meaning was given to an existing word). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated entry for "okeh" based on the 1870 book by Cyrus Byington, "Grammar of the Choctaw Language" edit

Hello and thank you for your review of the article on the word "okeh." I noticed that my recent edits were reverted, and was wondering how to make updates for this entry to include information from scholar of the Choctaw language, Cyrus Byington, whose books are now public domain, accessible here: Metamedits (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • edited to include a comma after "public domain" above. Please pardon the previous grammatical error. I would also like to acknowledge that my attempt to transcribe the entry of uses of the "O" Distinctive from pg. 14 of Byington's work may not have properly conveyed his entry of "a nasal to form the oblique case, "o̯," ona" owing to the set of Special Characters available. I searched through the 21 alphabets (Latin, Latin extended, IPA, Symbols, Greek, Greek extended, Cyrillic, Arabic, Arabic extended, Hebrew, Bangla, Tamil, Telugu, Sinhala, Devanagari, Gujarati, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Canadian Aboriginal, Runes) available in Wiktionary as of March 19, 2023 and could not find a character for the letter "o" with a straight line underneath, which appears to be the character used by Byington, so I substituted the "o" with a "^" underneath, from the IPA alphabet. I hope to hear suggestions for an alternate substitution if that was not acceptable. Metamedits (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Metamedits: it's not an article on the word "okeh", it's a dictionary entry. Dictionary entries are supposed to be concise. Not only that, you were explaining all kinds of features of the Choctaw language in the entry for an English alternative form. That would be excessive even in an entry for the Choctaw term, which we don't have as yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for the explanation, @Chuck Entz. I now understand the Wiktionary entry requirements in a new way. Thank you for your time. Metamedits (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added an edit for "rhymable" said orange has considered unrhymable. Which is not accurate in any way, oxford even has a "perfect" rhyme for orange, which i listed and you removed. edit

You rolled back my contribution. Which was in fact, a fact!! This can be confirmed with very minimal effort. And the statement you had prior is just down right wrong. When we spread false information as fact, helping others is at the very bottom of the list. 11:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If "orange" is rhymable, then please by all means tell us what rhymes with it. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an imperfect rhyme, but there's "door hinge". 20:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

transcausality edit

What was the definition for transcausality and why did you RFV it only to reverse the RFV and delete the page, seemingly out of process? There are several GoogleBook hits for ‘transcausality’ (and ‘transcausal’), so it certainly exists (though it appears to be a hard-to-define pretentious philosophical term). Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was created by a Greek editor with a history of writing nonsense definitions, because they think their English skills are much better than they actually are. None of the three senses given made any sense. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quarter Pounder edit

[1] [2]

One of McDonald’s most iconic hamburgers and brands is the QUARTER POUNDER. The QUARTER POUNDER hamburger was first introduced by McDonald’s in 1971. McDonald's has a trade mark portfolio with registrations for its QUARTER POUNDER mark all over the world, including in the US. See links above to its US trade marks for QUARTER POUNDER.

McDonald’s appreciates that the definition has been included in Wiktionary due to its fame. However, we request that the definition is amended, as it gives the impression that all burgers, regardless of source, can be referred to as a QUARTER POUNDER burger, when in fact that is not the case and McDonald's is concerned that this generic definition is detrimental to their reputable brand.

We amended the Quarter Pounder definition to acknowledge that it is (a) a trade mark, by adding [trade mark] and (b) that it is a brand owned by McDonald's, by inserting "served at McDonald’s restaurants". These changes were rolled back by you and we politely request that they are reverted.

In case helpful, you will note that other online dictionaries, like The Free Dictionary and Educalingo (see links below), include these elements noted at (a) and (b) above. Wiktionary is the only dictionary that McDonald's is aware of that does not at least acknowledge that QUARTER POUNDER is a registered trade mark using a [trade mark] label/identifier. [3] [4] StobbsOBE (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are either in violation of sitewide Terms of Use (if you are being paid) or for some reason refuse to realize that we are a dictionary, not a trademark registry. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We understand that Wiktionary is a dictionary, not a trademark registry. McDonald's has its marks registered at various trademark registries all around the world. The issue is that a trademark is "used to identify a particular company's product and differentiate it from other companies' products" - this is made clear by Wiktionary's own definition of a trademark trademark. Therefore, Wiktionary's definition of trademark and quarter-pounder are in conflict because you are applying a generic definition to Quarter Pounder, in spite of the fact it is a registered trademark of McDonald's and should be used to identify McDonald's burgers from those of other companies.
So, again, we politely request that the Quarter Pounder definition is amended to acknowledge that it is (a) a trade mark, by adding [trade mark] and (b) that it is a brand owned by McDonald's, by inserting "served at McDonald’s restaurants". If you would like to discuss this any further, we would be happy to have a call with you. Let us know if this is of interest. StobbsOBE (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are in violation of Terms of Use. State the agent you are receiving financial payments from or on behalf of on your user page. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are McDonald's trademark attorneys, making this request on their behalf, as the present definition is detrimental to their trademark. We are not in breach as we are not engaging in deceptive activities, misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, or fraud. We are openly requesting on behalf of our client for the roll back of the changes we made. StobbsOBE (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we will not alter the content of this project because of requests by (potentially rogue) trademark attorneys. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find your claims that "quarter pounder" can only mean a McDonald's burger to be completely inaccurate. this google search for "quarter pounder" without "McDonalds" pulls up millions of hits. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, it is possible to find lots of unauthorized use of trademarks on the Internet. Brand owners are constantly playing whack-a-mole to tackle this. But as we are sure you'll appreciate, just because some unauthorized use is revealed in a Google search, this does not legitimize it in any way. Quarter Pounder is a registered trademark in various countries across the world and it should not be used without McDonald's permission. StobbsOBE (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very common for branded trademarks to become generic terms: see band-aid, jet ski and post-it, which are all currently trademarked, and which I have no doubt you yourself have used in an "unauthorized" way. Your point is simply irrelevant, because it is not pertinent to a dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the point you are making but McDonald's is requesting this change for the very reason that it is enforcing its trade mark in order to prevent it from being used in a generic way, so it is pertinent to a dictionary as your definition is encouraging people to use McDonald's trade mark in a generic/descriptive way and this fundamentally undermines its trade mark rights.
Under Section 99A Trade Marks Act 1994 - Reproduction of trade marks in dictionaries - The publisher of the work (Wiktionary) must, at the request in writing of the proprietor of the trade mark (McDonald's), ensure that the reproduction of the trade mark (QUARTER POUNDER) is accompanied by an indication that it is a registered trade mark, if the reproduction of a trade mark in a dictionary, encyclopaedia or similar reference work, in print or electronic form, gives the impression that it constitutes the generic name of the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered. [5] StobbsOBE (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StobbsOBE Please direct your concerns to, which is the Wikimedia Foundation's email address for trademark-related legal issues. Wiktionary is one of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. I have also added an etymology section to the entry, which explains that it is the genericised use of a McDonald's trademark. Theknightwho (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho - thank you for your assistance. Although we disagree that Quarter Pounder has become a genericized trade mark (and in fact this is what we are trying to prevent), we appreciate you guiding us to the trade mark legal team at Wikimedia and for making an acknowledgement on the page that Quarter Pounder is a trade mark owned by McDonald's. StobbsOBE (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Surjection I don't see why you were reverting the edits in the first place—the fact that quarter-pounder happens to be a trademarked phrase is obviously relevant information. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted edit of shibumi edit

Hi Surjection!

What does "(the sense(s) are under the lemma)" mean?

What is the problem with adding an English language definition of a foreign word in an English language dictionary?

Thanks Saintrain (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese is not primarily written in the Latin script, but we have chosen to allow (Hepburn) romanization entries. These entries should only contain links to the appropriate kana spellings, not any definitions (to prevent content duplication). As you can see, shibumi has a link to しぶみ, where further information, including definitions and kanji spellings, can be found. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JS alpabetization of table content for editors? edit

Please see this GP discussion. Probably just the beginning and end are necessary to get the gist. DCDuring (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{fi-conj-kumajaa}} edit

Something funny is going on with this template. For one reason or another, it outputs the page title as a link under the table (on mobile, at least). You can see this behaviour at kumajaa and pöläjää. brittletheories (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology of Lucas edit

Hi Surjection: You state that Lucas is Greek meaning “Man from Lucania”. The Greeks referred to all of southern Italy as Oenotria and its inhabitants a Oentrii (this can be confirmed by searching the word Oenotria). Therefore, Loukas does not mean man from Lucania. Many peoples from around the world have names for their countries that are different form what others may use. For example, we refer to a person from Greece as Greek. The Greeks refer to themselves as Elliniká.

Please refer to the origin of the name Lucania in Wikipedia. I have book marked studies on its name origin. If you have credible studies that supports your claim, please provide them.

Best regards Lucis-Phos (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I have book marked studies on its name origin." Then present them and have them explain where the -as comes from. Λουκᾶς (Loukâs) as a term is clearly documented, as the entry states. Your edits also lack any semblance of proper formatting. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies for the poor formatting. I don’t see bookmarks which would indicate that Lucas is Greek in origin. The reference section links do not provide evidence to the contrary. Note, Lucania is the Latin name for this ancient region. And, the Latin name for Lucas is Lucas (from the Latin for light). Again, the Greeks referred to the area as Oenotria.
Could you kindly provide any link(s) to material that supports the Greek name origin theory? Thank you for your assistance Surjection. Lucis-Phos (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're the one who's changing the etymology- you need to provide the evidence. Not make vague allusions to having sources, but provide actual evidence from those sources. Feel free to discuss everything at the WT:Etymology scriptorium.
by the way: you changed the etymology to read: 'From {{der|en|la|Lucas}} meaning “light”'. You seem to be hung up on proving that "Lucas" means what you want it to mean- personal names don't mean anything. They're a way of pointing to people, and people don't have meanings. Besides which, the history of a term doesn't determine its meaning, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Chuck. This page does not contain links, references or sources that support current etymology theory as written. But, you insist I provide evidence. In fact, I do. See below.
On your user page, you claim to have an undergraduate degree in Linguistics from UCLA and that you’ve studied Latin and Greek on your own. The following are incongruous with your background and the etymology of the name Lucas.
The Greeks referred to the region as Oenotria and its inhabitants as Oenotrii (Look up Oinōtría in wiktionary or anywhere else). This is evidence that Loukas is not Greek meaning “man from Lucania”. Lucani is the Latin name for inhabitants of the region. It is much closer to the name Lucas than Oenotrii. If you have even a bit of the knowledge you claim, you would see this.
Your statement that, “Personal names don't mean anything. They're a way of pointing to people, and people don't have meanings”, contradicts the purpose of this wiktionary page since it refers to the etymology and meaning of the name Lucas. Your sentence that, “ Besides which, the history of a term doesn't determine its meaning, anyway” is factually incorrect and without merit. It is an illogical defence of your position.
You are listed as an admin for wiktionary. If your response is the best Wiktionary has to offer, keep the page as is and do not contact me again. Thank you. Lucis-Phos (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have rewritten the etymology of Λουκᾶς (Loukâs) with sources. From what I understand, this could be the hypocoristic of any name beginning with Λουκ-, Luc-. Vahag (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Vahag, which sources are you citing? The links in the references section on the page do not confirm the name meaning or its origin. Although southern Italy was greatly influenced by the Greeks in ancient times, the Greeks referred to all of southern Italy as Oenotria. No one has provided reputable sources to support the claim that Lucas is Greek for “a man from Lucania”. If you could, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers my friend. Lucis-Phos (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vahag, you state that, “ this could be the hypocoristic of any name beginning with Λουκ-, Luc-.” Luc is a Latin suffix. The Greek suffix Λουκ- is Louk. Lucis-Phos (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several Latin names beginning with Luc-: Lucius, Lucanus, Lucilius etc. These had travelled east and were used by Greeks as Λούκιος (Loúkios), Λουκανός (Loukanós), Λουκίλλιος (Loukíllios) etc. Greek forms hypocoristics (shorter pet forms) with the suffix -ᾶς (-âs), which is like the English suffix -y forming Ricky from Richard. Λουκᾶς (Loukâs) could be the pet form of any name beginning with Λουκ- (Louk-), like Cal can be short for Caleb, Calum or Calvin. If it is the short form of Λουκανός (Loukanós), then the ultimately origin is the Latin name Lucanus which is from the ethnonym Lucani. Which part don't you understand? Vahag (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) You have not addressed the fact that he Greeks referred to Lucania as Oenotria.
Therefore, how could Loukas be Greek for “a man from Lucania”? For your edification:
2) You state “There are several Latin names beginning with Luc-: Lucius, Lucanus, Lucilius etc. These had travelled east and were used by Greeks“. (Note, you omitted the Latin name Lucas). Your statement confirms what I’ve said. I.E. Luc is Latin in origin not Greek.
I am trying to be respectful. But, your condescending comment, “Which part don’t you understand?” is an ad hominem attack unworthy of intelligent debate.
Have a good weekend…………Cheers
4E73A09FD314682077C55D506246F5C1 Lucis-Phos (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korean word cant be related? edit

Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/tām We do not advocate the Altaic hypothesis. However, in the comparison given by EDAL, these words seem to be related both semantically and formally. You don't even let us write that it's been compared. Although it is not true that the Altaic languages are a common language family, is it not something that is considered to be a sprachbund? For a reasonable comparison from EDAL, which can be found elsewhere, why would you want extra comparison? BurakD53 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Akin to" is not a comparison. It is the same as saying "Related to" or "Cognate with", i.e. it is asserting that the two terms are related. EVen if it were a comparison, "a reasonable comparison from EDAL" is hardly a thing. EDAL is built on the false assumption that these language families are inherited from a common source, which has been definitely proven to be false. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! edit

Hows it hanging? Anyways, I have heard from many different users that you have been a bit unreasonable in this community. For example, User talk:Kal Toch was blocked for just saying "hi" on an article. A warn would be useful, but an indefinite block is a little too far. Dont you think? Well, anyways, have a nice day. BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation from Spanish edit

If you don't believe the translation is correct, just ask any Spanish Wiktionarian. 18:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese, 推す edit

Please reverse the rollback on My changes removed unsupported assertions not found elsewhere. 01:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess we'll have to remove all content from this site that isn't "found elsewhere" then. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 04:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
....Uh... Yeah? If a word's termonology is solely used on Wiktionary, it naturally does not belong on Wiktionary. 01:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't anywhere near a case like that, this is just you disagreeing with a translation. We're not going to remove content just because other sources do not document it - we follow usage. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brother, भाजी is not a Hindi word at all edit

Yes.भाजी is purely a Marathi word and doesn't not exist in Hindi at all. It is not even used in Hindi, cause it does not exists in Hindi. It's a word that commonly used in Marathi language. In fact, it is purely and originally a Marathi word. Don't spread false information. The hindi word for vegetable is सब़्जी. — This unsigned comment was added by Sarangbsr (talkcontribs) at 09:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

There are two sources to dictionaries on that very entry and w:hi:भाजी also exists. You are simply unequivocally wrong that भाजी (bhājī) "is not a Hindi word at all", and I suspect you know that equally well. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pass a Method edit

You blocked a Florida IP as PaM, which makes no sense. Pass a Method was well known for editing from the north end of London and neighboring Essex. About the only thing in common is bad Somali. That's not to say they didn't deserve to be blocked- creating entries in Somali and Hungarian when they can't even get English right shows pretty bad judgment. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The geographical location may sometimes change, especially after a long absence, and I thought the behavioral evidence was strong enough. On second glance it isn't, but I'm still at least sure that this is not a new editor - it's just probably not who I thought it was. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the proto-uralic swadesh list edit

I get that they are some issues with current reconstructions on wiki. Maybe the more recent ones from Ante Aikio would be more accurate? I just can't get over uralic family not having its own swadesh list ː( Boletto (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They almost certainly would, but Aikio's UED isn't complete yet from what I remember. A further complication is that EVE uses a significantly different transcription. Proto-Uralic coverage in general needs an overhaul - UEW is becoming an outdated source at quite a rapid pace. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It indeed isn't complete, but Aikio also released paper called "Proto-Uralic" last year, where he names at least some of words included in Swadesh list, so I think it would be an option. Also now that I think, maybe it would be better to use shorter version on Swadesh list in that case? Boletto (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware of Aikio's monograph - I'll probably make a table comparing the transcriptions between it, EVE and UEW at some point. As long as the first two exist and are different, it won't be easy picking between them. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Surjection/urj-pro comparison, although I'm yet to fill it in. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say that those wiktionary reconstructions aren't so bad after all. They look like taken from UEW (e.g. roots ending in "e" instead of nowadays usual "i") but they are really valid and up-to-date as they appear in the newest articles from Aikio, Zhivlov etc. What's halting us from compiling swadesh list with those words which are supported by those newest works? Boletto (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary's reconstructions are pretty bad. Many of them are copied verbatim from UEW and cannot be found in newer sources. Our PU coverage as a whole needs an overhaul, and changing the transcription used is best done as part of that. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if I corrected wiktionary forms in accordance to e.g. Aikio's proto-uralic article from last year, would you rollback those changes? Boletto (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so, but I also don't think it's a great idea to take forms from that article and "UEW-ify" them by converting them over to our transcription. But if you think that is something worth doing, I'll defer. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I opt for Aikio-fying reconstructions from wiktionary list, of course only those which aren't utter garbage. And that article was just an example, you know there's a lot other articles that give reconstructed forms according to "modern" standards. Boletto (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you mean overhauling our PU coverage baesd on Aikio's transcription? I'd like to see some discussion on it first between more editors, although at the same time I understand if it feels like that's never going to happen (which might be true). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it's a much larger job than you might think. Not only do we have to update every entry, but every link as well. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I see it would be much work to edit them all. I'll probably start a discussion when I have time. Boletto (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the recently-added numeral list edit

Please look at this discussion: Wiktionary:Information desk/2023/April#Yes I'm from Wikipedia, and yes this is about transwiki And recently I've changed some problematic and unreliable data in the original deleted page's source. A total transwiki would overwrite them, and problems would reappear. I suggest a partial transplant, which does not change those parts recently edited. 17lcxdudu (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically all of the data has to be reviewed, which I doubt is possible or practical for one editor to do. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 04:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of my suggestion is removing 0 from the list, producing a list from 1-10. The reason is that in most indigenous languages, 0 is not considered an independent numeral, and even in languages with numeral 0, it is almost always borrowed (as in English zero) or from a non-numeral word, thus has no worth for comparison. Including 0 into the list will break the list's completeness. 17lcxdudu (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfair block edit

I am user WGW6266, I will edit anonymously because I know that if I create another account and correct the unfair reversals you made in my edits, you will accuse me of sockpuppet. Let's cut to the chase, I don't know if you're a robot or a person, but you unfairly blocked me for no reason. I was fixing the errors contained in the kinship pages. You reverted all my edits unfairly and FOR NO REASON, NOT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE REVERSALS. Where was the ERROR in my edits? Explain. I'll cite an example: since when is the parent's cousin is uncle/aunt? Since when is parent's sibling's spouse is uncle/aunt? Since when is grandparent's sibling's spouse is granduncle/aunt? Since when are the terms "grandcousin", "second uncle" and "second aunt" valid? The most absurd thing is: since when is parent's cousin's spouse is uncle/aunt? Since when is spouse's sibling's child is nephew/niece? Since when is cousin's child is nephew/niece? The most absurd thing is: since when is spouse's cousin's child is nephew/niece? I will give you the correct meanings of kinships:

  • uncle = parent's brother
  • aunt = parent's sister
  • nephew = sibling's son
  • niece = sibling's daughter
  • first cousin once removed = parent's cousin or cousin's child
  • uncle-in-law = spouse's uncle or parent's sibling's husband
  • aunt-in-law = spouse's aunt or parent's sibling's wife
  • nephew-in-law = spouse's nephew or sibling's child's husband
  • niece-in-law = spouse's niece or sibling's child's wife
  • first cousin once removed-in-law = first cousin once removed's spouse or spouse's first cousin once removed
  • granduncle = grandparent's brother
  • grandaunt = grandparent's sister
  • grandnephew = sibling's grandson
  • grandniece = sibling's granddaughter
  • granduncle-in-law = spouse's granduncle or grandparent's sibling's husband
  • grandaunt-in-law = spouse's grandaunt or grandparent's sibling's wife
  • grandnephew-in-law = spouse's grandnephew or sibling's grandchild's husband
  • grandniece-in-law = spouse's grandniece or sibling's grandchild's wife
  • great-granduncle = great-grandparent's brother
  • great-grandaunt = great-grandparent's sister
  • great-grandnephew = sibling's great-grandson
  • great-grandniece = sibling's great-granddaughter
  • great-granduncle-in-law = spouse's great-granduncle or great-grandparent's sibling's husband
  • great-grandaunt-in-law = spouse's great-grandaunt or great-grandparent's sibling's wife
  • great-grandnephew-in-law = spouse's great-grandnephew or sibling's great-grandchild's husband
  • great-grandniece-in-law = spouse's great-grandniece or sibling's great-grandchild's wife
  • cousin-uncle = not exist (I was right to put it to delete)
  • cousin-aunt = not exist (I was right to put it to delete)
  • second uncle = not exist (I was right to put it to delete)
  • second aunt = not exist (I was right to put it to delete)
  • grandcousin = not exist (I didn't put it up for deletion, but it should be deleted too)
  • half-uncle = parent's half-brother
  • half-aunt = parent's half-sister
  • half-nephew = half-sibling's son
  • half-niece = half-sibling's daughter
  • half-uncle-in-law = spouse's half-uncle or parent's half-sibling's husband
  • half-aunt-in-law = spouse's half-aunt or parent's half-sibling's wife
  • half-nephew-in-law = spouse's half-nephew or half-sibling's child's husband
  • half-niece-in-law = spouse's half-niece or half-sibling's child's wife
  • sibling or full sibling = who has two parents in common
  • half-sibling = who has one parent in common
  • half-cousin = who has zero parents and one grandparent in common (the definition of a half-cousin being the half-uncle/aunt's child is correct, I just added the number of grandparents in common)
  • cousin = who has zero parents and two grandparents in common (the definition of a cousin being the uncle/aunt's child is correct, I just added the number of grandparents in common)
  • double-cousin = who has zero parents and four grandparents in common (in addition to putting the number of grandparents in common, I also put that double-cousin is the child of the aunt (parent's sister) and uncle (other parent's brother) at the same time)
  • second cousin = who has zero parents, zero grandparents and two great-grandparents in common
  • third cousin = who has zero parents, zero grandparents, zero great-grandparents and two great-great-grandparents in common
  • fourth cousin = who has zero parents, zero grandparents, zero great-grandparents, zero great-great-grandparents and two great-great-great-grandparents in common

I don't intend to make my edits again, as I want you to revert your edit to mine myself, as I don't want to start an edit war. 2804:214:8590:4444:3425:1204:29C8:9B1 22:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing "unfair". You've been at this for years and are still as clueless as back then. There's no point in trying because it's easy to tell when you're editing and simply revert and block you, as everyone somehow agrees to do. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I wrong for correcting the meaning of the words? Clueless you are, and besides, you're an asshole too. You do this out of pure persecution, if you think you own the truth and still want to be authoritarian, reverting my edits just because I disagree with you. And why didn't you answer my questions? I will write them again here.
But I know your character, you didn't answer, because you know the meanings are wrong, but you'd rather play authoritarian than let the entries be corrected.
1) Since when is the parent's cousin is uncle/aunt?
2) Since when is parent's sibling's spouse is uncle/aunt?
3) Since when is grandparent's sibling's spouse is granduncle/aunt?
4) Since when are the terms "grandcousin", "second uncle" and "second aunt" valid?
5) Since when is parent's cousin's spouse is uncle/aunt?
6) Since when is spouse's sibling's child is nephew/niece?
7) Since when is cousin's child is nephew/niece?
8) Since when is spouse's cousin's child is nephew/niece? 18:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, anon, your command of English colloquial usage is tenuous at best. All of your purportedly "wrong" examples in the short list here are common terminology in my family, speakers of American English for ... at least a century, longer depending on the branch. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's wrong with the definitions I've put in? I really put it right. Each type of kinship must be used in its proper place. The person may even consider it, but that doesn't mean it's correct. 2804:214:8590:2215:BC56:F737:C8D2:7228 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you understand descriptive lexicography.
If enough people use a word to mean X, then that word means X.
I am a native speaker of US English, raised by native speakers of US English, themselves raised by native speakers of US English. My father's male cousin has always been my uncle, my mother's brother's wife has always been my aunt, etc.
You are substituting your personal subjective ideas about what these words should mean, for demonstrable examples of how other people actually use these words in everyday life. Objectively, empirically, confirmably, you are incorrect.
Your insistence that things are as you say, in contravention of more widely observable reality, begins to look like delusion. Please stop. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Father’s cousin” is definitely not your uncle. Your fathers brother or his sister’s husband…absolutely. 2600:6C50:B00:3927:4D7F:79D2:9C7B:86D3 07:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet, in my family's use of the English language as native speakers, my parents' cousins have definitely always been called aunts and uncles.
You are welcome to use the terms differently.
You are not welcome to edit Wiktionary entries to conform with your usage, while ignoring everyone else's. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read the true meanings of the words referring to kinship that I put on your talk page? I'm sure you didn't even want to look, because you are unashamed. 2804:214:8590:5113:E9D9:A453:93F0:E0BD 18:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I had put some false information, I wouldn't be complaining, but since I didn't put anything false and you blocked my account for no reason, I came to complain about your abuse of authority and your bad faith. So the words must be in line with what do you think then? 18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did put "false information". You were wrong years ago and are no less wrong today. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did I put "false information"? Accusing is easy, now I want to see proof, you asshole. You think you're the last cookie in the package and you think you own the truth. Go eat poo. 2804:214:8590:2215:BC56:F737:C8D2:7228 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I think we've entertained you enough. Nothing will change the fact that (a) you're wrong, (b) openly committing block evasion and (c) openly committing global lock evasion. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do have the option of finding three durably archived uses (not mentions, as in a dictionary) that unambiguously show the "true" meaning where it differs from what is in the entry. Sometimes "true" meanings are not supportable. Similarly, you could challenge the definitions now in the entries that you object to. It is highly likely that at least some of the definitions you find wrong are supportable. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answering, it's not because people consider it, that means it's right. I find it totally absurd to say that the parent's cousin is an uncle/aunt, being that in fact the parent's cousin is the first cousin once removed. Just as it is absurd to say that the cousin's child is a nephew/niece, when in fact the cousin's child is first cousin once removed. 2804:214:8590:2215:BC56:F737:C8D2:7228 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You find it absurd, likely because you are not a native speaker of English. Meanwhile, I find it commonsensical and obviously understandable. In my experience living most of my life in a US English-speaking environment, the only times anyone uses terms like "first cousin once removed" is when they are discussing genealogy. Otherwise, the children of a sibling or a cousin are much more commonly referred to as nieces and nephews.
Your hyper-specificity is not reflective of actual real-world use, and in fact you appear to be denying how other people commonly use these kinship terms. This is inappropriate for a descriptive dictionary project like Wiktionary. See also #2 at WT:WWIN. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WGW6266, if you see this, I would ask you on a personal level to not write a post as long as the first post in this discussion, which was 628 words long- I don't know anything about you or about the discussion. But based on a quick glance, I would say: keep things as terse as you can- shorter than this. I personally have trouble with writing my diatribes, screeds and rants at length. But I try to say at 150 words or 500 words max in important comments. Keeping things short as possible makes you seem more reasonable and measured, whereas a gigantic comment is very intense. Good luck to all! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

housuntakamus edit

Hi, the narrow transcription of the pronunciation of housuntakamus should be [ˈho̞u̯s̠un̪ˌt̪ɑ̝kɑ̝mus̠], so the "n" is as it is followed by /t̪/. However, I couldn't figure out how I would need to modify Module:fi-IPA to achieve that. Can you fix it? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be fixable by adding a new replacement - I'll try adding one. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was actually adjusting the existing replacements that fixed it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with language aliases edit

Hello, Surjection. I've suggested some additional aliases for a few languages. Can you make these changes?

Nakakaano (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will review these at some point when I have time. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. Nakakaano (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block for User:WhatIsACohenite edit

@Surjection, can you please block WhatIsACohenite (talkcontribs) for counterproductive edits and wheelwarring? -- {{victar|talk}} 23:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you keep deleting the declension table WhatIsACohenite (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatIsACohenite: Perhaps you didn't read my edit comment: "as the user who made the module, [I] can tell you it only so far works for certain declensions, this not being one of them. that is why you can plainly see its broken on this entry". --{{victar|talk}} 00:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So make another declension table if that's the case lol and it's not broken WhatIsACohenite (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not understanding. **mádʰaw is not the nominative singular of *mádʰu. Using {{iir-decl-noun}} on the pages you're adding them to is producing incorrect declensions. --{{victar|talk}} 00:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be nice to mention in its documentation that the template should only be deployed for certain declensions or that it is "under construction". DCDuring (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanghi edit

Kindly don't repeat this edit. The meaning of Sanghi is clearly defined here:

Editorkamran (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing senses out of process is not allowed. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, its misleading so why it should not be removed?
Now that I have explained why it needs to be removed, then why you are still restoring it? Editorkamran (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because again, you cannot simply remove senses if you disagree with them. If you think the term isn't actually used that way, you're free to start a RFV. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone incorrectly added a sentence which should be removed for being misleading. RFV seems to be deletion of entire page than a single sentence. Editorkamran (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the page clearly states that it is for "disputing the existence of terms or senses" (emphasis mine). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok but can I get unblocked early? I promise not to edit war without gaining consensus. Editorkamran (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would you need to be unblocked from editing that one page? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To keep record clear here. I never even had the warning, nor I was aware of what constitutes as violation here. Editorkamran (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The record isn't going to be "clear". The block already occurred due to your edit warring. Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I wasn't made aware of it. You were required to warn first. Also when I have agreed not to edit war then the block is not preventative anymore. Editorkamran (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no WMF site in which edit warring is not frowned upon. There is no reason to overturn the block just because you promise you will not edit-war, especially since the block only affects that one page and is short in duration, or because you want to "keep record clear", which is not something removing the block will do anyway. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are specific rules which you are ignoring. Read Wiktionary:Blocking_policy#Explanation
You cannot block over only and only 1 revert when you are the one who made 2 reverts yourself.
"Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative", you said yourself and now you are contradicting yourself.
Unblocking will keep my "record clear" that I didn't exactly deserve the block and if I did then the issue was resolved. Editorkamran (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2023/May#Blocked_by_Surjection. Editorkamran (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tvilling not a Finnish surname? edit

About month ago you had removed Finnish stem in Tvilling article here. I wonder what made you to remove, provided it's surname present in Finland - please open DVV Nimipalvelu page and check for Tvilling folks accounted and verified by DVV over years. Wonder what facts you have checked before removal. Aytvill (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnson gets ten times as many results and it's still not a Finnish surname. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sampsa Tvilling (taken as random example) is not Finn and is not Tvilling either, right? Aytvill (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not an argument. There are many, many Finns with Swedish surnames, for example. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid we have different understanding of semantics. You persist on "Swedish" surnames of Finns. While in my books their surnames are Finnish, not Swedish. When I look at Category:Finnish surnames I see there as sub-category Category:Finnish_surnames_from_Swedish - they are NOT named as Swedish but as derived from Swedish (and hence being implicitly Finnish). That in turn makes me think you try to impose unwritten "rules". Looks like I'm going to submit it for verification, requesting you being excluded. Aytvill (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those shouldn't exist in principle either, but they're so common (or commonly used) that I'm fine with letting them pass. There is no standard regarding whether surnames are truly belonging to one language or another, so every language has its own rules. "requesting you being excluded": you don't make the rules around here and can't tell me which discussions I take and don't take part in. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took time to calm down, think and look around for sources.
As per (quote) "There is no standard regarding whether surnames are truly belonging to one language or another, so every language has its own rules." - this is not exactly truth in Finland: there is legal regulation and academic consensus-driven mechanism.
There is DVV name service which keeps list of names for legal & statistic purposes.
And there is Kotus which is "The Institute for the Languages of Finland", and they describe themselves as "devoted to the study and language planning of Finnish and Swedish". Mind you, Kotus also has extensive enough research and publications dedicated to names as language features/entities. And they compile "both normative and descriptive dictionaries".
So language standards exist and they are maintained, also about names too. But I agree with you in main principle - things should make sense.
So I take pause as I need some time to draw lines between "belongs to language" and "belongs to country" in Finnish context. And then maybe return for more grounded and productive conversation. (and make finally account for wiktionary too). Aytvill (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These standards are for linguistic prescriptive bodies and not this project, where the question of how to handle surnames has still not been solved even after twenty years of existence. I'm not sure how much of what you linked actually applies to the Finnish language specifically (which is what I maintain is the topic here) rather than surnames in Finland. The Finnish language is not equivalent to Finland, and that a surname exists in Finland does not necessarily mean it can be considered to be in the Finnish language. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

finnish edit

do you have plan to creat finnish declencion and forms with your bot 08:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SurjectionBot/fi-inflSURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qarsherskiy edit

I noticed you and another user vandalized the page for Qarsherskiy and I couldn’t find the report button but I was wondering why you think it’s OK to do that and what’s your agenda? Ya Ali Madadi (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no "vandalizing". We simply don't document made-up things. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing was made up. It’s a micronation. Your ignorance doesn’t justify abolishment of words. Ya Ali Madadi (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Micronations are made up by definition. At least some of them have some kind of recognition and coverage. Yours doesn't. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one I live in does. Also, what are you saying? We’re as “made up” as USA and Canada. Ya Ali Madadi (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're fooling nobody. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ya Ali Madadi: is your nation Sunni or Shia? Vahag (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are Sunni and Shi’a Muslims here but Sunnis barely outnumber Shi’a and are the majority. Ya Ali Madadi (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish to fool nobody Ya Ali Madadi (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

R(o)uble edit


At present "rouble" is listed only as "an alternative spelling of ruble", when this is the standard spelling in most forms of English (see Oxford, Collins dictionaries etc). "Ruble" is only standard in North American English and Wiktionary should not prioritize only one form of English. 14:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. ruble is a much more common spelling overall, see e.g. Google Trends.
2. Per Wiktionary:English entry guidelines#Regional differences, the entry created first gets higher priority on being the lemma. ruble was created before rouble, and the latter was created as a variant spelling entry to begin with.
Thus any move would require wider community consensus. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google is an American company, so checking anything there would inevitably return American spelling. doesn't even use British English spelling. It seems the entire Wikimedia project is completely infested with a bias toward American sources and I must concede that it is a waste of time to try to reform it. Good day.... it has not been a pleasant experience. 01:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swadesh lists in CAT:E edit

Please check your edits to Module:Swadesh. It looks like you inadvertently broke something. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are none in CAT:E anymore. I've tried several different pages and had no errors. Do you remember at least one that had any? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because, after waiting an hour, I undid your last edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The error was in line 96- something about expecting a table and getting nil. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sock edit

Hi, just FYI: MihaiDictonaryWiki belongs to the w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mihai000 farm. Best, Achim55 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rfd discussion -ающий edit

I've searched for over an hour now, where do I find the discussion on this? The page just tells me to look there but I am unable to find it. Thanks for helping out. Jmfrank63 (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#-ающий, -яющий, -ающийсяSURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adjektiivi mahti edit

Hei taas! Googlehauilla "ihan mahtia", "mahdeinta", "ihan mahteja", "mahdeimmat" ja "mahdimpi" tulee suhteellisen paljon tuloksia joissa adjektiivia mahti käytetään taivutettuna. Ehditkö katsomaan asiaa jossakin välissä? En itse ole ihan varma mitä sille sivulle olisi parasta tehdä ja miten se tässä wikissä tapahtuu. Jouluntähti (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyrin jossain vaiheessa katsomaan tarkemmin. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

obsolete Template:fi-form of? edit

I am trying to deprecate lang-specific form-of templates as much as possible. It looks like this is possible for {{fi-form of}}, although we might need a specialized template when there are clitic suffixes (something like {{fi-suffixed|-kö|-hän}} that just displays the parenthetical part of {{fi-form of}}). Maybe it would make sense to add support for clitics to {{infl of}} as I suspect other languages have them as well. Benwing2 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it should be possible once the suffixes are handled. I've actually rewrote not just {{fi-form of}}, but also {{fi-verb form of}}, {{fi-infinitive of}} and {{fi-participle of}} to use {{infl of}}, so the bulk of the conversion can be gleaned from the module code itself. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am thinking of adding an |enclitic= param to {{infl of}} that takes a comma-separated list of suffixes, e.g. if |enclitic=-kö,-hän is given, it displays (with clitics -kö and -hän) at the end. Similarly we could add |proclitic= if there is a need for it. How does this sound? Benwing2 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I implemented the |enclitic= param. You can actually specify inline modifiers on the clitics if needed, e.g. |enclitic=-ке<tr:-kɛ>,-ный<pos:adjectival> or |enclitic=-kö<qq:variant of {{m|fi|-ko}}>,-hän<qq:variant of {{m|fi|-han}}>. I am converting {{fi-form of}} and {{fi-verb form of}} currently. The former conversion produces 36 warnings, see User:Benwing2/fi-form-of-warnings, and the latter produces 5 warnings, see User:Benwing2/fi-verb-form-of-warnings. If possible, can you clean up the bad parameter uses in these template calls? It's enough to just fix them to the correct param uses for {{fi-form of}} or {{fi-verb form of}} and I'll then rerun the scripts to convert them to {{infl of}}. BTW I am looking into converting {{fi-infinitive of}} and {{fi-participle of}}. The former seems to generate (or formerly generated) stuff like this:
Third active infinitive of tehdä in illative case.
But it looks like you've already converted this to a more standard form? If so the conversion should be possible, with the categorization handled in Module:form of/cats. Benwing2 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, both {{fi-infinitive of}} and {{fi-participle of}} should be convertible into {{infl of}}, although the templates are currently a bit too permissive of the forms they allow (but I can scan that later after the conversion, which may in fact be easier than trying to check it before). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I checked the warnings. I did notice that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fi-form of still has many entries, though. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Surjection They are all gone now, what you probably saw was the script still running. Benwing2 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

prespecified list of label data modules edit

I implemented language-specific inflection tags and discovered that calling pcall() to see if a given lang-specific module exists is very expensive; it immediately caused the memory errors to jump up from 48 to 75 or so. The solution is to keep a pre-specified list of the lang-specific modules in existence. That is slightly annoying in that when you create a new such module you also have to update the table, but it seems better than the alternative. I implemented the same for label data modules; this didn't reduce the memory errors so dramatically but it pushed out the place where the error occurs to much farther towards the end on several pages (e.g. on ala the memory errors started around Serbo-Croatian before and now they're at the end of Zulu, which is the last language on the page). Benwing2 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agbero edit

The name gbero is a Yoruba language that means a person who helps a driver get commuters. The latest revert was wrong to depict only negativity and not true meaning. 13:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You cannot simply delete senses if you do not agree with them. You're free to dispute those meanings by starting a request for verification, but at least one of those senses has a quote showing the word being used in that sense. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

module errors in template space from Module:fi-verbs edit

See CAT:E. Benwing2 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I Was Talking About edit

I apparently deleted everything before you had a chance to see it. Take a look at Special:DeletedContributions/ to see the hack I was talking about. Chuck Entz (talk)

I don't think there is much reason to let them keep editing. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

varista edit

I won't enter an edit war, but yes, varisema is a loan from Finnish. [6] Yet, even if it wasn't, and even if we already do come up with our own reconstructions, we should not. We erode our integrity by choosing not to cite our sources when they exist and by refusing to follow WT:PROTO when they do not.

[R]econstructions on Wiktionary should ideally cite linguistic sources that show how they can be derived. Alternatively, they can refer to sources which provide the reconstruction as-is.

I agree we can claim the word is Proto-Finnic, but reconstructing the word ourselves is rich. brittletheories (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"a loan from Finnish"? You cannot read the source. Let me translate it for you:

varisema : variseda : varisen [translation]
Cognate: Finnish varista [translation]
Finnic root. Also compare vare.

A borrowing from Finnish looks completely different. Here is an example.
[R]econstructions on Wiktionary should ideally cite linguistic sources that show how they can be derived. Alternatively, they can refer to sources which provide the reconstruction as-is.
"ideally". Finnic cognacy is often transparent, and, as a result, Proto-Finnic is often trivial to reconstruct. There is no reason not to. We're not "eroding our integrity" by doing so, and indeed, it's a relatively common practice. Something like Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Uralic is a completely different case, since that often isn't trivial to reconstruct. There are very few centralized sources for Proto-Finnic reconstructions. YSuS is the main one, but that is recent and does not include every possible reconstruction (e.g. derivatives). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? 12:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a convention here that Japanese romaji entries are only to have kana spellings, not kanji ones (which are instead linked under the kana spellings). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was looking for what "okashi" means in Japanese, I came across this page, then to おかし but there was no link to お菓子. I found お菓子 somehow, so I added the link to it on okashi to make it easier to find in the future. If お菓子 links to okashi, why okashi can't link to お菓子? 13:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that's what the Japanese editors have agreed: that romaji spellings only point to kana, not to kanji. It probably serves to remove redundancy and duplication (to add more kanji spellings, you only have to edit one page and not two, etc.) — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I add a link to お菓子 on おかし? 13:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could, but you don't have to, because おかし already links to お菓子. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubsmash edit

Hi. How Dubsmash is not dictionary material? Pirhayati (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brand names are not automatically dictionary material. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Brand names, Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand namesSURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

кацап edit

Salute! Here I removed the false etymology. Why did you rollback? 14:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you removed a sourced etymology just because you don't like it, which is not going to fly. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please spare me your fantasies about my likes and dislikes. I left in the article a really sourced etymology (Max Vasmer). And can you point out the source of the etymology I removed? — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 14:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
It's in the bottom source in the list of references for that entry. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, at least make an appropriate note - for example, as in the fourth link (Melnychuk, O. S., editor (1982–2012), “Surjection”, in Етимологічний словник української мови [Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] (in Ukrainian), Kyiv: Naukova Dumka): "insufficiently substantiated conclusion" (Ukrainian: "недостатньо обґрунтоване виведення").

I consider the rollback almost erroneous edit

Where did I make a mistake ? Arthana Saroni (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you add an entry on the category page? It should be on its own page (Reconstruction:Proto-Scythian/duri in this case). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aimée edit

Hi, I don't understand your revert for the pronunciation of "Aimée".

In the English I know, American English, "Aimée" is usually pronounced the same as "Amy".

Please check for example:


David 16:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also in the first seconds: 16:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
French entries aren't supposed to have English pronunciations. If there's a distinct English entry to have, it can be added as a separate heading with its own pronunciation, but we don't have "English pronunciations" under French entries. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks but I fail to understand the content of these 2 separate headings.
What should be done for the etymology? I don't think it should be duplicated between the French and English headings.
Please advise.
Thanks. 17:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the French pronunciation is sometimes used by native English speakers.
Should the French pronunciation also be added to the English heading then? With a mention explaining this?
Thanks. 17:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"English" pronunciations belong under English headings, not French ones. Since the English term is from the French one, the etymology of the English term would read that it is from French.

Also, the French pronunciation is sometimes used by native English speakers. Should the French pronunciation also be added to the English heading then? With a mention explaining this?

The pronunciation itself shouldn't be added. I would consider this code-switching, but if it is really worth mentioning, there could be a note in the pronunciation section saying something like "or pronounced as in French". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your answers.
It's not code-switching.
It's more up to personal preferensclike the pronunciations of "Lisa". I edited the article based on your answers. I found out the "proper" way for the etymology. I'd like to add a link from the mention of the French pronunciation to the actual French pronunciation but I haven't found out how to do so yet. 17:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can your bot do this? edit

Hello Surjection. I've been working on making Module:et-nominals support all ÕS nominal inflection types. Mainly, the templates {{et-decl-riik}}, {{et-decl-külm}}, and {{et-decl-leib}} have been just sort of doing their own thing, which you can see comparing the source codes of those templates with those of some other Estonian declension templates. I believe that the module can now support these declension types as well. The problem, though, is that the parameters had to be changed and therefore all pages of these declension types have to be edited accordingly as well. But there's more than 700 pages currently using just {{et-decl-riik}} and editing all of those is a task I do not want to undertake manually. Can your bot do it? Joonas07 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but it needs to know how exactly to convert parameters from the old format to the new one. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current parameters are explained on {{et-decl-riik/documentation}} (they are the same for the other two templates). The new parameters would be:
  • {{{1}}} would the base parameter, minus the last consonant.
  • {{{2}}} would be the strong grade consonant.
  • {{{3}}} would be the weak grade consonant.
  • {{{4}}} would be the same as {{{3}}} currently, i.e. the final vowel.
So for example, riik is currently {{et-decl-riik|riik|riig|i}}, but it should be {{et-decl-riik|rii|k|g|i}}.
Külm is {{et-decl-külm|külm|külm|a}}, but it should be {{et-decl-külm|kül|m|m|a}} (or {{et-decl-külm|kü|lm|lm|a}}, I'm not sure).
Leib is {{et-decl-leib|leib|leiv|a}}, but it should be {{et-decl-leib|lei|b|v|a}}.
There's still a lot more to do in tidying up Estonian on Wiktionary, so I might ask you or your bot to do something like this again. Joonas07 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds doable. I think it's a good idea to schedule this in such a way that the templates are replaced with the new versions just prior to updating the templates so that the pages still look correct. Do you have the new versions of those templates somewhere? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's just a matter of invoking the module. Joonas07 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be Module:et-nominals, correct? What about the |oou= parameter? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. But I'm not sure about the parameter. By the description it sounds like it omits the final vowel in singular cases but I don't know off the top of my head if there are any nouns like that. Joonas07 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it doesn't seem like that parameter is used anywhere. Well, I can start the conversion job later today. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I know what the parameter is for (even though it's not used anywhere). See nouns like hoog, pood and jõud. The partitive singular of "hoog" would be "hoogu", so the expected genitive sg would be *hoou, which doesn't roll off the tongue, so it's actually just "hoo", without the final vowel. Same with "jõud": is "jõudu", but is shortened to "jõu" (from the expected *jõuu). "Pood" is also of this declension type but for some reason it has it's own declension template ({{et-decl-pood}}). This is a bit less regular, with the genitive singular being "poe" instead of *pooi (as is "poodi"). These things should probably be coded into the module. Joonas07 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joonas07 Now   doneSURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I might write in this section again when I come around to other declension types. Thhanks again! Joonas07 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you update the template documentation? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Joonas07 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? edit

I changed the latin meaning to the meaning from the site that was given as reference in that page. Why would you revert it? Meaning you reverted back to has no reference. Archjonas (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you have no clue what you're doing and are just removing content at random. As for the meaning, "a bandit, scoundrel, vagrant" is not at all that different from "a vagabond" especially in light of the word's etymology. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot added duplicate "Further reading" sections edit

It looks like you bot added a duplicate Further reading section to ~80 pages. See User:JeffDoozan/lists/section_order/dup_sections for a complete list. Only the items marked Finnish are from the bot. JeffDoozan (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll check — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ramalamadingdong edit

How are three isolated uses from usenet in the early 2000s good enough to prove that this nonsense word from 20th century American music is a slur for Ramadan? 13:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because our criteria for inclusion say so. Three independent quotes spanning over a year, from a source we currently consider to be "permanently recorded". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What an asinine criteria. 13:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not the first nor the last person to think that we're being too lax on Usenet, but the criteria are still what they are (probably because nobody has drafted a proposal yet to address that issue). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, at least. Sorry for breaking the rules. 13:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bardhylis edit

This word is 1000000% not a "learned borrowing from Greek". This is ridiculous. I don't know why you state that since it is non-sensical. I don't know your level of Greek but if you knew anything about it you wouldn't make that claim. The root words are clearly not Greek, just like Aphrodite being from aphros is denied by all scholars. The root words derive from Messapic, Albanian or a third source, but they are absolutely not Greek. Mind you, Bardhylis wasn't a Greek king, so not even historically would it make sense for him to have a greek name...Every single scholar agrees on this matter. Albanian gives the most likely explanation. But if you're bothered by the albanian explanation, at least remove the "learned borrowing" part because it makes you look stupid. Check the wikipedia article on Bardhylis. Blu145 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We follow what the reliable sources say. Albanian hypernationalistic "linguistics" of the type "every word comes from Albanian" is not welcome here. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaura edit

Please take more care with your bot. I had to restore the English entry. DonnanZ (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D'oh. The problems a single missing character in code can cause... — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No apology? I hope you double-checked any other bot work you did. DonnanZ (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did and found a few more entries that it had accidentally removed. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The horrifying thing is that they may have gone undetected if I hadn't notified you. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might have noticed it (much) later (i.e. much too late), but thank you for reporting it in any case. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese transliteration edit

I have a question, if a Chinese term is a transliteration of a foreign language name, could the Chinese term be added to the "Descendants" parts. And if it's ok, in {{descendant}}, how to deal with the "bor" parameter, should "bor" be set to "1"?

Take 伊麗莎白 as an example, it's a transliteration of Elizabeth. Kethyga (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give |translit=1 to the {{descendant}} template. As to whether transliterations should be shown under descendants, that's something that each language editing community decides - not sure about what the stance is for English. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adekugbe edit

Hello, Adekugbe is completely a Yoruba surname not an Igbo word or a borrowed word. I am fluent in Igbo, and I have been speaking Igbo from birth, to say that Adekugbe is a borrowed Igbo word insinuates that it has a meaning in Igbo which it doesn’t. The word Adekugbe does not point to anything in Igbo language because Igbos do not use that word at all, this is a Yoruba word. This is not a case of a borrowed word this is a case of a word that has never been used by igbos being classified as a word that they have used which isn't true. Check Igbo dictionaries you wouldn't find this word because it is completely a foreign word that we do not use at all. Bernadine okoro (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, fine. I'll be somewhat lenient with this kind of unequivocal language change just because it's a surname. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proto-Samoyedic *səmpəlaŋkə edit

I think you messed up by changing the page from *səmpəlaŋkə to *səmpəläŋkə. I believe this was incorrect because if it were correct, the Nenets reflex would be *самлеӈг and the Selkup reflex would have the [ä] or [e] vowel when it has [a]. Nenets underwent a vowel shift where, after in Non-Nganasan Samoyedic *e > *i, in Nenets, *ä > *e (except word finally), a > ä, and å > a. Wizardito-OL (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And your sources for this are? Either provide sources that show that *səmpəlaŋkə, a form found in absolutely no source that I could find, is the correct reconstruction, or stop being like a bull in a china shop in our Uralic entries. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How old is your source? Apparently, older sources give different reconstructions of words. Wizardito-OL (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source for səmpəlaŋkə: Wizardito-OL (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A PowerPoint with no author or references. What a bulletproof source against academic articles. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mean to vandalise, so please stop with the nasty attitude. Anyway, I couldn't find the authors, although I tried. If it's a primary source, it wouldn't have references. I'm truly sorry (not in a sarcastic way) if I mess up sourcing, or I don't know what I'm talking about, because I don't know much about sourcing, despite my attempts to learn it. Wizardito-OL (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, thr paper is from the University of Vienna. Wizardito-OL (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were edit warring to restore your changes without care for how we standardize things because you found one source. That is why I made the comment I made. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Surjection 01:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bdóte page edit

Hi, I notice you converted Translinguial to English on the bdóte page. Bdóte (the placename) is not English, it is Dakota. It's a Dakota word and a Dakota tradition. In English the place is called Bdóte which is the Dakota name: the name is the same in both (and presumably all) languages. So I was presuming that makes it translingual since it's the same in all languages, and it's not English so the English heading would be incorrect. Can you explain the change to me? Thanks! Pingnova (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translingual isn't used for place names like this. Besides, the capitalized entry should be on its own page (Bdóte). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have example page/s with a word that changes with capitalization so I can copy that style? I combed through the entry layout guide which includes guidance on a lot of atypical cases but unfortunately didn't see anything explaining how to handle this. Thanks! Pingnova (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The basic idea is that words that are always spelled capitalized are grouped under a capitalized title. An example of this could be something like how the surname Smith is distinct from the word smith. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll work on this. Curious, how is a placename such as that handled then? Just a different article with a capitalized title, even if the meaning is the same, ignoring its attachment to a particular location as a placename? I focus on Dakota and much of Minnesota has Dakota placenames that are just words that were adopted by European settlers as placenames. Such as the name of the state itself: Minnesota is Mní Sota (fully Mní Sota Makoce), Minnesota and Mní Sota have the same definition as a placename and "where the water reflects the sky." Pingnova (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would imagine most of the quotes of those place names you can find will be in English texts, so it'll be fine to just add them as English entries. If they're also used in e.g. Dakota as place names, you could add them there as well (if appropriate; I'm not familiar enough with these languages to say whether that is something that should be done). Note however that these quotes should illustrate uses of these place names, not just mentions (e.g. a text saying that Minnesota is from that Dakota term is a mention, not a use). If the term is only mentioned in texts, it might be a better idea to not have a full entry for it, but instead write the appropriate details, such as the original Dakota term, in the corresponding etymology section (e.g. of Minnesota). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is worth noting that while our criteria require at least three quotes with uses to be available for English entries, the criteria are much more lax for Dakote entries for which it is enough that the term is mentioned, not necessarily even used, in a single reputable body of work (e.g. an authoritative dictionary). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: quotes. Quotes are examples of how to use the word in a sentence then, and so a quote that uses the word just to define it isn't appropriate? So "he ate a burger" is correct but "burger is short for hamburger" is not, because it doesn't illustrate how the word is used?
Quotes that define or mention a word can be included in references though, correct?
Thanks for explaining, I'm an old hand on Wikipedia but new to Wiktionary. I would like to contribute lots, but I've got much to learn on the style. There is much Dakota language literature and scholarship out there but very little appears to be on Wikipedia. Hopefully I can help with that. Pingnova (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is correct. Quotes that mention terms are completely fine; it is just that such a quote does not count towards our attestability requirements, but they can still be added to entries as references and even as quotes. However, if a term is only mentioned in books, it may be a sign that the term is not actually used as such in English, in which case it should not have an English entry. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Zealandic edit

The word “New Zealandic” is not an ‘error’ is just rare. I do agree the the common adjective is “new zealand” 11:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"underused" tells me all I need to know - that you want this to be a term, yet it isn't. We document language as it is, not as you'd want it to be. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look it up it is very much a proper term121.98.239.99 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can start a discussion at the Tea room if you want, but edit-warring just gets you blocked, and continuing the edit war with an account won't work- it's grounds for using the checkuser tool, which can see the IP address and details of the operating system used. If I see you trying to evade your block again, I'll block you from more than just the one page. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Batman edit

Really? Why did you revert my edit? More precision is always better. When I first discovered Batman (the city in Turkey), I mistakenly throught is is derived from the name of the superhero. Any body can do such mistake. ~So I think it is better to keep my edit. Yassine Mehdi 19:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"So I think it is better to keep my edit" No it isn't. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Surjection Why exactly? Yassine Mehdi 20:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the reasoning given in the original revert. Can be found in Batman page history. Equinox 21:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, no one names major cities and provinces after comic-book characters, and it would be silly to explain things that readers should already know. Besides which, there are so many coincidental matches between terms in different languages (see Category:False cognates and false friends for just a fraction of them, that it simply isn't practical to mention them in etymologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sută edit

Hi, why did you remove my edits? I based them on the Dicționarul Etimologic Român (1958-1966), which acknowlegdes the slavic etymon "sŭto" for romanian "sută", but admits phonetic difficulties for the changes of ŭ > u. The ŭ was dissimilated in all slavic languages. Also, I do not understand the removal of the phrase "It is the only Romanian numeral that is not of Latin origin" (which I took from the above-mentioned source), as all other numeral in Romanian are inhereted from Latin, "sută" being the only one that is borrowed from a foreign language, which I think is an important distinction for the Etymology section. Șcheauca (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. The way you worded your edits makes you sound like you really don't want this word to be of Slavic origin. Since you have a source for the claim you made, you can add it back (ideally with the source). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fi-decl-pieni-hame edit

This combination does not seem to work, see Pieni vesikäärme. Could you have a look? Hekaheka (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be easy enough to add. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdu l-… edit

It means a servant of the… It’s neither rare nor common, it simply doesn’t exist. 2001:16A2:718D:6100:8874:EEB3:BEB8:F338 17:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nowhere does it say that it's an Arabic name, but it does clearly exist. The usage notes could be clearer about the fact that it isn't used independently as an Arabic name, though. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tradder edit

I’m curious. What’s “tradder”? — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The translation adder gadget. The way it's designed means that when you add the first translation, it loads the page's wikitext for editing. When you save, it saves the changes... and if there's an edit conflict, it just overwrites anything anyway, which causes it to delete changes made in between. This is exactly why I've asked before for you to add your translations before adding translation requests, because it's frustrating when I have to go back and readd the translations I just added a moment ago. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

क़ुरान edit

Why my changing has been reverted Sir? I have added reason that क़ुरआन is correct devanagari transliteration of Hindustani قرآن গহীনঅরণ্য (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't move pages to more "correct" spellings. That is a complete misuse of the move tool, which is only used in mainspace when there is a typo or spelling error in a title that is not reflected in wider usage. Create a new entry instead. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ištar edit

the reason? 0abolfazl0 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Proto-Semitic entry already covers this discussion about any possible Indo-European origin much better. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indo-European etymology has no conflict with Proto-Semitic, as it is confirmed on the Proto-Semitic page. 0abolfazl0 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you cannot read our etymologies, please do not edit ours either. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foxfire edit

The origin of this term from "phosphorus" is attested in e.g. [7] [8]. A spoken origin from "faux fire" makes little sense given that "faux" is pronounced "foe" not "fox." 2601:642:4600:3F80:E421:2976:39A9:E02A 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of those says that foxfire comes from phosphorus, but that it may come from phosphorus, i.e. it is one theory out of many, which is definitely not what your edits are saying. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/tupa edit

I see you removed Proto-Finnic *tupa from Proto-West Germanic *stobu. Are we sure the term was borrowed into Proto-Finnic? The term might only be dated to West Germanic. -- Sokkjō 02:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the Proto-Finnic term exists, which it appears to, that in itself suggests that the (PWG) term would have existed in Proto-Germanic, either because it would have been borrowed from Proto-Germanic or from Proto-Norse. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proto-Norse is the same age as Proto-West Germanic. In your mind, what's stopping a term from being borrowed from PWG to PF? -- Sokkjō 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geographic realities. It would take until the Saxons for West Germanic speakers to have direct contact with Finnic speakers, hence Saksa. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Directly, yes, but WG > ON > Finnic isn't out of the realm of possibility. -- Sokkjō 04:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible, but Middle Low German > Old Norse > Proto-Finnic would definitely be anachronistic, so if that were the case, this would have to be a post-PF borrowing. Certainly not impossible (although I would have to double-check the phonetics), but if there were no doubt about the word stretching back to PG, the Proto-Finnic etymology would be entirely reasonable, so I would still be more inclined to believe it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's just the thing, the PG is in doubt, and the WG may be a Latin borrowing, see *stobu. The Norse also borrowed words from the Franks, which we consider a dialect of WG. -- Sokkjō 22:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be an ass, don't delete, move to discusion yourself edit

Oh, come on, don't be an ass. Nobody cares about inner procedures or whatever babel tower rules you live in. We have life too. What hapened - you (wiktionary) have got a helpfull sugestion on posible "гаразд" and "geras/gerai" conection, if you see it needs profesionals discusion, then move it to the discusion, don't just delete it. Just move it yourself.

I'm 80% sure it cognates, and I even see a cognation to latin and proto-indoeuropean roots (they are mentined on page about "geras"/"gerai").

But I'll will not fight here or elsewhere about it, and I don't have time to learn your rules or procedures. I've done my helpfull bit, gave you a hint, a usefull sugestion and info to improve content. Thats it. All whats next is up to you or wiktionary team, and if you process is losing such info, it's your loss. Thank you and goodbye. Take help and don't be an ass. Cheers. 15:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all etymological suggestions are helpful, and it seems that yours certainly wasn't on second glance: geras has two potential PIE roots, neither of which match *gorazdъ. That by itself means I made the right choice in reverting it - as did the wording. Our etymology sections aren't supposed to sound like someone's personal notes about a suggestion for what the etymology could be. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bot entries edit

hi when you creat entries forms with your bot 13:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roll back on Free Climbing edit

Hi Surjection, you reverted my edits on Free Climbing. I have been tidying up articles on en-WP for climbing and found my way to the WikiD for climbing entries. The definition that was there implied that no equipment is used in Free Climbing (i.e. it is more akin to Free solo climbing), which is not accurate. In Free Climbing, equipment is used for protection (but not as an aid). I inserted the definition from the Dictionary (which I attached as a ref) which is more accurate. Thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rolled them back because you straight up copied the definition verbatim from another dictionary, which is a copyright violation. Do not do that. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, not used to Wikidictionary. I'll go back and put it in my words. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that you also revdeleted the references that I added - I thought that adding references would be a good thing to do? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The references can be readded if you feel they are relevant. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hasta el tuétano edit

Hey. Can you undelete this page? Equinox deleted it in a fit of anti-Wonderfool frustration a few years back, although it was good shit P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It'd take me ten times as long to restore it as it did for you to create it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ten times? I calculated it as 13.6 times as long, actually. P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin of the word "Katana", and particle "ga". edit

I would like to know why my two recent edits were reverted with no reason provided. I quoted valid sources and they were just rolled back. Can you kindly let me know the reason? M tartessos (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already list that proposal as one of the possibilities. You simply promoted it to the top for no apparent reason, but in fact it's clear why you're doing it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmong Daw "dhau" edit

Not sure why my edit was rolled back to the wrong IPA. For some reason the White Hmong IPA template turns <dh> into /tʰ/, but it's supposed to be /dʱ/ (source: I'm a speaker). Bisky Riznu I (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPA overriding is fine, but it needs to be formatted correctly, something like {{IPA|mww|/dʱau̯˧/}}. It might however be a better idea to just fix the template/module; the code is in Module:mww-pronunc and it seems to have a fairly straightforward set of correspondences in the code. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah okay, thanks. Fixed up the module so should be good now. Bisky Riznu I (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorwhority is not my invention edit

It goes back at least to 2005 Attested on multiple sites

Please put my page back DeltaSmegma (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UD tosh is still UD tosh. None of those forums are durably archived. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 23:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

adage edit

Well, regardless, we should probably still fix the link somehow. Currently it gives us a link to the nonexistent Middle French section. I'm new to Wiktionary, so what should be done? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Middle French entry simply doesn't exist yet, and that is normal with some historical languages. It is certainly better to have it this way than getting the chronology wrong. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

funerial edit not in the Oxford English Dictionary, even as a variant or archaic spelling. Opera hat (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED isn't the be-all and end-all of what is and isn't an English word. For something to be a misspelling to us, it must be widely recognized as such, because we're a descriptive dictionary. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabernak edit