Surjection

---

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

Add a new topic

---

Template:onomatopoetic

Why do you find issue with this? If it's because of Wiktionary's supposed policy against redirects, that is for mainspace entries, not templates. We have plenty of useful template redirects and there is absolutely no downside to keeping them. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:982D:2083:BB23:FD71 16:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a justified redirect. Template redirects need to have a good reason to exist, and generally the trend has been to eliminate them as much as possible, especially in cases like this where the redirect is highly unlikely to ever be used on a major scale. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

What a silly trend. The effort and data expended in going around deleting them is more than whatever that intended to save is. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:982D:2083:BB23:FD71 16:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Etymology

The name "Mujeet" is not commonly used and does not have a specific cultural or religious association. It is sometimes used by Indian Hindus as a counter-defense when being called "Pajeet," a term often used derogatorily. While "Mujeet" is not an actual word, it was created as a response and has no literal meaning 2404:3100:1003:38CE:1:0:B9BF:48AA 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The term has three quotations, which is enough according to our criteria for inclusion to keep it. Do not add your opinions on entries. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Derived terms

Hi! You're the first admin I saw, so I ask you... Please add gay as pink ink|gay race communism to Derived terms of gay (protected page)TypeO889 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't have Blocked me

Wasn't "The Canterbury Tales" in English? Why would you block me for that? 2603:9000:8100:B539:CC83:72E6:4DB5:C879 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Wiktionary distinguishes between three stages of English, and what on Wiktionary is called "English" is Modern English, while The Canterbury Tales falls under Middle English. But the main issue is that your edit was done so sloppily that it managed to cut out large parts of the page. In hindsight then, the block summary for "vandalism", and perhaps the block in general, was misjudged on my part, since I doubt it was intentional. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk page help

Hello, LTAs/socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder, cross-wiki harassing and vandalizing once more. Could my talk page, User talk:Magitroopa, please be deleted once more here? If possible, could my talk page also be protected? I only primarily use main Wikipedia, and all cross-wiki contributions I do (such as this) is usually trying to deal with the constant vandalism against me cross-wiki. These two accounts/socks of theirs also need (global) lock/bans, please:

• Zjholder rules
• Zjholder 29912 wins at being the best lta

Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: your talk page is now auto-confirmed-only protected. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Boreas

Hello mr Surjection. Boreas is also the god of Storms, Winter, Loneliness, Solitude, Absence, Lack, Sadness, Depression, Calmness and Serenity. Is there anything I can do to add them??? 2A02:586:1E27:B531:D136:792:E5A2:8C75 11:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop adding your made-up nonsense to Wiktionary. You were blocked on Wikipedia for the exact same reason. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't revert my changes in the page of диалект

i have made an ossetian topic of it, so you shouldn't revert my changes, it hurts my feelings Nail123Real (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't add entries if you cannot add the necessary basic information. In general, you should stick to languages you actually speak instead of trying to create entries in every single possible language. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

okay fine Nail123Real (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ

Thanks, just realized the same (needed a definition somewhere). Please check if better now. Also, what do you suggest for the usage notes? Is there a better category to use? MikuChan39 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by categories. Usage notes generally don't use the category system. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you had originally included "notes on usage" (which is not a valid heading)" in the template on top - I see it's gone now, but it still says clean-up needed. Wondering how to make it better. I think the usage information should be somewhere (other than the talk page) because a lot of casual Coptic manuals (for church use) have this wrong, even though there's really no question on what the correct expression is, from a scholarly perspective. It's about as grating on the ears as: he teached me English. MikuChan39 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that the page doesn't use correct templates, neither for the etymology nor the quotations. However, the usage notes do come across as a bit prescriptive, when WIktionary is a descriptive dictionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point, toned it down a bit (re: prescriptivism). How to fix the templates? We are in the lucky position that the quotes are in the Bible and Sahidic and Bohairic bible editions are available electronically, but how to reference them without a print edition? I plan to do a few more to complement the English phrasebook where Coptic currently has redlinks, so I better learn how to do this correctly :-) MikuChan39 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

If they are available online, you can use {{quote-web}}. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Jeruk

Suntingan jeruk kenapa dikembalikan? Jeruk itu pinjaman dari bahasa Jawa. Sedangkan bahasa Indonesia adalah bahasa Melayu itu sendiri. Kalo gak paham sini tak kasih paham.Jawapedia (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Mereko in Urdu

Hello there. You recently removed my edit on the "ko" article in which the word "Mereko" is shown as only being Deccani Urdu. The use of Mereko is also found in Delhi Urdu as well. Karkhandari (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It should be a new entry (heading) instead of replacing the existing one, unless there's some widely agreed practice to only have Deccani entries for entries that are not found elsewhere in Urdu that I am not aware of. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The latter would make the most sense as then you would have to duplicate all of Urdu's entries for a single dialect. This is usually how Deccani dictionaries work (ie. only Deccani-specific words are listed). Karkhandari (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Why?

Why would block me for adding a FRENCH translation? 2603:9000:E102:E587:BC4E:F6A:5E81:A6A9 23:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point I can only understand it as you intentionally acting obtuse. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I need help

I noticed that you deleted the Ithkuil language category. I'm sorry I don't know how to make categories, so can you help me make the category? Thanks.

Signed Gallus lafayettii (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ithkuil is a constructed language, so you should first read Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Constructed languages. It specifies the list of currently allowed languages, but also that other languages may be included in the appendix "at the community's discretion". It to me reads like there would need to be consensus to include it, and if formed, the language code would have to be added into the data modules. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks!

Gallus lafayettii (talk) Gallus lafayettii (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gallus lafayettii To elaborate a bit: WT:LTR is the best place to request recognition of a language, though WT:BP will also do- especially if there's a policy issue involved that needs to be resolved before the language can be recognized. Remember that Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary based on usage. If the only usage is people trying things out/practicing, there's really nothing to describe (not the only issue, but an important one). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you mass delete my pages?

Why did you mass delete my pages? I was going to add the descendants later but I was eating dinner. 38.43.33.127 15:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

You should create entries with the bare minimum, not with much less than the bare minimum and 'add the rest later'. All reconstruction entries need to have descendants and should always have a source, especially when the reconstruction of a particular protolanguage is not practically entirely straightforward from the descendants. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Why was my Jorum edit rejected?

I added a definition to Jorum but it was reverted. Why is that? DoubtfulBadger (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Please read WT:CFI. In addition to adding a protologism, you also managed to remove one of the existing quotes. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I’m sorry. I was trying to do it on my iPhone. I didn’t really understand what happened. I’ll do it on a proper computer next time. DoubtfulBadger (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A case of verbal abuse

Greetings,

Would you be so kind as to take a look at the case of User:Tinbbloli? This guy has been intentionally spreading obscenities directed at Northern Vietnamese (which concerns me, a contributor from Hanoi) on English Wiktionary as of late, these include name-calling me a "Bắc Kì" (something like "a Northern bastard", nasty stuff) and insulting my beautiful accent as "tiếng khỉ" ("monkey sound") [1] (this guy writes in unorthographical Vietnamese so it takes extra brain power to translate what he's saying, but the insults are very clear). He further accuses me of carrying out a sort of "language assimilation" policy since most of his unorthographical and unattested examples were reverted (in accordance with WT:ATTEST I must add). These verbal abuses and vile accusation against me greatly hurt my dignity and my prestige, and of many other contributors from Northern Vietnam I'm sure. Thus, I urge you to take some sort of deterring actions against Tinbbloli, so that he may learn his lesson, or just outright block him indefinitely.

As a sidenote, he has been blocked on Vietnamese Wikipedia for vandalism and spreading bigotry as you can see here [2]. Billcipher123 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I've seen reports of this user's behavior in other aspects too. I've blocked them for now - we cannot tolerate this kind of behavior. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, does Wiktionary have a no-personal-attacks policy like Wikipedia? — Billcipher123 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Not an established policy. There are fewer strict policies here in general. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the type of personal attacks. No admin would tolerate namecalling and verbal abuse, regardless of formal rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

xin chào bạn, tôi là một người Bắc 54 và cũng là Bạn của Tinbbloli(chúng tôi cùng nhau tìm hiểu về ngôn ngữ) tôi thấy từ "Bắc Kì" chỉ là một từ rất bình thường để chỉ người Phía Bắc Việt Nam hoặc chỉ Phía Bắc Việt Nam. Nếu mình phản ứng xấu với từ đó thì mọi người sẽ càng thấy từ đó để miệt thị người Phía Bắc. Còn về vụ chính tả bạn không nên kêu cái này là đúng cái kia là sai, vì tiếng nói có trước chính tả, chính tả là để biểu thị tiếng nói nếu ghi không giống tiếng nói thì không việc gì phải ghi, thế kỉ 17 giáo sĩ rhodes ghi Sky là blời không lẽ bạn cũng kêu đó là sai, là không đúng mà phải ghi Trời mới đúng?

Cảm ơn TranBao1111 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@TranBao1111: Middle Vietnamese and Modern Vietnamese are two different concepts on Wiktionary, please read Wiktionary:About Vietnamese. Also your friend's made-up orthography violates WT:ATTEST criteria. Regarding the "Bắc Kì" part, according to your friend's contribution (on both Wiktionary and Vietnamese Wikipedia), it is definitely, without question, a form of verbal abuse directed at Northern Vietnamese. @Erminwin, @PhanAnh123 (both are Southern Vietnamese) can attest to my plea.

P/S: This guy really advocates for normalization of hate speech lol. Billcipher123 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Billcipher123, @Surjection @Chuck Entz: Worse, the sockpuppeteer ("trùm rối") Không hề giả trân behind Thành viên:Tinbbloli, is described as "extremely dangerous", "many times behaving in a depraved and perverted manner" [as not so subtly indicated by element "loli" in Tinbbloli's user name] like "spreading pornographic images involving homosexuals" and "using profanities"; even worse, "They many times threatened to stab in other Wikipedia users real life, declared Vi[etnamese] Wikipedia a shithole, and threatened to ask the Vietnamese government to close down Wikipedia." ("cực kỳ nguy hiểm" "có nhiều hành vi đồi trụy và biến thái" như "tung hình khiêu dâm đồng tính" "phát ngôn tục tĩu"; tệ hơn nữa, "Y nhiều lần đe dọa đòi đâm các tv Wikipedia khác ngoài đời, tuyên bố Wikipedia Vi là bãi phân và nhiều lần đe dọa kêu chính phủ VN đóng cửa Wikipedia Vi."). Erminwin (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Erminwin: Oh damn, you sure they are the same person? If so nice catch. Billcipher123 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the source: Thành viên:Tinbbloli, quote: "Đây là một tài khoản con rối của Thành viên:Không hề giả trân và đã bị cấm vô hạn." Erminwin (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to check their user page on Vietnamese wiki lmao. Billcipher123 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Derived terms +1

You did good last time. Please add the following Derived terms to gay, which is still protected |cisgay|gaily|gaybait|gaybeseen|gaybine|gaybo|gaybourhood|gayboy|gayby|gayby boom|gaycation|gaycel|Gaychester|gaycism|gaycist|gaydy|gayface|gayfag|gayfeather|gayfolk|gayful|Gaygler|gayhood|gayification|gayify|gayish|gayism|gayization|gayless|gaylicious|gayling|Gaylor|gaylord|gayly|gaymer|gaymo|gayola|gayphobe|gayphobia|gayphobic|Gayreek|gaysian|gayspeak|gaysploitation|Gaystapo|GayStation|gaystream|gaytard|gaytarded|gaytastic|gaytheist|gaytopia|Gayville|gaywad|gaywings|guppie|gusband|holigay|lesbigay|lesbigaytrans|nongay|Norgay|outgay|postgay|transgay|tray|ungay|yestergay Vipgame321 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You can do it yourself now. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

DT3

This time it is genderfucky to add from genderfuck (verb?) Vipgame321 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

finnish seurata etymology

on the page for the finnish word seurata, the etymology includes:

(to follow, come next, ensue): Semantic loan from Swedish följa, itself from German folgen, itself from Latin sequor, cōnsequor (compare also English follow (“accompany; come next, ensue”)).

a brief look through edit history seems to suggest you added this to the page. the page for swedish följa lists it as derived from old norse fylgja, and the page for german folgen lists it as derived from old high german folgēn, both ultimately from proto-germanic *fulgāną. i wouldnt be surprised to learn that the swedish term was actually borrowed from german, and the etymology given is simply incorrect, but it seems completely implausible to me either of those terms or the proto-germanic term would be derived from latin sequor. is the implication meant to be that the swedish term is a semantic loan from german which is in turn a semantic loan from latin? this also seems unlikely, since the proto germanic root has no meaning given except for "to follow", and none of the etymologies make any mention of semantic loans from latin. is this just an error or what? apologies if you didnt add this or if this is the wrong place to mention it! im a bit new to the whole wiki thing. 136.56.210.51 02:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It is supposed to mean that these are all semantic loans. The sense that is argued to be the semantic loan is "to follow" in the sense of "to ensue, come next, be a consequence"; the original sense of "to follow" that Proto-Germanic also would have had is "to go after, move behind someone or something else". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

ah, i see. thanks for clarifying. probably some information about the semantic loan should be added to the swedish, german, and proto-germanic entries, no? 136.56.210.51 18:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. The issue is sourcing. The Finnish etymology does have a source, but that probably won't pass for the other entries. The source has another reference, but I haven't been able to track it down yet (and besides, it's almost a century old). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edit to the "my guy" article?

Instead of fully removing the meaning difference i mentioned and the pronunciation I put along with blocking me, how about either fix my edits or stop removing my edits. The gunned noob (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Your edits on that page are a complete mess. "but less friendly" is completely subjective, the usage example isn't a good one, the pronunciation is not correct (AP:pron:en), graffiti like "someone continue this cuz it's unfinished" is absolutely not allowed and you even add a "Bulleted list item" that is completely out of place. It should be rather obvious how these edits are not good, but you insist on restoring them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I know they damn suck that's why I added the message, not just so you completely remove everything,the point was someone like you could come in and fix it so that it doesn't suck, but instead you fully removed any trace of anything, and as a user of "my man" and "my guy" for legitimate years, they are not the exact same, and sure I probably could've done without the message, but deleting everything completely without remaking and correcting my information just doesn't make much sense. The gunned noob (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

So you know your edits were bad, but still did them anyway and restored them when they were reverted. It should not be too surprising then that you were blocked to prevent you from simply doing that again. If you don't know how to make the edits correctly, then (a) ask for help e.g. via WT:INFO, and/or (b) add the appropriate request templates instead of trying to add the information yourself. On a wiki, every single editor is responsible for the edits they do. We cannot have editors intentionally make bad edits with the expectation that "someone else will clean up after me anyway". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

fuck it, i was gonna bother with trying to continue this but this site is not worth an argument every single time i try editing something, ban me i don't give a shit The gunned noob (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

since you didn't bother banning me, i'm going to delete my own account :D

this place has been a shithole to do anything other than view because everything has fucking hundreds of shit attached, if i even bother returning someday then im doing shit that won't cause me a fucking mental stroke every 2 fucking seconds :D

have a good life cuz im truely tired of this site and got plenty better to do than this bullshit The gunned noob (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

also, i thought it was me somehow deleting my own edits or just wiktionary bugging out, along with that there was no note other than a copy and paste message, hard to see what i did wrong when all i see is a random undo. The gunned noob (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Etymons???

Hi, why'd you delete my addition of an etymon onto the page Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/karhu? I'm perfecty fine with not having it there, I'm just curious bc right now it's causing downstream issues at karu#Votic where it's referencing an invalid etymon. Froglegseternal (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to mass-adopt etymon (there is in fact somewhat of a consensus against mass-adopting it), despite what some editors think. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Request permission to create Vietnamese Thần "Holy Ghost/Spirit (Protestantism)" (from Chinese 神)

I'm so meta even this acronym deleted page Thần, their reason being: "can't be qualified as Vietnamese since only one variant (Thìn) is actually used". Here I'm so meta even this acronym apparently alludes to Thần being the unused Sino-Vietnamese reading of 辰.

According to these reliable Viet-lg sources:

• pastor Đoàn Văn Miêng, quote: "Thần của Đức Chúa Trời là Thánh Linh, Thánh Linh đã tạo nên con người […] . rough transl: "The Spirit of God is the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost created human beings […] ";
• Thư Viện Tin Lành, quote: "Đức Thánh Linh được nhắc đến rất nhiều lần trong Cựu Ước tuy nhiên các tác giả Cựu Ước ít dùng danh hiệu Thánh Linh (קֹדֶשׁ רוּחַ^[sic]) nhưng thường dùng danh hiệu “Thần của Đức Chúa Trời” (אֱלהִים רוּחַ^[sic]) hay là “Thần của Chúa” (אֲדֹנָי רוּחַ^[sic])." rough transl. "The Holy Ghost is mentioned many times in the Old Testament yet the Old Testmanet's authors seldom use the name Holy Ghost (רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ) but often use the name "Spirit of God" (ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים) or "Spirit of God the Lord" (רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִ֖ה)."

Before re-creating a deleted entry (though to denote a different concept), I ask permission first. Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not know anything about the deletion or its rationale, and it doesn't seem it was done according to a formal process (but rather because the creator of the entry marked it for deletion), so I don't see an issue with recreating it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Admin

Hello, congratulations on becoming an administrator. Please add yourself to WT:A. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Talking to yourself? Vilipender (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Probs wanted User talk:Mellohi! Vilipender (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Rollback on Gifre

Rollback

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/yever_adj?tab=etymology#13784649

I added it from the above OED etymology for "yever" Nobbo69 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The word does not appear to actually be attested in Modern English, only in (Orkney) Scots. It'd be descended from the Middle English word anyway, not directly from OEng. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Finnish terms borrowed from Proto-Norse

Is there any reason not to change these from {{bor}} to {{der}} (with "borrowed from" added as necessary)? The learned borrowings are in a different category, and I'm skeptical of modern Finnish and Proto-Norse being spoken at the same time. Of course, I'm not exactly well versed in the history of Finnish, so I could be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Earlier datings of Proto-Finnic would have placed the final couple of centuries of Proto-Norse as contemporary with Finnish. More recent datings have shifted the end date of Proto-Finnic forwards, so it's more likely that the entries in the category were borrowed from Proto-Norse into Proto-Finnic and thence inherited into Finnish. Some of the entries in that category might simply be more recent borrowings, though. I would err on the side of caution for now and not change them en masse. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Revert edits by surjection on the following: "salaki", "dzŏnkki", etc

@Surjection

Why did you revert it, what's wrong with it?

• "salaki" is borrowred from Malay "salak"

• "dzŏnkki" - is borrowed form English "junk" with its deriviations

• "kasuuari" - is borrowed from English via Malay "kasuari"

There's nothing wrong with that huh? 2001:4455:68B:B600:A993:EAB:ED4A:F260 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You're making a mess. Don't edit entries for languages you know nothing about. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Surjection I knew about their etymologies and the question is, why did you revert them back? @Surjection 2001:4455:68B:B600:A993:EAB:ED4A:F260 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you don't. As I wrote, don't edit entries for languages you know nothing about. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You said "No, you don't. As I wrote, don't edit entries for languages you know nothing about." -

I don't think about that I don't know nothing, and don't get me wrong, but I am familliar of the following entries (Finnish) about their etymological origin:

• salaki- Is a kind of fruit & plant native to Malaysia, Indonesia, and even Singapore
• dzŏnkki - a kind of ship used by the Chinese, it should be borrowed from either English (junk) or Dutch (djonk, jonk)
• rambutaani - a fruit from Southeast Asia, from the Malay word "rambutan" (which means hairy). Supposed to be borrowed from Malay or English instead of derrived.
• bantengi - a kind of cow from Indonesia & Malaysia, it should be borrowed from either English or Malay instead

I've already post it here earlier and you just only ignoring it. Why you're so self-centered? Why aren't you open to the suggestions of others? 2001:4455:68B:B600:A993:EAB:ED4A:F260 00:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Because, again, I will iterate it to you one last time: you know nothing about how foreign words like this enter Finnish, which is evident from the edits you made. Do not edit Finnish entries. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 00:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Inflections of taivutella

Finnish verb "Taivutella" follows 67*C inflection as per Kielitoimiston sanakirja. Current entries don't follow the rule e.g. taivutella -> taivutelee (as per the rules, it should be "taivuttelee" and so on) MrNgC (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Etymology of sunnuntai

You reverted an edit for no explanation. Sunnuntai has not come from an Old Norse word. It has come from sunnundag or sunnuntag for sure. The Old Norse borrowing has no sources or anything, it is just a guess with no explanation. Sturm 1 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have some kind of obsession with 'erasing' Swedish or Norse etymologies. Please leave etymologies to people who actually know what they are doing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You are insulting me here. I am fully aware of the Finnish etymology more than you. Scholars have overestimated the etymologies of words in Finnish. Take this question: Where do ä and ö come to Finnish from? Swedish? No. They come from German. How can you not realise that?

Wiktionary is full of misinformation. At least think clearly before declaring false claims. Swedish and Old Norse are not as worthy to Finnish as most think they are. We would be fine without Swedish completely. And if your classification of people who know what they do is some unintelligent people who assume without logical thinking, then you should get help. Sturm 1 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't be more overt with your bias if you tried. I will make it particularly clearly to you right now that if I see you mess with etymologies again, you will be blocked for intentionally fabricating information. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

oh really? what if the etymology I posted is true? what will Mister Strict do about it? block me "for posting true information". I wouldn't be surprised. the Internet is so stupid. censorship sucks. well, today I learnt that Wikimedia Foundation products, and Finnish admins of those, are unreliable. I am giving you a 0 star review. Sturm 1 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

We have a zero tolerance policy for editors who want to push BS because of their agenda. I would be shirking my duties if I was aware of someone doing that and chose to do nothing. We don't care that you don't like that Finnish has borrowed words from Swedish, we only care that it is a matter of fact, and thus we will document it when it's clear or at the very least the most likely option. That you're saying that "scholars have overestimated the etymologies" is basically you saying that you think you know better than everyone else what the 'true' etymology of these words are. Let me tell you that you do not. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not about do I like it or not. It is about is it true or not. It would be nice to see some sources. And languages keep changing, so there is never a "correct" version. Sturm 1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

*jäwrä misaligned

Sorry, I didn't know better way to bring attention to this, but *jäwrä seems mislabeled as proto—Uralic, whereas it should be Proto-Finno-Permic only (where and when it replaced the earlier *towe).

link to the page under the question (someone else had already attempted to raise the same issue under the article's discussion page several years ago):

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/j%C3%A4wr%C3%A4 91.129.110.110 21:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

These are handled as labels currently. We don't have separate languages proper for Proto-Finno-Permic, etc. since the main differences are lexical and the exact subgroupings are still somewhat contested to begin with. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for quick reply.

I see, and as I understand there's various issues with the exact etymologies involved in this as well.

But "proto-Uralic" makes rather strong and misleading suggestion as if it had taken place much-much earlier than it's even possible, no? 91.129.110.110 22:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the "Finno-Volgaic" label on the entry points out that the word is only found in some branches of Uralic. There isn't really any way to avoid the "Proto-Uralic" term here without splitting soemthing like PFV to its own language, which has its own issues as I mentioned. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

But then proto Uralic was ancestral language of its own (the "proto-" being the main issue here).

Could we perhaps use something like, IDK, "Uralic-WIP"(in general it is something Uralic, but specifications are "work in progress" at the moment) — at least this enables not to mistreat "proto-Uralic" like "junk-mail" of sorts. 91.129.110.110 22:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

As stated earlier, the main differences between Proto-Uralic proper and something like Proto-Finno-Permic are primarily lexical. Treating Proto-Finno-Permic as a kind of dialect of Proto-Uralic thus doesn't really seem that out of place. I don't see how it's different from, say, having a dialectal entry in Finnish - having that entry doesn't necessarily imply all or even most Finnish speakers actually know that the term means, it's just that it's still a word in at least some varieties of Finnish. Similarly, *jäwrä would have been a word in some varieties of Proto-Uralic (since, again, the differences being lexical, it's not that practical to call it its own language for that alone), but that doesn't necessarily mean it existed in all varieties of Proto-Uralic (i.e. that the word was present in any stage of every Uralic language). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Quadrichlorelayl is a real word

It was given by Victor Regnault, the discoverer of tetrachloroethylene. I don't know why Wikipedia and Wiktionary are against the inclusion of the historical names of tetrachloroethylene. 176.88.36.205 14:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe people should just search entries before randomly deleting them. 176.88.36.205 15:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Not randomly: there were all kinds of problems with the entry, so it could have been deleted as "no usable content given". It does seem to just barely squeak by on the attestation, with three independent works using it on Google Books. I left a welcome template on your (User talk:176.88.36.205) talk page so you don't have to present Surjection with such dilemmas in the future. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for catching Schatsu; I was just about to ask at WT:CU for someone to evaluate (behaviorally, whether or not it rose to the level of meriting actually CheckUser-ing) whether he was a sock or we just keep attracting editors whose approach to etymology is just ... like that. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Pryviêt

Hello! I saw, that you deleted my article pryviêt. Could you write me, why this article has deleted and what should I correct? PGałązka (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to get consensus on WT:LTR or WT:BP for adding a language before adding entries in it. You can't add entries in a language that is not present in data. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ayar86565

Question, what did Ayar say on my talk page? I got three notifications when I logged on. 2 from Ayar, and 1 from you. What happened? Gallus lafayettii (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gallus lafayettii: It was random spam: some e-mail address was posted. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E065:9E45:D64C:F38E 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wait was it a gmail.com email? If so, it could be mine. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If it was, then my email might be leaked. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I cannot email you (since your emails are disabled) to give you the details, but I doubt they posted your email address. Occasionally we get editors that post their own email addresses because they have no idea what they are doing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay that is a relief. Thank you. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Toki Pona

Why did you delete my Toki Pona entry? Is Wikionary only about natural languages? BradyBoyer2 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Languages to include. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you BradyBoyer2 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

"Benjamin" edits & revert

Hi there! I appreciate your diligence for Wiktionary, but the translation edits for the "Benjamin" entry I added today are legitimate. I've been collecting versions of "Benjamin" from various languages for about 8-9 years now from Bible translations (typically from Rev. 7:8, because it's commonly translated and easy to suss out the lexical form in languages with declensions), and added my findings to Wiktionary today. Everything I added have been taken directly from Bible translations.

I'd be glad to share some of my sources if you'd like me to. Iwsfutcmd (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

WT:TRANS says "Avoid adding translations in languages you are not proficient in". How can you be sure that you haven't picked an unrelated word from the translations? I find it unlikely you are proficient in hundreds of languages. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm a professional linguist and spent 6 years as the Director of Technology of a massively-multilingual lexicography research project, which gave me a pretty extensive skillset re: lemmatization. Whenever I have doubt about the correct lemma, I cross-check it against several other instances within the same source. I have a list of verses where I can look for nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative constructions, which is usually sufficient for proper lemmatization. I then reference grammars of the languages in question (I have access to hundreds of grammars and dictionaries due to my occupation) to verify the correct lemma.

If I still have questions, I then ask native speakers and/or linguistic experts within my professional circle for clarification.

I've only added to this entry languages I've done this entire process for. I have a larger set of entries I haven't been able to verify as well, which I naturally haven't included. Iwsfutcmd (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no means to verify your credentials. But if you insist, you should at the very least tag the translations as to be verified through either {{t-check}} and {{t+check}}. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

E-mail address

Hello, Do you have e-mail address for re-upload files to Internet Archive (archive.org) after log-in/sign-in at IA? Yuliadhi (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your odd passive-aggressive comments

"remove bad requests"

- There are no bad requests, if you don't want to add an entry (even though it has a red link or is mentioned another place on Wiktionary as a word), then you don't have to add it. You can just leave it, or let someone else have a look at it. I know you think you're the CEO of the Finnish request page, but luckily it's not your job! :)

"Supevan, no matter how many times you ask, I still cannot flout CFI"

- Then don't? It seems you want me to somehow do comprehensive research in Finnish about these entries, which I obviously won't do since I don't speak Finnish - that's why I add them to this page, duh. If I was able to do that, I would just create the entries myself.

"please don't edit this page again"

- Please get over yourself, I can edit the page if I want to.

I know you won't care about this message (or respond with anything of value - which is why I won't be checking for a response), as it seems to be more important to you to be as rude and condescending as possible, which you've been several times. If you get upset about my requests again in the future, may I suggest going outside for a walk instead? Hope this helps! :-) Supevan (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The message the comment is meant to convey should be clear to you - I cannot create entries which are unattestable. It is you who is refusing to understand that we as a dictionary have criteria for inclusion. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, and all the responses I've gotten from you have demonstrated aggression, so I am simply responding to you in kind.

As for your 'right' to edit the page, I will point out that the closest thing we have to a blocking policy makes it justified to block editors for "persistently wasting other editors’ time", which is an accurate description of your edits on the requested entries page. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me explain the issue with your edits plainly to you.

A basic expectation in a collaborative project like this is that people respect the time of other editors. Whenever one makes a request to other editors, for example, it is common courtesy to do research on one's own before possibly sending other editors down a wild goose chase, especially when one has a good reason to believe that it will be the likely outcome.

For this reason, the main purpose of requested entries pages is to request entries that one is actually interested in and can do at least cursory research on before adding the requests. There are plenty of editors who do just that. You are not one of them.

It's rather clear from your requests that your method to making requests is (a) you see a redlink, and (b) you add it as a request. This has several issues, but the main issue is that you don't stop to think why the terms are redlinks to begin with. Finnish has relatively high coverage, and in particular etymology sections and reconstruction pages often link to obscure terms that are not understood by basically any speaker today, for the sake of making an argument, not because speakers would actually use those terms today.

I have had to deal with dozens and dozens of requests from you that do not seem to understand this fact: you simply see a redlink in an etymology section or a reconstruction page and request the entry to be created without giving it any second thought. Even more, your edits to Wiktionary:Requested entries (Proto-Finnic) have added not only redlinks, but terms that were never even linked to begin with. Wiktionary:About Proto-Finnic has explained for years now why such terms are included in etymology sections, and since they are not linked, they are not even meant to exist.

My response to your requests of this kind have simply been to decline them, but they have still kept coming at the same rate. An editor that is willing to pay even the basic level of care would quickly observe this and understand the issue. Ipso facto, your edits demonstrate (a) lack of a basic level of care, (b) lack of regard for the time of others, and (c) stubbornness.

If you continue to actively refuse to understand the problem, you cannot expect other editors to not request you to stop editing the request page. If I started spamming Wiktionary:Requested entries (Norwegian) with every Norwegian redlink I saw (or even scanned with a bot), I would expect any editor who cares about that page to be at the very least severely annoyed. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Heteronationalism

Hi! All the translations are correct. DaddyCell (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

How would you know that? Do you speak all of those languages? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Rotten

I have always heard/read "rotten" as the past participle of "rot": https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=rot&oldid=84803390#Verb 37.161.54.238 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Your edit would suggest that "rotten" would be the only allowed past participle, but "have rotted" and "has rotted" outnumber "have rotten" and "has rotten" tenfold on Google Ngrams. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

But it exists and therefore should be added as an alternative. 78.211.140.77 22:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

"Rotten" is the adjective, not a verb form. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E40B:542:EB88:8564 20:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't adjectives derived from verbs correspond to their past participles? "I have eaten that fruit..."; "the eaten fruit...". 78.211.140.77 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Programming Languages

Why aren't they included on Wiktionary. I've seen users argue that they are languages too, so why can't it work that way? Why AREN'T they languages? Also, RFV should be applied to English only. Replies must be related to these two points. 2603:9000:8100:B539:5C1:4F49:52AA:F0EA 00:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, you don't get to say what I reply to and not, especially seeing as your questions so far on forums have been borderline trolling. Second, programming languages are not human languages, so they're not part of the goal of this dictionary. Third, that "RFV should be applied to English only" is abject nonsense. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Module:Unicode data/images/020

hi, i see you reverted a number of additions that still exist in this module on other wikis; wanted to double check with you b4 i do the same there kwami (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Many of them were added by a block-evading editor that has no clue what they're doing and are uploading images without licensing information, so they just end up getting deleted. As far as the image exists on Commons and is properly licensed, it can be in the data just fine. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks kwami (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

"Antifun" example

I don't understand why this was reverted, it was a good addition. Tmopwopwop (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. And don't post names of real people. Nobody thinks you're funny. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverting of Prūsija and Sūdawa

Alrighty, Prūsija I had a hard time finding in many places. Maybe because it's diluted with Lithuanian and Latvian, but when I searched for "Sūdawa", I found a bunch of results. 386, to be exact. Go over to Page 4 and it turns into 39. I also stumbled upon it in a comments section here: [3]. And on the Prūsiska Wikipēdija, and so on. Is that sufficient attestation? Kxeon (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Modern revived 'Neo-Prussian' does not count as Old Prussian on en.wikt. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)