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

Add a new topic

Archive Archives



This has been in CAT:E for a couple of days, but at the time it was hidden among hundreds of other entries. Now that we've cleared those, it's sticking out like a sore thumb. It looks like a simple matter of adding a couple of empty parameter slots, but I know nothing about Finnish declension so I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed, and sorry - should have caught that myself. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is someone gonna look at the word request article?


??? TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

A few etymologies that discredit the etymology section of Wiktionary


Greetings: I hope that you are paid for the hard work in keeping Wiktionary protected from vandalism. My policy had been to make minimal adjustments to etymologies that are plainly wrong and so a few comments on those that downgrade Wiktionary are necessary. Firstly, my addition of Gaelic CRAOBH (branch) as a cognate was a breach of rule 6, that states: "Do not be tempted to pioneer etymologies and ....". Although I believe it to be true to be derived from the same P.I.E. root as that previously presented, I know of no back up source to confirm this; so my due apologies, and that was block worthy. True, some of my initial edits eight years ago had to be reverted on three counts: 1/ no reliable source was available to back them; 2/ the edit formatting was either absent or deplorably inadequate and 3/ no steps were provided in their etymological paths. Although you have no control over what users/editors may do about Wiktionary during extended periods of blocking, I did not take advantage of that and pursue my original plan to form my own etymological dictionary, including a point system for each word, to maximise confidence in the readers. I am spending time typing all this for the health of Wiktionary's etymological sections. It is plainly evident that some of the etymologies were copied at face value from normally very reliable dictionaries without scrutinising the roots and only adding those that are logical.

To illustrate this we have: Proto-Finnic *lambas, borrowed from Proto-Germanic *lambaz. Now, if applying the etymologist's knowledge that the Germanic peoples settled peacefully in their area, whereas their invasion was as conquests in Britain, they would know that while the English form is certainly from Proto-Germanic *lambaz, but this P.G. form is likely to be substrate, because the Proto-Finnic form is derive in two parts, the first syllable of the older Proto-Finnic *lambas (as a bi-form is likely to be from a root meaning 'to skip, to jump' (found in the Cornish substrate LAMM (leap, bound) and the latter BAS from VAS of an ancient stock in that area akin to Proto-North Caucasian *ɫVmbagV ‘sheep’ (only in Avaro-Andian and Lezghian), (according to the Academia education - but, with no other reliable evidence as to the origin of the components parts of this bi-form and not a root in itself - it cannot be added to the main page). That the grotesquely fabricated reconstruction Proto-Indo-European *h₁l̥h₁onbʰos is a combination of two roots and never even existed is glaringly obvious to any qualified etymologist who has studied the acceptable P.I.E. reconstructions. The earliest root presented is logical however, as the root of the Greek and Celtic forms. When you have been into etymologies for 50 years you readily recognise those that are wildly inaccurate; and it is not just myself, but a woman at a conference with considerable more weight stated that a number Wiktionary etymologies are wrong. The next one is: Welsh AELWYD (fireplace), borrowed from Old English ǣled (whence also Cornish oles, Breton oaled), from Proto-Germanic *ailidaz.

However, that is better than when I last saw it, where it stated that the Welsh form was from Proto-Germanic 'ailą́'and began with a false conclusion and went down hill from there. The Proto-Germanic form is not listed under the P.I.E. root, *h₂eydʰ- (“to burn”). The Old English forms (three of them) may be derived from the Proto-Germanic substrate or else be substrates themselves as cognates with the Scandinavian forms: ILDE and ELDE; but the Breton form cannot be from P.G. or from Anglo-Saxon, because the Celts moved over there from Cornwall in the sixth century, before there could be any chance of P.G. or Anglo-Saxon influence! A Proto-Celtic reconstruction has been formulated, but although logical, this appears rather fabricated. The Cornish word ELVEN probably originally meant 'flint' - literally 'fire stone'. With the considerable variation of the spellings of the forms in the Celtic dialects, they are most likely to be derived from some pre-Celtic stock. Kroonen is clearly biased towards P.G. roots.

Although there are other etymologies that defy the necessary logic required to present them on the main pages, there is just one other I need to remark about and that is: Old English adesa, eadesa (compare adosa, adosan), from Proto-Germanic *adisô. Had you left the edit as it was it would not have been so obvious that the P.G. form is wrong, but now it is completely obvious to a fully fledged etymologist that it is so. The forms adosa and adosan are older than adesa, eadesa, according to the Oxford Online Dictionary that traces lexemes back to their earliest available written forms (the older volumes of which are the most reliable of all).

Wiktionary, in addition to all the helpful reconstructions, has a few gems like that of, 'dog' and 'loop'; but it is a shame that generally it only ranks in the upper third for reliability, so I just point out those etymologies that I know discredit the reliability of Wiktionary. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is in the interests of Wiktionary. Happy new year and Regards: Andrew H. Gray 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Andrew H. Gray 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Latest edit 20:55, 5 June 2024 Andrew (Talk)

I'm not even going to comment on most of this, but since you're still hung up on this particular case which I feel at least somewhat qualified to comment on: your etymology for the Proto-Finnic term is complete nonsense. You're basically making up parts of words and trying to explain actual words as somehow deriving from them. That isn't how etymology works, no matter how you try to force it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is about the दशरथ page. 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, they shouldn't. This is the English Wiktionary and definitions have to be in English. If you insist on having links, add them in parentheses after the term instead of inserting completely avoidable non-English text in the middle of a definition. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rama redirects to रमा sir and not Rāma राम. 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also going by you saying this is the English wiktionary, why are there articles in other languages. E.g. दशरथ, राम, कृष्ण etc? 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 10:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because the English Wiktionary documents words from all languages, but they are still documented in English. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there any way for adding a redirect to the page written in Hindi/Sanskrit alongside the page written in English? 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:5484:439D:2758:243 08:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No point in 'redirects'. If you want to have both links, write the non-English link after the English one, in parentheses. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
You people deserve nothing but hell for trying to erase every instance of Indic Culture, Indic Scripts and Hinduism. There is "We are xenophobic" written all over you assholes' head. You westerners will always be the most disrespectful people in this world. 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 07:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you cannot understand the simple concept that the English Wiktionary is supposed to document words in English, then maybe you just shouldn't edit here. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry


Sorry for lashing out about that whole Dasharatha article. I was in a really bad mood when I wrote the last reply, and since I've calmed down a lot, I realised I wasted both of our times and I really feel bad about it. Sorry again. 2400:1A00:BD11:8085:1D4E:9A82:A2DD:2DC7 09:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cyka blyat!


I don't want that page to be deleted. 16:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're free to vote (once) on the RFD. Removing the template isn't going to get you anywhere. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Range block


Hi Surjection, I tried to ping you on my talk page, User_talk:Polypz, but didn't hear back. It looks like you've blocked me from making edits when using my phone as a WiFi access point, even when logged in. I can't remember which page I was trying to edit, is there a way to find that out? Polypz (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The block is set to allow logged-in users to edit and to allow user creation. If you are not able to log in or edit even while logged in, that would be a software bug. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the baby entry


Recently the baby word had its first English noun entry changed by someone politically motivated. The previous entry before today's edits included "conception or" before "birth", and it was edited sloppily, removing the link to birth as well. The entry with "conception or" was standing for at least months before it was removed earlier today. I tried to revert it but it was reverted back. mineben256 Mineben256 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The "from conception..." part is already encompassed by def 3. Nobody is going to argue that the conception is the same thing as birth. A baby is still unborn from conception until it is actually born. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that in a way it is encompassed by definition 3, but the definition had contained "from conception" for a long time before today. Additionally, entry 3 is also not entirely appropriately encompassing the former entry 1, as it includes all animal unborn young, whereas people use "baby" to speak of human unborn young in a more affectionate way that is uncommon when it comes to animal unborn young. Mineben256 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
That it had something "for a long time before today" means relatively little. The sense you use would best be added as a subsense of 3 or by adding additional wording to the end of the definition. But perhaps the best idea is to open a discussion about it on the Tea Room. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The qualifier "particularly" means that what follows is merely the core of the meaning, not all of it. While people can and do refer to an unborn human as a baby, that's not the first thing one thinks of when one hears the word without context. The only reason the reference to conception keeps getting added is the focus of the anti-abortion movement on emphasizing the humanity of the unborn. As a descriptive dictionary, we don't take sides on such matters of belief and/or morality. The part about conception isn't central to the meaning, so it's best to leave it out. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was there for at least many months before it was removed. Mineben256 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The conception should be left out because you can’t do or don’t regularly have to do much with the issue if it is not delivered yet. If anything is done for it then it is with respect to the future result, most sentences about it can be interpreted in the sense from birth: “A baby is still unborn” Surjection says, depending on how you emphasize it you negate that there is a baby before birth and could write an ontology paper, the same applies for our single usage example of sense three “When is your baby due?” – expected to be only later? I am not necessarily convinced that it is not the first sense, how can one distinguish? Also an egg is a chicken and from it chicks hatch – which sense of chicks?
That the shorter view is the basic one and the other a later stretch is firm in a diachronic outlook, since the human ovum was only found by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827, whereafter the abortion laws got adjusted. Before that one believed in ensoulment 90 days after conception, quickening, delayed animation, which nowadays means something in Javascript, but a rigid thing even then if “early statutes of English common law presumed that a child was born dead in spirit”, Romans waited seven days and in general “for some early cultures a child was not fully human until age seven and thus could be disposed of at any time up until that age” (written by psychotherapist rather than jurist, thus my desire for historical detail was not satisfied); following the thought lines fashionable with demographic transition.
If you look into other dictionaries they dance around the mines, like OED defining as “a very young child”, “formerly also: †a child of any age”: big if true for Wiktionary, but I must claim Wiktionary’s glosses are better anyways. There was some intent of humans in the last two centuries settling on a specific short time frame.
The intent of the present definition was to demarcate the life stages of man when his life is clocked at all, i.e. 0–1 baby, 1–3 toddler, 1–11 child and the like. Because you only indirectly see the unborn human when he “ages”. Babies being unborns is a fringe view that has little merit towards the main definition. I do know about East Asian age reckoning but this has not influenced English, and other languages where the word baby or similar has been acquired. It does not mean the word does not “have the definition”. I could have spoken about “the baby when it ages in the womb” which very much appears like the third sense intuitively, because we are unwont to ascribe processes to subjects which have not yet developed. Yet breviloquence is normal language, normal language breaks down the actual order of things to convey the main points, the biological realities of the mother’s organism nurturing the fetus, the genes making it accept its destiny etc. What to do if it is just an offset? At least one should give appropriate space to the observation that it is an offset, an analogy, additive inverses to the practically positive, because pragmatics. Here we try to untangle how much the human language capacity fools us into generalizing the subject—predicate structure of language into the order of nature: it is not even what humans typically know or typically think even when they employ language. Fay Freak (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz You're right that it isn't our job to take sides, and I think we should acknowledge that some people use it to refer to that, but I suspect these pages will continually get edited by people trying to push this agenda. For example, I just reverted infant, and I cannot in my life ever remember anyone using that word to refer to a baby before it's born. Theknightwho (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thinking about this some more, I think the current setup with sense 1 being "young human, particularly from birth..." and sense 3 being "unborn young; a fetus" is not right, but I think it's sense 3 which has a problem. Many people use "baby" to refer to a young human from birth to an early age, and sense 1 reflects this. Other people use "baby" in a way that includes not only newborns but also fetuses. But AFAIK no-one uses baby to refer to a fetus alone to the exclusion of a newborn: no-one thinks that a fetus is a baby but stops being a baby once it's born, and that a one-month old is not a baby: i.e. no-one uses sense 3 as written. It's sense 3 we should be revising, to something like "A young creature from conception, through gestation as a fetus, birth, and the earliest period of its life" or some better wording (I'm sure we can think of smoother wording!).
We had the same problem a while ago with prostitute, and before that with marriage: when a word may refer specifically to X, or may include both X and Y, sometimes people try to handle this being having one sense "X" and another sense "Y", even though the term never means "Y" (just Y alone to the exclusion of X), it always means either "X" or "X+Y". (Prostitute has sometimes exclusively meant a female sex worker — at various times, law and culture simply did not consider men who had sex for money to be prostitutes — and at other times, prostitute can encompass male sex workers. So someone saw "female sex worker" as sense 1, and added "male sex worker" as a separate sense. But the term never refers exclusively to male sex workers: it either refers specifically to a female sex worker, or it refers to any sex worker. So I initially folded the "female sex worker" and "male sex worker" senses together into a gender-nonspecific "sex worker" sense, but when Widsith pointed out that in many cases it's only women, now the entry is set up as you see it today.
- -sche (discuss) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

pääomanpalautus ja värähtelyttää


Kiitos virheeni korjaamisesta :) Auringonlasku (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Arabic terms derived from Turkish


Why were my changes on the page above reverted? These words are words transferred from Turkish to Arabic, and dictionaries accept them as such. Is the category wrong? Can you explain? H493 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@H493 This category is added automatically by templates in the etymology sections, but we don't put those templates in entries for inflected and other secondary forms. Look at the conjugation or declension tables: imagine seeing every single one of those forms in the category, then multiply it by every term for the same language. I think most people can figure out that the first person singular of a given word has the same etymology as the second person singular of the same word without having the entire paradigm listed in the category.
So, basically, what you were doing was adding useless clutter to the category by unnecessarily hard-coding things best handled by templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Arabic terms derived from Turkish" is for lemmas (not inflected or alternative forms) in al-fusha deriving from modern Turkish. We categorize Ottoman Turkish terms in their own category (Category:Arabic terms derived from Ottoman Turkish) and furthermore many of the Arabic varieties into their own categories as well. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hello, concerning your rollback of my edits on Luzon. I was removing erroneous and unsourced claims that the name of the island of Luzon in the Philippines is from Spanish. It is not from Spanish at all, it's a word that's native to the language of the Philippines, which was referenced in Japanese & Chinese sources before the arrival of the Spanish. Chris S. (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're not paying attention. The etymology says the name came from native languages by way of Spanish. That's quite common in Filipino etymologies of names: the Spanish would adapt the pronunciation to their phonotactics and adopt a spelling to match, and the Filipinos would pick it up because the Spanish were in charge and they had to deal with them. I'm sure the education system had something to do with it, as well. See, for instance, Category:Tagalog terms borrowed back into Tagalog. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mani stone in Finnish


Could and would the term "mani stone" be "manikivi" in Finnish?

Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

mani-kivi methinks. But I doubt it's attestable either way. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagalog "kalatas" is from Malay


Evidenced by accentuation and meaning.


  • kertas -> kalatás
  • cermin -> salamín
  • percaya -> palatáyà

Malay "kertas" and its variants in Tausug, Maguindanao, and Maranao (relatively un-Christianized and un-Hispanized) all mean paper. The Tausug variant is particularly similar to Tagalog where there is just an elision but the accentuation is the same: kātas, and in Maranao there is only the l-r allophony, giving karatas, while the Maguindanao variant is in between. Brunei Malay, much more recently historically affiliated with Tagalog, has similar accentuation and breaking of consonant clusters with "keratas". The Spanish word "cartas" doesn't just mean "paper", it means "letters" or "epistles". All the Southeast Asian languages mentioned have their variants of "kertas" meaning "paper". So the etymology should point to a Malay origin rather than a Spanish origin. Myrnamyers (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're the one edit warring to remove all other theories than your own and also apparently haven't even read Wiktionary:About Tagalog#About the language. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Myrnamyers Also please use the discussion module first. Other Tagalog editors and I use the module if we have points of contention. I even reached out to you before in your talk page but I get ignored and you can only be communicated through edit logs. We're open to discuss if it really is Malayic but unfortunately there are a lot of sources pointing to Spanish and Malay is just a cognate of the shared origin. Semantic shifts also happen even if the Spanish word meant letters or epistles. Please ping me or other editors that made the entry if you like. Thanks! Also, Tagalog does the same independent of Malay. Example is alakos, from Spanish arcos. Same concept of consonant declustering, r-l correspondence, and a move of stress in the accent.

Ysrael214 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was me


I was the one who vandalized Parody about it meaning "Zarathrustian dogwhistle for 'truth'" or something. That IP is for my little brother's iPad. Long story long: While he was playing Splatoon (Wii U children's* shooter game) I told my little brother to try COD (Call of Duty) mode. Because it wasn't real, he asked what is was. I was acting like I was suprised that he had never heard of COD mode, as if everybody knows it. I eventually explained it to him: There is a one in one billion chance that when you speak to Judd, he will ask "Would it please you to seize you?". If you say "Yes", you will be put in a Ranked Battle with COD sound effects and voice chat (Splatoon and COD are the same game, the only difference are the sound effects). He said he didn't believe me and I said that I saw it in a video. I showed him "Top 10 Pplatoon tips (parody)" from Erikson Gaming. He said that the video was a joke 'cause it said "parody" in the title. I said that parody has two definitions: the one he was thinking of; and the one used by the ancient secret society of robots on the dark web known as "Zarathrusta", of which I am a member. He looked up the definition of parody on google and noted that there was no such definition. I told him that my definition could only be found on the "truth dictionary" on the dark web. After some boring arguing, he gave me his iPad and told me to show him the truth dictionary. Upon realizing that Google Chrome iOS doesn't have Inspect Element, I had to vandalize the page to make it look even remotely like the Truth Dictionary wasn't just made up.



Can you look at this talk page? It seems that a user wants something added and I think it's a good addition but an admin needs to do it. 06:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to say "a user" when it's evidently yourself. Bring them up at a centralized forum. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



Why the rollback? 22:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm rolling back the rollback for now. You may feel my edit is not NPOV, but the term itself is not NPOV, so I think my edit fits. Happy to discuss further :-) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Definitions of NPOV terms are still supposed to be worded without a point of view. Yours wasn't. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Example Sentences on Wiktionary Pages


Hello, I mainly use Wiktionary to submit pronunciation audios, but there have been a couple of times when I've wanted to add example sentences for pages on Wiktionary. For example, there was once a time when I wanted to write example sentences for "let oneself go." I typed two sentences because I couldn't decide which would be a better example: "My grandma's wife let herself go; Daddy told me she fell down the tree of ugly and hit multiple branches." and "My big brother claims he knew some pretty girls in high school that really let themselves go and got fat in the last 7 years." I thought these were helpful examples, but somebody deleted them shortly after I submitted them. What can I do to improve my example sentences on Wiktionary so they don't get deleted? Thank you Post Script, I am not an OG on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I don't edit as frequently, and I've been editing on Wiktionary again after a month of being idle. Flame, not lame (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Example sentences#Writing good examples may be of assistance. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

why did you roll back my change, it was useful


On Sapristi, I provided a very useful link... a cultural usage. You just blanked it out with no explanation?! 2607:FEA8:3C81:3AD0:6958:FBA:FA3F:78A6 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary. We don't do "Cultural references". If you want to provide a quote (in French) to show usage, you would put it on the line after the definition, with #* as the first two characters of the line, and use a template such as {{cite-av}} to format it (If your "quote" is just someone saying "sapristi!", or someone talking about the word, don't bother.) I have it protected for now, but either I or Surjection can unprotect it if it looks like you're going to have something actually worthwile to add. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Plus the film is Kaleidoscope, not Kaleidoscopes... Theknightwho (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting my spekking of Kaleidoscopes. That's a correction you could have made yourself to the actual source instead of deleting my content and then copy protecting the page so that other users can't edit it anymore. Authoritarian much?

You seem to be under the impression we are some kind of hivemind; it's very strange. Theknightwho (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reversion of Angzarr Citations


Hello... could you tell me why you reverted my citations update? The information to which you reverted is incorrect. My update had the latest info. Wshallwshall (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think it is acceptable to have an encyclopedic entry under the Citations page? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the reply. I am new to Wiktionary, so was trying to address the inaccuracy of the current citation page content.
Could you offer advice on how to do that? Wshallwshall (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since citation pages aren't really supposed to have anything other than a short definition (enough to figure out what kind of term is being meant), I personally wouldn't mind too much if you just removed it (but leave the citations template, character info and the quote). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I've done the best I can, but would appreciate any improvements you can make. Wshallwshall (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The main entry has earlier failed a request for verification, so it cannot be re-added without the quotes required by the criteria for inclusion (i.e. three quotes, spanning at least one year, and they must be uses of the term, not mentions). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



What am I doing wrong here? Joonas07 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on the code, get_params seems to only provide .strong and .weak when the gradation parameter is set to true. Since you do not pass it to get_params, it isn't. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is length gradation though Joonas07 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
But you don't tell get_params about that. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok thanks Joonas07 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Referencing Episode Names in Quotations


hello, last week I submitted a new Wiktionary page for the phrase put the boom down as in "confront a person or problem or intervene." I tried to add a quotation from that phrase being used on an episode of Hoarders. I was able to write that this phrase was mentioned on an episode of Hoarders in the year 2012, but I don't know how to specify that it was from the episode Mary/Annie when Mary was talking. do you know how to add what episode this quote was from? Thank you Flame, not lame (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please try using {{quote-av}}. It should provide the necessary features. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recent revert


Did you even read my edit summary? A word being included in a major dictionary pretty much means it's attested no?

Even if you like Word's edits in general, you have to admit in this case they're clearly in the wrong. 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFDs aren't simply a matter of "attestation", and indeed they basically never should be (that is what RFVs are for). However, the RFD discussion is still open, and removing the template isn't going to magically make it go away. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Weird Sanskrit articles


Some time ago, I noticed that we have a bunch of articles on personal names of characters from Hindu mythology. The definitions are often undeciferable for a foreigner and obviously encyclopedic. I edited a few, and promptly had my edits reverted [1] by a new user that focuses on Sanskrit. What do you think about this? I don't know anything about Indian culture, but those articles don't seem to fit the Wiktionary style. brittletheories (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Brittletheories They're copy-pastes from Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, and should either be corrected into a comprehensible format or removed entirely. @Rau6590 - please do not blindly revert these, because the definitions you've been restoring are not in an acceptable state for Wiktionary. Theknightwho (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Problem with Template:pl-pronunciation


I recently noticed that this template does not produce the correct rhyme categories if the stress is anything other than penultimate (such as here: Jujuy). Could you fix this? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 15:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't worked on that module code in a long time - I'd recommend asking for help at WT:GP. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

PIE pronunication


Why did you revert my request for a pronunication chart? HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We customarily do not list pronunciations for reconstructed languages. Besides, any pronunciation request should be made using the correct template ({{rfp}}), anyway, not by adding ad hoc text in the middle of an entry. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Im sorry im new to editing on wiktionary, could you add it using the correct template? It would be very helpful HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said, we don't customarily give pronunciations for reconstructed languages, because there is no way to know for sure. In addition, there is a lot of disagreement about the phonetics of PIE, and so we'd have to list several pronunciations. In the end it's just not helpful. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since there is no way for sure i was thinking of adding charts with sections of all posible phonetic values like *e, *ǵ, *h₂ etc. Would that work? HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That was one of my points - that any chart like that is not going to be useful due to how large and filled with uncertainty it is. And even then all of its data is still probably going to be "wrong" in the sense that none of it is how it would've been pronounced in reality. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well it was worth a shot HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is it just custom that it has not been done, or has consensus been made that it should not be done? There are tens of thousands of IPA entries for dead languages such as Proto-Germanic, Gothic, Old English, and Latin; should all of these also be removed as reconstructions, despite of a high degree of confidence in their correctness? I was very surprised to see you cite this rule when deleting the pronunciation for PGmc *kōz, again despite the precedent of thousands of entries arguing in favor of its retention. Apologies if my tone seems out of line; I would genuinely like to know where this decision was made, because I've never heard of it and have certainly found no evidence of its implementation. Wiljahelmaz (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My comment said reconstructed languages specifically. I don't think there is a formal policy on it, but the general agreement seems to be that they do more harm than good. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. Don't know why your reply didn't appear in my notifications. Wiljahelmaz (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply



When you are really sure my edit is not correct, then you should add correct etymology when you are reverting it.

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with this notion. It is better to have no information than to have wrong information. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
But attributing anything wrong is not fair untill you replace that with right!
If Hindustan became Indostan in greek,
Then term Hindiyyah became India
How I am wrong in etymological point of view?
Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You've already been explained this in WT:ES - it doesn't become any more correct the more you repeat it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
But your correction is out of facts, illogical and irrational! Abirtel (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it isn't. Just drop it - you're not going to be able to convince anyone but yourself. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Snob Hill


Can you undelete Snob Hill? It was created by a blocked IP, but the entry looked valid, I just added a quotation and then it was gone. Jberkel 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  DoneSURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Thank you for reverting my edit if it distorted all the previous sections - I cannot think why it should have done this - that is why I reverted it a few minutes ago, assuming that the gross upset of the paragraphs (which would have amounted to gross vandalism!) was not actually due to my edit; so my sincere apologies for this! I was just trying to add the reference from Academa as to the Old Caucasion stem, Proto-North Caucasian *ɫVmbagV ‘sheep’ (only in Avaro-Andian and Lezghian), for the latter syllable, that may not be directly related to Proto-Finnic anyway.

From a linguistic point of view, you stated in your Babel list that English was almost your first language; it is my first language. Does that give me a slight advantage over you? Absolutely not! It is, or should be shameful that it is my first language; since, apart from self-glorification of Classical and Greek borrowings et cetera, it is now merely the dregs of one of the finest Germanic languages, Anglo-Saxon. It is the most irrational language I have ever come across, both in pronunciation and in its idioms, and, as for the long vowels their so-called pronunciation evolution makes them all stand out as oddities, unless you believe that the long 'A' Gallic sound be authentic as possibly used by servants and centuries ago accepted into Middle English as its basic sound. Kind Regards, Andrew 10:57, 29 March 2024 Andrew H. Gray 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

*lanci and Estonian


I'm not the same anonymous person whom did the edits, but I am native from the region (Läänemaa) and would like to give some comments.

I'm unaware of that "laas” in contemporary Estonian would mean anything as described at there. Nowadays it's synonym of "ürgmets” - it isn't associated with "swamp”, "bog”, "wetland" at all. As a forest, it is though of as type of "segamets" which typically may contain coniferous trees (okaspuu), but it's not granted - it isn't type of the "coniferous forest" (okasmets). This should be controllable from Estonian dictionaries, and I think also from "Estonian -> another language" dictionaries.

I know the lowland, which may get regularly flooded by tides, as "lans"/"lansi pealne”, while neither as "laan" or as "lontsik" - all of the three are distinct from oneanother for me.

As for "lontsik", yes it's a real term, and we do use it around here. I was highly surprised that the term doesn't seem to occur in most of the general dictionaries of Estonian and to this day had thought of the term as common and regular term throughout the Estonian (it occurs in the newspapers for instance). However, we associate it as "lontsima" + "-ik" (there's also alternations like "lantsik", "lõntsik, and all of those without the "-ik". As far as I know, "lontsik” is pushed aside all other accents by now.

The meaning behind the lontsik is ... well, it's a seasonal phenomena in relation to a patch of land, and perhaps closer to the concepts of quicksand and rasputitsa: highly soiled dirt on a particular patch ground which in certain periods throughout the year - for longer and more so than the surrounding land - thus "softer" ground in contrast to the rest which surrounds it. It has actually to do with composition of the dirt and underlying ground rather than the part of the land being any lower from it's surroundings.

That said, the "lontsik”, namely the "lonts” does appear suspiciously approximate to Livonian one here, and honestly, even though I'm no etymologist nor linguist, even for me there seems to be rather notable similarity between "lënc-i" and "lonts-ik" (ë > o , or a , or õ ; c ~> tš > ts), even if purely coincidental (interesting nonetheless). But then, we ourselves around here associate it with the stem that is present in "lonts-i-ma".

Perhaps some aspects which would deserve being explained in the respective articles, if not for more, than to avoid future confusions or confrontations. 04:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

EMS lists laas 4. as "vesine madal maa; veelomp" - something like that is probably what the etymological work I used for reference bases it on. As for lontsik, it simply cannot regularly derive from *lanci. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but EMS is lexicon of Estonian dialects - most of the dialects don't even have any speakers anymore, and a whole lot which is listed there have became absolute even among the respective dialect speakers.
Kihnu for instance indeed still have usage for it (arguably, usage with asterisks on it) - but that's also rather highly regional (and even I, being actually familiar with the dialect, by reading in text struggle to differ in cases of wether "Üese nda paelu satn, et luanõd muas" translate as "Öösel on nii palju sadanud, et laaned maas" or instead "Öösel on nii palju sadanud, et lained maas” — note that "sadas nii palju, et maa lainetab" is something fairly common to say in Estonian - Kihnu included).
Personally I find it rational for explaining the etymology and development history on how the shifts in the meaning within a particular language have developed over the time, but it would be as sensible to then give explanation that such definition is obsolete or regional for the modern usage of the language (arguably an usecase, for why explaining the etymology has relevant place at the word's respective section at for its particular language, and shouldn't be deleted that light handedly).
But in parallel those meanings are obsolete in contemporary Estonian, which has become the native for the vast majority of the Estonian speakers - in terms of ekk, EKI itself recommends to use sõnaveeb as the main dict(ionary, considering othe)rs dated.
Personally I don't disagree over etymology of "lontsik" (nor couldn't really even if wanted do, for not having sufficient knowledge nor understanding of the discipline) - again, we ourselves whom use the word, associate it with the "lontsima” (to move slowly ~ hard/slow to move through) - sõnaveeb claim onomatopoeic origin to it (lontima), and so does ETY which additionally offers possible relationship with (dialectical) Finnish "lonsua" and "lonsia", as well as with additional stems in Estonian itself: "lentsima", "lõntse", "löntsima", "lontima" (and then there are dialects, accents, and regional vernaculars of those).
It because long again, hopefully I weren't overly annoying... 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

侗台, 侗臺


In simple and traditional chinease only 侗台。 2001:B011:9801:179F:3D:726E:3281:74AC 15:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply



Why did you revert my edits of सुमित्रा (sumitrā) to the one by theknightwho, there is no reason to put (Mythological character), I don't see anyone calling Moses a mythological character, this is pure anti-hinduism. Rau6590 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you this same editor? Again, it's completely unhelpful to fill the definitions for entries with Sanskrit terms in Devanagari. This is the English Wiktionary which means that definitions are given in English. By the way, you don't "own" your pages just because you created them. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am that same editor, but I created the page before you and I had that conversation and I never claimed to have owned the page, I just don't want (Mythological character), because as I just said, I don't see anyone calling Moses a Mythological character. Rau6590 (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then remove or reword that part. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Finnish Declension template


The template does not seem to work for the kahdeksas-paperi -combination. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to ask you to fix that part.

{{fi-decl-kahdeksas-paperi|neljä|ä|tuomar|a|pos1=adj}} Hekaheka (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done These aren't actually too hard to create. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess they aren't, but I'm already 70 and learning the code would be too much trouble. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand, but I designed these 'combination' declension templates in such a way that one only has to copy the code from another template and change the list of classes in the source code. But I suppose any template code can seem too daunting to bother trying. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply



could you unblock? the 3 characters covered there aren't demonstrated to mean the same thing and shouldn't be merged. kwami (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Considering the trouble you've been causing at single-character entries previously, I'd rather have someone review the changes you're planning to make. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Remove the info boxes for other symbols. Remove def [2], which has failed verification for years. Note that tilted ⛢ is an allograph in alchemical use. Add illustrations of the symbol in use, such as the flag hanging in the US Library of Congress. kwami (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've downgraded it for now. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. kwami (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

“word in 100 different languages” entries


Hello, Surjection. Re this edit summary, what kind of entries do you object to? Am I responsible for any of them? 0DF (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. What I do know is I've seen editors try to create these entries that are supposed to exist in 20-25 different languages, and they create stubs in all of them. I have never liked that. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. I don't think I do that. The page I've created that's nearest to that description I can think of is [[Debes]], which has entries in seven languages. How do you feel about those? 0DF (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked text


Please import the page "Template:Blocked text" from the English Wikipedia and then use it on MediaWiki:Blockedtext and MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. 19:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Luis Sousao block evasion


Hi there,

Luis Sousao that you blocked early April is evading his block with:

Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the head-up. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply



what you correctet is not correct because that megrelian word is not originated from turkish TomTom777Tom (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requesting undeletion of Zarabi


The original entry wasn't formatted very well, but the information itself was correct and I was in the process of dramatically cleaning up the page. Binarystep (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Put the cleaned up version on the talk page first. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. Binarystep (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requesting undeletion of manticratic


Can I kindly request undeletion of the entry? As far as I can see, the main reason for deletion was the fact that it was previously deleted. However, the original deletion was done with the caveat that the word should not be re-entered without valid citations. I have added the citation along with other articles referring to or discussing the word. I myself set out to create this entry after reading T. E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and not being able to find the word on this site. The meaning is clear both from the word's etymology and the context of the added quotation. Wiktionary contains other hapax legomena (such as nortelrie) and this word is evidently not entirely obscure, as evidenced by articles linked in the deleted entry. Yes, T. E. Lawrence most likely invented the word, but nonetheless it's contained in a classic of English literature. I think its addition might be helpful to Wiktionary users (as it would have been to me when I tried to look it up). CaptainPermaban (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our criteria for inclusion for 'well-documented languages', which includes English, states that words, if not in "clearly widespread use", must have 'use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year'. Any words that aren't understood to be likely to meet this criteria end up going through a request for verification, and once deleted, the entries can only be recreated if quotes are added to show that they clearly meet these criteria. Hapaxes therefore do not count, since they can only be cited to one source. The best place to document it is therefore probably Appendix:English nonces, but I'd ask on WT:TEA to be sure. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for a quick, kind and comprehensive reply. I am a relative newcomer, so I was not aware of this specific rule. It's a shame though, I spent quite a lot of time formatting the entry (I guess it's a learning experience). I'll definitely ask on WT:TEA later about the potential addition to Appendix:English nonces. The problem is the words in the appendix do not show up in searches, so it's pretty useless to the average user. Wouldn't it be better to have these words as individual entries and clearly marked as nonces, or at least somehow make the Appendix itself visible when searching for the words contained therein? CaptainPermaban (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Displaying the Appendix directly under search results is tricky for technical reasons. On the other hand, allowing some nonces or hapaxes through would inevitably result in a conversation about just which of them are exactly notable enough to include and which ones aren't. For that reason it is a highly risky approach. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, if you want the formatting you wrote for the deleted version of the entry, I can provide it to you. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would be very kind of you. As to your point regarding nonces and hapaxes, I can't say I necessarily agree, although I see your point. I think the discussion shouldn't really be led about the notability of individual words, but about the notability of their authors. I think every word contained, for example, in the works of James Joyce or Roald Dahl should be added, regardless of whether they were coined by the author and aren't used anywhere else. People read these books and try to look up the words, the information that they were invented by the author (maybe alongside basic etymology or other explanations) is IMHO immensely valuable and saves a lot of time searching elsewhere. CaptainPermaban (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here are the page contents. Shifting the discussion to specific authors then will of course lead to a discussion about which authors are then notable. In any case, it's a discussion that, if it is had, is best had over at WT:BP. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CaptainPermaban, Surjection: How about adding the entry to Appendix:English nonces and adding {{no entry|en|{{in appendix|English nonces}}|because=unattested}} to [[manticratic]]? 0DF (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Added after positive reponse on Wiktionary:Tea_room#manticratic. CaptainPermaban (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CaptainPermaban: I'm glad I could help. 0DF (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

what is wrong with you


Can't you read the amendments and the summary of the amendments before undoing them? Does the so-called Fay Freak come to you crying and say things without the slightest thought like a puppet? You just look at his amendments to know the amount of hatred he has for the Arabic word. Many sources talk about the Arabic origin of the word and its root, and because someone said that it is Aramaic without any logic, you removed the sources that talk about the origin of the word in Arabic even though it is basically Arabic! This is a disease 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, what you're doing is removing a sourced etymology and replacing it with an unsourced one, because you cannot accept the idea that Arabic has borrowed words from other languages. If you actually had any sources to back up your claims, you would've added them, yet you didn't and you never will - because you do not have any. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
source ? Arthur Jeffrey's book became a source despite the great controversy over the errors in it?
The Arabic word عيد (ʿīd) means 'festival', 'celebration', 'feast day', or 'holiday'. It itself is a triliteral root ‏عيد‎ (ʕ-y-d) with associated root meanings of "to go back, to rescind, to accrue, to be accustomed, habits, to repeat, to be experienced; appointed time or place, anniversary, feast day"
The articles contain sources. Not everything that the one who is angry about Arabic tells you, you submit to without thinking or logic.
and this A page that collects the origin of the word Eid from many ancient and modern Arabic dictionaries
So be realistic and have some culture before acting in this oppressive manner 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two of the three links are not sources for any of the etymology you added. The third doesn't appear to discuss the etymology, simply early instances of the word. So, as I said, it's clear you don't have any sources to back up your claims. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Early proverbs of the word?? Read the entire third link on the origin of the word from many dictionaries. It is now clear that you want sources based on your mood only. 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And, for the record, I'll gladly keep reverting your edits and blocking you for as long as you keep removing etymologies just because you do not like them. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because I don't like her?! Don't you notice that the so-called Fay Freak is the one who doesn't like the Arabic language? Don't you see his modifications and his desperation for this? Why did he not include the sources that talk about the origin and root of the word in Arabic? Rooster's answer: Or will you act childishly because you are wrong? 16:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That you accuse users of "hating" the Arabic language because we document its etymologies accurately, as sources state, shows that you're not here in any kind of good faith. Blocking you is therefore entirely justified. Stop wasting our time. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, this is not accurate documentation, but regardless of what I told you, look at its modifications, so do not accurately describe hatred as principles 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Where did you go? Rather, where did you escape? I provided you with sources and then you disappeared. Or do you prefer to stay silent because it turns out that you are wrong and without the slightest trick here? 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And you do not stop evading and start reading the sources, especially the third 12:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ You need to chill the heck out. You are not getting your point across at all persuasively with your accusations of hatred.
@Surjection: I can't read the Arabic links, but w:Eid al-Adha#Etymology does cite the Oxford Arabic Dictionary (2014) and the Arabic–English Dictionary of Qur'anic Usage (Badawi & Abdel Haleem 2008) in support of an Arabic etymology, with The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'ān (Jeffery 2007) cited in support of a Syriac or Targumic Aramaic etymology. Perhaps both should be given with the etymology marked as contested.
0DF (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not even going to bother responding to the IP - it's clear they only care about their own feelings. If there are sources to suggest some other etymology than the one currently on the page, then the etymology can of course be amended as appropriate. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course. I can't say I care. I was just trying to resolve the conflict. 0DF (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I gave you links and you ran away instead of reading, even though dictionaries talk about the root of the word and its origin, and say feelings? Don't you notice that you and the other young man I spoke about before are possessed by feelings? 18:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not accusing, but this is what is clear from looking at many of the articles and seeing its amendments and summaries of the amendments and the third link. You can use the translation to read. What you consider to be sources now in the article claim that there is no root for the word in Arabic, and this is the reason for saying that it is not Arabic. Where is the logic in a claim like this, that they do not even know whether there is a root or not, and they denied it without thorough research? 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two observations: first of all, you keep making minor variations on your arguments and demanding they be refuted, point by point. This strikes me as throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Second, you need to accept that this is far more important to you than to anyone else. Apparently unlike you, Surjection has better things to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
What are you talking about? He also basically evaded when I gave him the site of dictionaries in the Arabic language with the meaning and origin of the word. He basically refused to be gentle and chose to disappear instead of admitting his mistake. This young man does not even have a life until you say he has better things to do, so stop this childish behavior. They spoke to me realistically and logically 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia, apart from being less patrolled by those knowledgeable in the language arts, writes contradictory information, or fake controversies, due to forbidding synthesis of references, which Wiktionary in contrast has to consider, and yet, due to Wikipedia’s refusal to interpret or even understand (→ reading comprehension) sources, Badawi-Haleem 2008 (pp. 651–652) does not say what they pretend it says. It does not list عِيد (ʕīd) under ع ي د (ʕ-y-d) with said associated root meanings but ع و د (ʕ-w-d). Which is not even an etymology statement because Arabic dictionaries are sorted by root, and roots are not etymologies, as we use to say on Wiktionary now.
Now, عِيد (ʕīd, festive day) being derived from ع و د (ʕ-w-d), you mean the verb عَادَ (ʕāda) which has the said associated meanings, is formally possible, as the closing sequence iw in *ʕiwd is disallowed in Arabic, so that it would have to become *ʕīd. However this transfix is not likely for semantic reasons; I notice because I like Arabic and feel its morphology due to exposure. You have to be open to the idea of borrowing to feel a morphology though. This weak argument, which is still an argument to be put into the balance collectively with others, is joined by the much more important observation that it is highly untrustworthy for two languages separated by around five millennia (Proto-West Semitic or Proto-Central Semitic if this is a thing) to share a word as specific as to mean “festive day, a day at which religious celebration is customary”. So one language has borrowed, and guess what, if the term is attested in Aramaic lects in the centuries before Islam, even in Palmyrene Aramaic as referenced by CAL via DNWSI, on which link surprise, surprise, you read Loan into Arabic عِيد, then it is almost certainly not borrowed from Arabic into Aramaic, which is also formally impossible due to the vowel ē, not ī, there.
I have done this thousands of times by now. Such easy etymologies are not even referenced much, only passed by. But as already recognized, IP does not care about logics nor sources and forces to the lips of the Arabic language a poisoned chalice. Don’t get yourself baited, @0DF, I am not partisan, in fact I am engaged in purism myself for epistemological interest, a fan of Eduard Engel from youth, so I am sensitive to the fact that Arabic is still one of the purest of all languages, in spite of her great extension. And somehow to have the language pure you should know which words are foreignisms! Only not strike them out OCPD-style. Fay Freak (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: If those two citations for the Arabic etymology in w:Eid al-Adha#Etymology don’t say what is claimed of them, could you remove them from that article, please? 0DF (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@0DF: I allow you to turn to account my insight. I am not a Wikipedia editor. If I give off reasonable thoughts too much then I get reverted. You can mask better 🤡, I find it hard to do something sufficiently dumb that they swallow it. Have you looked at my meagre German Wikipedia contributions? Some foodstuff where the unreadably confused etymology section was mended by me and I suppressed the matter to deal with more fruitful work. Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: In the light of the acrimony in this section, I think I'll steer clear of “turning your insight to good account”. Re “If I give off reasonable thoughts too much then I get reverted.” I – alas! – experienced just that lately, with this ignorant reversion of a correction I made. Of course, I subsequently reasserted my correction and castigated the reversor, but it was depressing to witness such cocksure ineptitude. 0DF (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
What are you talking about? Is it according to your mood that roots are not origins of words? This means that you do not know anything in Arabic, so why do you have such enormous hatred towards it, and there is a difference between the idea of borrowing and an original word in the language being illogically attached to another language? The sources’ owners did not even know about the southern language, and that neutrality exists in everyone. Therefore, it is natural that there is a unique word in every language. Even Eid is not in Aramaic or has the same meaning. The reason for the claim is that he thought that the word Eid has no root in Arabic, and this strongly demonstrates the weakness of the writer. So your claim that it is a metaphor is ridiculous. You made your argument from Inspire your imagination to try to remove suspicions about you and your actions. Arabic is also one of the oldest Semitic languages, if you do not know, and I strongly believe this is the case after seeing your actions and words in your responses to people in many articles. And do not blame others for what you suffer from. We all know that you You are the one who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder here, and you explained why before. An Arabic word that has been used in Arabic for thousands of years removes its Arabic origin from Arabic dictionaries and makes an illogical claim from a person whose statements are suspicious and many of which have been refuted. This is ridiculous and shows that you are not... Hating for Arabic, even if you deny it, is an attempt to cover up your actions 20:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I cannot suffer from obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. One doesn’t get it diagnosed even when fulfilling the criteria, which I probably don’t as of now, if one already has Asperger's syndrome. If you want to see how it looks if one has OCPD, I would now point to the userspace of User:Dan Polansky, who has cleanly listed his subpages, always busy with making strict rules which others would have to adhere to even if he knew that they have weighty reasons not to. Maybe appreciate the reasons I have put forward? I have been much more generous with providing explanations than anyone else.
Individual obsessive-compulsive disorder (note the lack of personal) can be diagnosed and is something unrelated and unrelatable. Maybe learn what they can be, what forms they can take and how they come about. But especially consider whether you fulfil the criteria of paranoid personality disorder. Because, from the limited information we have about you, a lot of boxes are ticked. These illnesses all have equal prevalence, look it up too, you could be surprised, with nosognosia. Luckily identities can change, in spite of the name suggesting otherwise.
We have previously written many etymologies claiming Arabic words from roots, including thousands by me. It is useful to relate Arabic words to roots; we all learn Arabic by it, as beginners. This is why we have {{ar-rootbox}} now. But our Arabic editing community has realized that words are derived from individual words (though sometimes it is difficult to say which specific words), not roots, because the roots do not bear meaning, actually we claim them to have meanings because there are words belonging to them. So أَعَادَ (ʔaʕāda) is from the specific word عَادَ (ʕāda), because of the meanings there, made causative by a derivational transfix. Saying أَعَادَ (ʔaʕāda) is “from the root ع و د (ʕ-w-d)” is a half-truth. If it were loaned from Aramaic, like أَفْتَى (ʔaftā) is, it would be a quarter-truth. Understood? Neuroplasticity, get more of it. I hope I have not shocked you too much—wish you all the best in your studies! Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A disgusting and disgusting philosophy that shows your weakness at the beginning of the response regarding obsessive-compulsive disorder, and here you are introducing a new word whose origin you yourself have modified and made it from classical Syriac. Like every time I look at your amendments, I feel laughing and ashamed at the same time because there are people like you, and seriously, you are the one who needs to study, as you have clarified. Before you got sick of something that is called Arabic, you remove the infinitives regarding Arabic words and just put them as borrowed because it terrifies you, and again you speak from your head and say the roots have no meaning. How can someone with this ignorance be edited here?
كلمة عيد في الُّلغة العَربيّة تعني (عود) حُذِفَ حرفُ الواو وحلَّ محِلَّهُ (الياء) فأصبح عيد
On what basis was the derivation made from the root? ع و د Is it half true? You literally classify facts according to your mood
For example, the word أفتى This word is from a well-known root, barley, in the Arabic language, and its meaning is clear, and it is also mentioned strongly in Arabic dictionaries. Originally, the Arabic language is older than Syriac, which in turn is older than classical Syriac, so what are you talking about? You only confirm my statements towards you and your extreme hatred for Arabic, and literally this is clear in all the articles.
It is funny when you make a Western man's assumptions about a difficult language like Arabic. These assumptions are centuries old 21:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Confirm is the keyword here. Confirmation bias. Because of your mood, everything is from Arabic, and “mentioned strongly” – a classification by your emotion! The expression “mentioned strongly” is so insane that nobody ever said this on the internet. Valid arguments there are none from your side, only petitio principii. It must be because you decided so, that everyone of a different perspective is just terrified, hateful, moody and suchlike. And yet I score high on alexithymia, such that it is impossible for me to be guided by mood. How does it fit together? You speak from your head and I suggest to check yourself for PPD, instead of your surroundings for a conspiracy towards you, your tribe or family. I am Arabic-friendly. It does not follow I will lie about it and write preconceived conclusions devoid of balance. Conversely it follows not if you assume that I hate it. There are different sections of the brain at work here: One that affects you, motivates you, another intellectual integrity. It means making judgments independently of your personal disposition towards the parties, such as Arabic and Aramaic. Doesn’t matter who is older. The question is what happened back in the day? Can you imagine it? The process of acquiring a new word, in real people of antiquity? Fay Freak (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why do you always describe to others what you suffer from? You are the one who edits the articles based on emotion, no one else. I have said before and provided a source regarding the word in the Arabic language and the aforementioned dictionaries. You insist on the speculations of Arthur Jeffrey, which are doubted by everyone in the first place, and who based his word on the fact that there is no root for the word. In Arabic, it is said that it is borrowed! He doesn't know about the root at all, and because of this setback, you started making excuses about this matter and started lying that the roots have nothing to do with the language in the first place? Are you laughing at yourself or at whom exactly? On what basis is the statement that it is mentioned with the force of a crazy statement? Is it a fact that bothers you or because it is not in your mood? Man, if the one who says crazy things is literally you, and what is this childish way of responding? Or do you have a response? I spoke about your hatred and hate when I saw your edits in many of the articles and your responses to... People in it and now you are acting like you are an oppressed person and made it about viewpoints! Confront me with reality and logic, and forget about these shameful actions, and do not say that you are a friend of the Arabic language, for you are clear as the sun and have spoken about the matter several times before, and you are actually lying and writing phrases that are devoid of balance, so do not try to lie, for example, the article “مسكين” was written verbatim. Your own claim, when you saw the history of amendments and the article about which we were arguing, despite the existence of a root, you denied that there is a relationship to the root in the language at all! Even though the explanation for the word is found in dictionaries as well, you deny it and now say that you do not write expressions that are devoid of balance? Do not try to act smart in front of me because you will fail, and say what is important is what happened that day, so what basis did Arthur Jeffrey say to her that she is not an Arab? Even though he has Arabic origin? Will you again deny the root issue?
Take this from an Arabic dictionary that also talks about the origin of the word
المعجم: الغني
جمع: أَعْيَادٌ. [ع و د].
1. :-حَلَّ يَوْمُ الْعِيدِ :- : يَوْمٌ لِلاحْتِفَالِ وَالتَّذْكَارِ بِحَادِثٍ دِينِيٍّ أَوْ تَارِيخِيٍّ مُهِمٍّ. :-عِيدُ الأَضْحَى :- :-عِيدُ الْمِيلاَدِ :- :-عِيدُ الْفِطْرِ :- :-عِيدُ الْمَوْلِدِ النَّبَوِيِّ :- :-عِيدُ الاسْتِقْلاَلِ.
2. :-أَدْعُوكَ لِحُضُورِ عِيدِ مِيلاَدِي :- : ذِكْرَى يَوْمَ وُلِدْتُ.
3. :-أَمْرُهُ عِيدٌ :- : مَا يُعُودُ الإِنْسَانَ مِنْ هَمٍّ أَوْ مَرَضٍ أَوْ شَوْقٍ وَ مَا إِلَى ذَلِكَ. :-عِيدٌ بِأَيَّةِ حَالٍ عُدْتَ يَا عِيدُ. (المتنبي).
For the writer عبد الغني أبو العزم 22:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why do you always describe to others what you suffer from?. Likewise ;) . This is not about people hating or loving languages. It's about reading and interpreting evidence. Fay Freak is a very strange person and sometimes writes some very strange things. Anti-Arabic bigotry is not one of their problems. Ignorance of how any Semitic language is put together is also not one of their problems- they may be wrong, but they aren't ignorant. Anyway, derivation from a root doesn't eliminate the possibility of borrowing from a related language that has the basically the same roots. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Very nice. This person takes basically questionable sources and leaves other sources, so don’t tell me to read and explain, because what is happening here is the opposite, and how can derivation from fragments not negate borrowing from another language? Does no one speak Arabic here??? Literally everyone is speaking based on their own lapses here now. If you read the responses, you will know that the source that this person relies on says that he thought it would come because the word does not have a root. This is the argument! Although it has a root, this shows the lack of knowledge of the writer of the source, and Net tells me to read the sources and interpret them. If you do not know anything about what is going on here, do not interfere, dear America. 06:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And don't tell me that the issue has nothing to do with hating the Arabic language if you don't see the amendments, summaries of the amendments, and people's responses to it, literally in all the articles. 06:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
IP, the so-called Fay Freak is obviously on the payroll of the Aramaic lobby. Stop wasting your time. Vahag (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
So this explains the intensity of his hatred towards Arabic and his illogical bias towards Aramaic 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ I'm fairly sure that Vahagn Petrosyan is trolling you here. 0DF (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

About Zarabi surname


Hello. My grandfather's surname is Zarabi and his ancestors' surname was also Zarabi. Many of them migrated from Iran before the Islamic revolution and some migrated after that event. If they stayed in Iran, they could not survive.

They were scattered in different countries. And they are grateful to the host countries for the security and everything they received.

So I know how their last name is pronounced in their native language.

Yours faithfully

@Binarystep EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@EncyclopedistMachine: this is a dictionary. It's about words and phrases as words and phrases. In other words, it's about the word "Zarabi", not about the Zarabi family and their history. We also have a very specific format (see WT:EL), in order to keep consistency among our 8 million entries. We also have different policies regarding authoritative references from Wikipedia (See WT:CFI). Most of the content you've added is irrelevant here, and your formatting doesn't work here. The references you've added are unnecessary. Aside from a few basic facts provided at the beginning that have been incorporated using the correct formatting and templates, your edits have just made things worse. It's not that you're trying to damage things or make a mess, but that's the effect of most of what you've done with this entry. Please take some time to learn how Wiktionary does things before making more changes. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
☺️ 👋🏻 Hello.
This is all I have written in the dictionary:
Zarabi in Persian means "Master of the Mint" and "Minter" or "Coin-maker."
@Chuck Entz
🙏🏻 EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This was a list of people who have such surnames.
I accepted the removal of the names of people like Moluk Zarrabi and did not edit the page again.
They are not my relatives.
This last name is related to occupation.
@Chuck Entz EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
In Iran, this surname is written in two ways: Zarabi ضرابی/زرابی and Zarrabi ضرّابی
wikipedia: EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

my talk page


Hi. Might I enquire why you deleted my talk page. Morwen (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was just vandalism. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply



Thanx for sorting out the page! I notice your rfe etymology, I am working on some ideas for it. 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the etymology you first added was any indication, please don't. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, you win. But may I at least link Tampere to tempel? 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there any particular reason to do so? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is a major city, people might be interested to know what the name means. 15:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are we really not expecting users to be able to click through some links? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It makes things convenient, and it is more helpful for occasional users. 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For one, the English didn't get the word directly from Proto-Samic; for another, the etymology isn't simply Proto-Samic > Finnish > English, but there are additional changes within the Finnish phase. I don't see the point. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Block me forever


Just block me for good. I have did lots of damage as User:Rosela Avancena. Block params: (logged-in users blocked, account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) 10:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you want to be blocked, and why are you openly admitting to sockpuppetry?
P.S. @Surjection, may you please explain to me how sockpuppetry can be enforced without blatant admissions of it? Username142857 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requesting nothing


have a good day sir:) — This unsigned comment was added by Mckidz1 (talkcontribs) at 08:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC).Reply



Both encodeurl and PAGENAME seemingly HTML encode certain special characters (including hyphens), so on e.g. "-nönnönnöö" it looks up "-nönnönnöö". PAGENAME is the culprit: if you set 1=-nönnönnöö, there's no problem. Do you have a quick fix for this? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply



This looks to be a about a real person. Can you hide the edit and the one after it? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hidden, thanks. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rollback of edit on quarter-pounder page


Hi @Surjection You reverted the edits I made on the quarter-pounder page and I respectfully request that you undo this rollback. I deleted "Now sometimes used as a genericized trademark, although the trademark remains active in many countries." As the trademark is very widely registered (in over 60 countries), it ought not be referred to as a genericized trademark as this risks users believing they can use the mark in a generic way, exposing them to trademark infringement action. Further, Quarter Pounder is not on the list of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms  List of generic and genericized trademarks and the Wikipedia Quarter Pounder page cited in the definition also makes it clear this is McDonald's brand ( The definition is more accurate without this sentence which could mislead users. Many thanks IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@IntangibleAssetEnthusiast We report language as it is used, not as you or McDonald's would like it to be used. If it is used as a generic trademark then that is a matter of fact, not law, and it is plainly justified by the five quotations under the first sense which show that it has been used that way. It is trivial to find more examples with only a cursory Google search. The Wikipedia pages that you link are not relevant, because they do not change the fact that the statement has evidential basis, and is therefore justified. Theknightwho (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
TKW, this user never learns. I don't think they can be reasoned with in any way, and I realistically do not see a reason to let them keep editing. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're right - I didn't realise this was StobbsOBE under a different name. We've said what needs to be said, and we've already gone out of our way to ensure the entry complies with the law by noting the trademark is still registered in many jurisdictions, so I agree there's litte point in engaging further.
I know that I said we should be open to discussion about legal issues when this first came up last year, but that doesn't extend to someone who repeatedly raises the same points over and over, as that's just a waste of everyone's time. Theknightwho (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@IntangibleAssetEnthusiast: It is bizarre that you believe that removing the sentences protects the brand. You, or your clients, attempt to avert the sign becoming (more) genericized, by removing the statement that it is sometimes, contextually, genericized, whereas the same sentence, which you attempted to remove, avers that the trademark remains, from which a competitor would conclude that he can’t legally use it, whereas without the sentence the present law fact cannot be deduced from the entry. Overall the entry gave greater impression of genericization after your edit. We also told your law firm already that genericization in a linguistic instance is distinct from the language situation, which is a legal requirement for the legal consequence of trademark protection being lost, as a whole, which is also evident from the circumstance that we claim the trademark being protected while at the same time genericized, a statement which cannot be read by a reasonable (i.e. logically-thinking) person in your shunned legally relevant sense without contradiction. Fay Freak (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Block and reverts


This revert looks wrong to me. "The most Sino-Indonesian" doesn't sound right, does it? And I reckon this was a misunderstanding. You mention "multiple accounts/block evasion" in your blocking comment, though, so perhaps I'm missing something. Denazz (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it's correct, then it's fine to reinstate them. But with this particular editor, sifting out any potential good edits from the many bad ones would mean they'd be able to waste more of our time than they already do. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll go through them. Denazz (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I'm gonna just undo all your recent reverts, as I reckon the IP made improvements. Will you consider unblocking? Denazz (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. This editor is known for adding made-up terms and removing RFV templates from their entries (and sometimes others too) out of process. Any good edits they make are not balanced out by that disruption. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, suit yourself. I must admit, I got a mighty thrill from mass-reverting an admin of your standing. Doesn't happen often (neither the thrill nor the mass-reversion) Denazz (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to poke my nose in (I wonder what the etymology of that phrase is), but what's an RFV template? Username142857 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
WT:RFVSURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply



I have found the above word in a Wikipedia article. What counts as sufficient attestation for inclusion? Username142857 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The way the Wikipedia article is worded makes it fairly clear that it's not a word in actual use. The criteria for inclusion are documented here. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My bad... I know that I don't have the best track record. Also, the filters don't really seem to be fair since people wouldn't read over a hundred filter descriptions and might not know to put blank lines before headings, or that adding blank sections, or not adding references will result in your edit being reverted. I mean, if I didn't read (three of) the filters, I may have added blank sections (for others to complete) and/or not add references, since it takes a lot of work to write sections and find references, and I may have not known to put blank lines before headings Username142857 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You blocked a user, now protect a page.


You blocked User:Dontaskquestionsplz, now protect sloshball for 1 week (as a way to defeat vandalism and spamming by IPs and very new/unconfirmed users). Mihai Popa 😃📃 Talk to me! 💬My contributions! 🕔🕖06:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That term is truly existing on Chinese internet.


What should I do to prevent you from deleting my page? Gyogatsu (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

They were not formatted correctly at all. They lacked the definition and the appropriate labels, and "Esenihc" is not a valid L2 heading. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nion LFN


Name for Japan MohammedFergana (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfair block


What you did here is unacceptable: bridge. You blocked me for adding a request for cleanup because of an incorrect/missing pronunciation. But then you went ahead and added the missing pronunciation yourself proving that the cleanup was actually needed. Kinda ridiculous, don't you think? Protegmatic (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What you did was assert that the existing pronunciation was wrong (it's not), despite not speaking that language, and simply readd the claim once a native speaker removed it. This is just another case of someone who thinks they know every language playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. A partial block from that page to ensure you simply wouldn't add that request again is completely reasonable. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I absolutely don't think I can speak Finnish, otherwise I would've added the pronunciation myself. But you know what, just go ahead and perma block me. I'm sick and tired of devoting hours of my day to editing and improving Wiktionary and still being treated like shit by little bitches like you who think they own this website Protegmatic (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Protegmatic has a history of working in languages they have no knowledge in and causing problems. I would support a longer block on their account. -- Sokkjō 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply



Please take care to do a bare minimum of searching before deleting an entry as a "Creative invention or protologism". Ioaxxere (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply