Open main menu


Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month. Let me know if you'd prefer a secret alert by e-mail next time.

Equinox 00:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Sorry if that feels a bit pushy, but would you be willing to nominate me for adminship? As I've said here, I'd like to take up the mop. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a self-nomination, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation of CheckUser statusEdit

Hello TheDaveRoss, as Chuck Entz has been successfully nominated as a CheckUser, can you confirm your wish to continue your task of CheckUser too (to be sure you want your CU rights restored). Best regards, Linedwell (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Linedwell I do, and I have been talking with RadiX about getting all of the ducks in a row. - TheDaveRoss 12:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

EWDC #2Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

EWDC #3Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 04:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello sir. I remember you saying somewhere that a Wiki is poorly suited to a dictionary project, but that, unless we want to throw away everything we've done and start from scratch, the conversion to a proper database would have to be incremental. Could you expand?


--2A02:2788:A4:F44:A99F:AFD6:2D3D:98C4 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I can expand on any of those points. I think a wiki is poorly suited for a dictionary because it has a very "flat" file format, and linguistic data is largely relational. The wiki format lends itself best to long-form information, such as Wikipedia. Having a reasonably strong relational database available would make many types of linguistic data much easier to store, process and present.
The start from scratch comment mostly concerns the current data structure, both locally and across all Wiktionary projects. Some data is in reasonably standard format, and could be processed into relational data easily. The vast majority of existing data is not and would need some form of human oversight to be accurately mapped into a database. This could be done incrementally, starting with virtually any type of relationship and moving through one at a time. I would imagine that it would be easiest to start with definitions and go from there.
Not sure that that was expansive enough, but if you would like specifics feel free to ask. - TheDaveRoss 13:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template editorEdit

This anon has been engaged in a large number of template edits. I am rather template-oblivious so have no clue if these are positive edits, or ones which are breaking dozens/hundreds of entries. - Amgine/ t·e 16:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amgine, Stardsen, Echtio The edits seem reasonable, assuming that the information is correct. Without any knowledge of Picard I am unable to say. Pinging some Picard editors, but anyone who knows French would be starting from a better place than I am. - TheDaveRoss 13:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I can understand "picard" quite well. The edits seem OK. Good work. --Echtio (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC) See for example --Echtio (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look, Echtio. - TheDaveRoss 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

DaveBot NORMs run 10/07Edit

Did you use /\-{4}\n/ to capture the hr? cuz…, just sayin'. - Amgine/ t·e 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Something like that, but I have since updated it to a more robust regex. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi TheDaveRoss, can you please check the Votator definition on other online dictionaries? Other online dictionaries have the definition as I amended prior to you reverting it back. Please advise. Skim1024 (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Skim1024 Onelook doesn't have any other dictionaries listed. Per the various discussions around this term we have concluded that the term has been genericized, so the trademark aspect belongs in the etymology not the definition. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Per online dictionaries and and (tagged as a trademark) the definition of Votator is listed as a trademark/brand. I understand that per various discussions it was concluded as a term that was genericized, however, there are other online dictionary outlets that are showing it in the correct form. The word Votator has trademark registration certificates all around the world. Please reconsider. Skim1024 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Skim1024 Those sites are just presenting Wiktionary definitions, and have not pulled a more recent version. - TheDaveRoss 18:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We should be able to at least mention the truth of the matter that the word VOTATOR is a registered trademark in the US and various other countries regardless of whether you believe it is a generic term. Please amend the definition as follows - a registered trademark for a brand of machine that cools and kneads liquid margarine etc., preparatory to packaging. This is not a misleading or false statement. If you require registration certificates, I am happy to supply them. If the definition of a word such as Xerox is labeled as a trademark (, the definition of Votator should follow the same form. Skim1024 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

xerox. - TheDaveRoss 21:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #4Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to lodge a complaint, SemperBlotto added some of my words. These retirees are taking jobs away from we deserving <whatever my generation is called>. - TheDaveRoss 16:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
SemperBlotto is a bad man and I know where he lives. Arses may be kicked. Equinox 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #5Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #6Edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 21:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous and Open ProxiesEdit

Gfarnab uses a lot of anonymous proxies, so I need to be clear on how we deal with these. I know open proxies aren't allowed, since there's no way anyone can ever know who's using them. Are anonymous proxies treated the same, or do we treat them like normal IPs because of their use to evade state internet censorship? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz. Personally I have mostly been deferring to the global blockers to place long-term blocks on proxies when applicable, and treating every block here as if it were a non-proxy. If I happen upon an IP that seems to have a pattern of abuse much longer than a typical block I will mention it to the global blockers. I don't think that policy is really established here, so you can feel free to place longer blocks on proxies as you see fit. I think Tor exit nodes and other proxies likely to be used for good purposes should have logged-in users exempted, but again I don't think that is a policy. - TheDaveRoss 11:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So you were wrong whilst writing I was going to eventually get tired... It'd be better for your policing "grand scheme" not to lose at every new thing you try and to know that infinite proxies minus one proxy equals infinite proxies. Have fun pushing buttons unfruitfully!
I am not sure what I was wrong about, but I would contend that your activity here is the definition of unfruitful. I feel just fine about the results of my efforts. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I was referring to Chuck: you, Dave, never wrote I was "going to eventually get tired" and I think the work you do here is fruitful. G'night!


Do you know if there was a discussion regarding linking this template to en.WP language articles rather than en.WT articles? I was surprised the link to w:French language appeared to be a link to French, and I do not like that kind of surprise so I went looking to see why. Unsuccessfully. - Amgine/ t·e 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amgine I don't recall, but I wouldn't necessarily. It probably happened at some point after it went down the obfuscation hole that is our module system. - TheDaveRoss 19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
<big over-dramatic sigh> - Amgine/ t·e 19:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Did you do that on purpose? --Per utramque cavernam 19:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: Nope, sorry about that! - TheDaveRoss 19:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Per utramque cavernam 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

US surname stats templateEdit

Hey, do think it would be useful to make a template for surname statistics? I'm interested in surnames as well, and it would save a lot of typing/copying and pasting. I have a draft but I don't know how to make a 3+ item list for the ethnicities, or if there's a way to get the ordinal suffix things – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the 2010 United States Census, {{PAGENAME}} is the {{{1|}}}{{sup|{{{2|}}}}} most common surname in the United States{{#if: {{{3|}}} |, belonging to {{{3}}} individuals}}.{{#if: {{{4|}}} | {{PAGENAME}} is most common among {{{4}}} {{#if: {{{5|}}} |({{{5}}}%)}} {{#if: {{{6|}}} |and {{{6}}} {{#if: {{{7|}}} |({{{7}}}%)}}}}individuals.}} 
@Julia: I use script when adding these, so there is no additional typing for me on entry. If others want to add such information (for other countries, e.g.) I think a template might be of use. It is possible to get the ordinal suffix (using a module) and to do multiple-case conditional statements (using nested conditionals). - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May#Possible IP range blocks requiredEdit

I have not used abuse filters recently, but istr there's a method of range-blocking edits there. - Amgine/ t·e 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can check if an IP edit is from a range, however there are lots of good IP editors within the ranges being abused. - TheDaveRoss 22:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
…and adding each IP used by this particular individual to a filter might defeat the usefulness (not to mention being a maintenance nightmare.) yah. Glad that's SEP. <innocent blink> - Amgine/ t·e 00:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
One possibility is throttling: it doesn't stop them from editing, but it slows them down and makes the damage more manageable. If you keep the interval low enough, it will only be triggered by those who are making large numbers of edits in a very short period of time- more often than not a sign that someone is trying to do as much as they can before they're caught. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Could be worth a shot, but their historical editing pace has not been rapid. I think they rely more on their edits looking plausible enough to those who are unfamiliar with Finnish and related etymologies, and the few people who are familiar. - TheDaveRoss 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese formaEdit

Hi I noticed this was changed to a borrowing by the bot last year. Is this certain to be true? I'm unsure about it. Does it have to do with Old Portuguese fermoso? Word dewd544 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Word dewd544: Are you referring to these diffs? If so, check out this discussion. I made the updates, but I did so "dumbly" based on the request of others who knew what was going on. - TheDaveRoss 11:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh never mind then; seems I got the wrong person. Either way I think I understand what they were doing now, separating the two etymologies, with one set of senses being borrowed and another being popular. Thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion brought in IRCEdit

ca:Categoria:Pàgines que enllacen a la Viquipèdia is borrowing from an idea implemented in fr.WT, who also do other sister projects such as fr:Wikiquote. Such categories might be useful, especially for language learners. - Amgine/ t·e 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amgine: However somehow this will end up calling a module for every single link on the whole project, rendering everything one giant Lua error. - TheDaveRoss 18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Possibly, but I think they are using simpler sister projects template model where <code type="pseudo">if (is_sister_template) && (isset(lang)) then { [[category:Pages which link to {{{sister project}}}|{{{pagename}}}]][[category:Pages that link to {{{lang}}}:{{{sister project}}}|{{{pagename}}}]] }</code> or some similar lotek approach. - Amgine/ t·e 21:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi. Can you run your bot in main namespace (Translations section) and change all "Kurmanji" and "Sorani" to "Northern Kurdish" and "Central Kurdish" respectively? These are standard terms. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess I can do that. Is this the kind of thing where they should be nested under a single language or sorted by their full name? - TheDaveRoss 16:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes they should be under Kurdish, not independently. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
All we should do is this... .--Calak (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
What's up with bot?--Calak (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm downloading the most recent dump now, then I have to write the bot, then I can run it! - TheDaveRoss 20:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I don't want to make trouble.--Calak (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. Can you do it now? Thanks.--Calak (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calak, based on this discussion I am not inclined to make such changes. If you can drum up support for this change I am happy to make it, but bot made changes are supposed to be non-controversial, and as I have no basis for judging the merits of the change I do not feel comfortable making the changes without establishing a consensus to do so. - TheDaveRoss 12:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I don't like to trouble. So can u make this change?
Kurmanji: {{t+|ku| >>> Kurmanji: {{t+|kmr|
Kurmanji: {{t|ku| >>> Kurmanji: {{t|kmr|
Sorani: {{t+|ku| >>> Sorani: {{t+|ckb|
Sorani: {{t|ku| >>> Sorani: {{t|ckb|
Thanks.--Calak (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Calak: can you create a discussion at the Beer Parlor suggesting this change? If there is agreement there I am happy to run the bot to do so. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/Citations without citationsEdit

Hey Dave. Can you rerun Wiktionary:Todo/Citations without citations please? I think we might be left with a couple of dozen to do now --XY3999 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@XY3999: Updated. - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, all done except one - I'm travelling to Saudi Arabia soon, and am afraid that if I edit that page I won't be allowed in the country. Like when this guy quoted a cartoon and was arrested after entering USA --XY3999 (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@XY3999: That would be a terrible shame, since there are so many better reasons to keep you out of a country! - TheDaveRoss 13:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Damn, my visa got denied. --XY3999 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Wiktionary-l message from psychoslave, fyi. - Amgine/ t·e 21:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


Cheers for zapping all those Tracking pages. Now I can get a decent look at what's needed. --XY3999 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. - TheDaveRoss 18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

EWDC discussionEdit

Hello! I'm pondering doing EWDC again. See User talk:Equinox/EWDC. Equinox 04:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

quarter of a handfulEdit

I'm sure there's a word for that, but I can't think of what is larger than a pinch but smaller than a handful. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of one, the only thing close is a finger, but that is mostly for length and fluids. - TheDaveRoss 16:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In terms of volume, spoonful and its variations teaspoonful etc. fit, but I don't know of a tool-free term. DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Wow, you really weren't amused at all, huh?__Gamren (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That closure was totally out of process, we have to allow for the possibility that time travelers may have introduced the word. - TheDaveRoss 00:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


I don't know how I managed to do an indef block on an IP- I'm usually very careful not to block IPs more than 6 months. The exceptions almost always have a stable edit history going back at least as long as the period of the block and obviously the same person or group of people doing the same bad faith edits.

Gfarnab uses dodgy anonymous proxies, so I tend to give pretty long blocks for those IPs- but never infinite.

Thanks for catching and fixing my mistake. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: no worries, I try and remember to look every month or two to see if there are any. Muscle memory has caused me to indef block before without realizing that the vandal was an IP not an account. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Chinning barEdit

Are you sure the term is exclusively British? One of the citations is clearly American (Cynthia Ozick, 1966) and the other is Canadian (Timothy Findley, 1977). I assume your basis for saying it is not a US term is your own unfamiliarity with it? It's possible that it's now dated (either generally or in the North American context) but I think more research would be required before adding the "(now) UK" tag. Aabull2016 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aabull2016: Assume good faith. - TheDaveRoss 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
chin-up bar, chinup bar. (See w:Chin-up.) NGram has chin-up bar + chinup bar as recently more common than chinning bar. But I've known the devices as chin-up bars for more than a half-century (US). Google news archive search has about three times as many hits for chin-up bar as for chinning bar'. But apparently the Brits are relatively unfamiliar with the device (and the exercise?) because I found more hits for chin-up bar from the South China Morning Post than from UK newspapers, and many more from Canada and Australia. I'd estimate 90% of the usage to be US and Canada. 100% of News usage of chinning bar was US. DCDuring (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In my area they are pull-up bar first, chin-up bar second, and rarely if ever chinning bar. In the same way the exercise is a pull-up first, chin-up second, and rarely if ever chin. Perhaps it is more of a historical trend and less a regional one, the Google Trends view is highly regional but has no time dimension. - TheDaveRoss 19:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, our entries for chin-up and pull-up don't distinguish between them, but my idiolect and some other usage does. The usage that does is specifically descriptive of hand position, supinated vs pronated. DCDuring (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That is my experience as well. - TheDaveRoss 19:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No implication of anything other than good faith was implied or intended. It looks as if it would be appropriate to create entries for the more current synonyms. The trend for this term is clearly downward but it looks as if it's too early to label it as dated. Aabull2016 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Though the trend is up, it may be too early to make chin-up bar the main entry rather than a synonym entry, though the evidence other than Google NGrams would warrant it. DCDuring (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Normalizing TLD POS headers to nounEdit

Maybe they are proper nouns. There's only one .xxx like there's only one Paris. Equinox 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There's only one of each of those: you are confusing the name with the referent. Both Parises are proper nouns of course. Equinox 15:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox, SemperBlotto: .com the TLD is a proper noun and .com as a web address or business or otherwise is a common noun, perhaps? Nobody else gives a part of speech for these as far as I can tell, analogues like LLC (noun) and inc. (adjective) are just called abbreviations (which we don't seem to like). Symbol might also be right, but we should just agree on one thing instead of having some TLDs for each possible option. Probably I should have hosted a discussion first, but I have been annoyed for a long time that we had a mix, and this was the header which was requesting the cleanup. - TheDaveRoss 17:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Speeding up bot runsEdit

Hi. I notice from the logs of User:TheDaveBot that it was able to write ~ 250 pages a minute when removing interwiki links. How were you able to do this? I have tried removing all the throttling and sleeping from pywikibot but it still only writes one page a second. Are you using multiple threads or processes? I'm trying to convert templates that use lang= to put the language code in 1=, but the one-page-a-second limitation makes changing templates like {{IPA}} and {{inflection of}} very slow. Benwing2 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. Benwing2 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2:, Glad you figured it out. I wasn't using pywikibot, and I was also using multi-threading. - TheDaveRoss 12:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "TheDaveRoss".