To keep conversations on talk pages together and clearly structured, I prefer to answer issues raised here here.

Also, if I add something on your talk page then I'd prefer you to put your comments there rather than here. I will return to read them.

My archive

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
vowel pseudo-digraph118:02, 18 March 2019
Maiorana201:06, 5 May 2015
Sänger014:54, 24 April 2015
Talk:Czechia022:43, 4 October 2014
Buffer310:45, 29 September 2014
phobia definitions004:55, 10 September 2014
Blocking the crackpot514:51, 23 August 2014

vowel pseudo-digraph

We don't seem to have a definition for this (or even pseudo-digraph).

SemperBlotto (talk)21:01, 15 March 2019

Hmm, interesting...I can't seem to find anything on Google that isn't referring to graph theory either...

User: The Ice Mage talk to meh18:02, 18 March 2019

Hello PalkiaX50, I noticed you reverted an edit made by a user:, but their edit is actual beneficial and accurate. The English surname Maiorana has been in this country since the Anglo-Saxon period and is from the Old English language. Thank you,--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

22:39, 4 May 2015

@User:Chuck Entz, you reverted that addition last time. What do you have to say on the matter?

User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh23:56, 4 May 2015

I reverted it as a precautionary measure, because the IP who did it was spending a lot of time adding surname and given-name categories that had no relation to the entries whatsoever. In this case, they added Category:English surnames from Old English to maiorana, which is lower-case, has no English section, and which is easily recognized as the Latin name for a common herb. Given the obviously wrong edit involving the same name, I saw no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt when they added it to the appendix.

They may have just been working off of a list and ignoring what was in the entries they were adding the categories to, or they may have been running a bot, but either way they were a recurring headache for several admins that were cleaning up after them, and there were at least two of us that blocked them under different IPs to try to get them to stop.

Chuck Entz (talk)01:06, 5 May 2015

This rollback is in error. Furthermore the edit of this rollback at Sänger is sexist. -14:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

14:54, 24 April 2015


Do you have a problem with discussion?, 4 October 2014

I understand that many people erroneously use "data" as a singular, uncountable noun synonymous to "information"; but it is in fact a plural noun. Using it thereas is not archaic, wrong, nor overly pedantic. Even if "often before it is sent to an external device . . ." sounds wrong, it isn't. I believe that Wiktionary should use correct grammar and other conventions in its definitions and examples, as it is my primary source of all wordly data. I don't mean to pontificate, but I am very passionate about grammar and I like to see things done properly. Dylanvt (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dylanvt (talk)21:27, 28 September 2014

"Data" in a computer context is not the same thing as "data" in some other contexts. Just as it's quite proper to say indexes when you're referring to data structures, you shouldn't refer to computer data as plural. After all, what is a computer datum? is it a bit? A byte? The contents of one field in one record of a database? Has anyone since the early days of computing even referred to a computer datum in English?

Chuck Entz (talk)23:12, 28 September 2014

I concede that like noöne has ever referred to a singular computer datum, but I think of the word "datum" as simply meaning 'a single piece of information (of any type)'. I am certainly not an expert on programming or computing, so I wouldn't know about their argots. But generally speaking, "data" is always plural and "datum" always singular. And the definition for "buffer" is: "A portion of memory set aside to store data, often before it is sent to an external device . . .", which refers to multiple "data" or "pieces of information" beïng sent to somewhere. If it were just one piece of information beïng sent, then "it is" would be accurate. But since it is referring to multiple (general) data, I think it should be treated as a plural noun. I will conclude by saying that it isn't of supreme importance to me that the definition be fixed; I just personally think it should say "they are".

Dylanvt (talk)00:14, 29 September 2014

I'm tending to agree with what Chuck has said in this context is regarded as singular, regardless of whether older meanings/contexts of the word are plural.

User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh10:45, 29 September 2014

phobia definitions

Hi PalkiaX50, I'm writing concerning the rollbacks of changes on gynophobia, androphobia and androphobe. The reason I removed "hatred" from the definition is that the term refers to a phobia/fear disorder which doesn't necessarily have to have hatred attached to it (someone can be afraid of something but not hate it). Oxford online does not mention it [1] either, but I do think that the fear disorders are largely tied to misandry/misogyny though. My concern is that the definition is about the phobia, not the hatred of the gender, which might be different (Idk though, what do you think?). However I feel that "hatred" refers more to misogyny/misandry. Merriam-webster does not use the word "hatred" in describing androphobia [2] but it does use words related to aversion so that's ok.

Turn685 (talk)04:55, 10 September 2014

Blocking the crackpot

I see you have blocked the WT:FEED crackpot. I don't think that is good. People should not have been responding to the crackpot; if multiple people were repeatedly responding, they are themselves at fault and not the crackpot.

Dan Polansky (talk)10:27, 23 August 2014

Yeah, trolling that troll was keeping me out of trouble. What am I supposed to do now?

Renard Migrant (talk)11:01, 23 August 2014

*sigh*, Well I just felt like it was time to put an end to it since his comments were truly getting beyond ridiculous...but I guess you also have a point. Perhaps I'll collapse that discussion there and we can leave a notice on it too saying pretty much "do not continue discussion".

User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh12:45, 23 August 2014

I would prefer if you don't collapse anything. Let even a stupid discussion flourish. Yes, the crackpot is being stupid, but sometimes it is fun to argue with stupid people. Let us create as open an environment as we can get.

Dan Polansky (talk)12:53, 23 August 2014

I disagree. If someone's contributions constitute little more than wasting other people's time and trolling, we should not hesitate to use all means to eject them.

Also, wikis work because of the "someone is wrong on the Internet" phenomenon. But the flip side of that is that there will always be someone "at fault" of feeding trolls and generating endless drama that someone will have to keep in check. Conveniently, that person is not you.

If you want an "open environment" for discussions, go visit 4chan. This is ostensibly a dictionary-building project. Let us keep it focused on that task.

Keφr14:30, 23 August 2014

Indeed, if people are going to feed the troll then that is a problem too but a ban to the troll themselves easily stops it all because then the troll cannot leave another reply for those who misassume good intentions, be it due to wishy-washy AGF junk or any reasons, to in turn reply to.

User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh14:51, 23 August 2014