Vininn126

wypatrywać, wypatrzyć clarification

Hi, I want to understand these reverts a bit better, if that's ok with you. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding aspect.

My first change was to remove the sense of to keep an eye out for sth/sb from wypatrzyć. This jumped out to me as nonsensical as to keep an eye out is durative, atelic and, if I've understood correctly, imperfective. One can write "I kept an eye out for my friend for an hour" but, for contrast, not "I won the race for an hour". Therefore it seemed like a mistake that it was included.

I checked my intuition by looking in WSJP and two dictionaries local to my machine. (Oxford PWN Polish-English Dictionary / Wielki słownik polsko-angielski and Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego but I'm not sure they are the full versions or how dated they are). And subsequently now PWN. They all have only one sense for wypatrzyć and it seems to correspond to the spot sense. So the removal there felt justified.

For the revert on wypatrywać, by These actions can actually be imperfective or perfective in and of themselves, do you mean that spot and find in English can be both perfective and imperfective? I suspect you correctly caught me misunderstanding what imperfective means here but could you give an example to help?

If it adds to background, the change I made for wypatrywać was rooted in seeing that the definition in WSJP talks about trying/attempting, uważnie patrząc, starać się zobaczyć kogoś lub coś, and the definition from Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego has szukać in the brackets for the imperfective meaning, as opposed to say znajdować. uważnie, bacznie patrząc, badając wzrokiem, znaleźć (szukać), odkryć (odkrywać) coś, kogoś for wypatrzyć and wypatrywać as a pair. I think I overlooked the odkrywać, which would contain the element of success that is not implied in search.

I was planning to make another edit to wypatrywać. I notice from the inflexion in Tygrys wypatruje zdobyczy, that wypatrywać takes the genitive. So I was thinking to add {{+obj|pl|gen}} to each sense. But I guess it makes sense to clarify these reverts first. Hietheehither (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, I want to thank you for assuming good faith, undos can sometimes lead to heat.

Getting to your current arguments, WSJP is probably my top trusted Polish dictionary, as they are far less normative, always provide quotes, and good labelling etc. USJP is also pretty good; I don't use PWN's Polish-English dictionary.

Finally getting to the meat of the matter - WSJP and PWN give a fairly solid analysis, in my opinion, i.e. the spot meaning as being biaspectual (many telic verbs, after all, can still happen over time!), and I wouldn't change the glosses, since lexical aspect (i.e. telic etc.) doesn't usually translate over Slavic "grammatical" aspect (compare the fact that "eat up" can also be in continuous, despite being more "perfective" than just eat, same with wyjeść/wyjadać), but the meaning of wait as being monoaspectual. In this case, two headword templates on wypatrywać would be used, one linking to wypatrzyć as the aspectual equivalent, and another without any aspectual equivalent (compare mówić. Then, you could check składnia for either definition of wypatrywać at WSJP, which lists the genitive that you mentioned for the monoaspectual meaning.

I agree overall the entry isn't quite right, Vininn126 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Hietheehither. Vininn126 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On nagosz

I didn't quite understand this [revert]. The words listed as alternatives all have similar pronunciations... Did I misunderstand something about when to add such alternative words at the beginning of an article -- since any of them could in principle be the target the user was actually looking for when s/he ended up in nagosz by mistake? --Pereru (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru Please read the documentation on {{also}} - it's for characters, not pronunciation or different scripts. Vininn126 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. (NB: <sz> is alphabetically treated as two letters rather than as a single digraph, unlike Spanish <ch> in earlier times, right?) --Pereru (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru That depends on the language, but again, it's about computational characters, not linguistic letters. Vininn126 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looking again at the documentation you linked to, it starts with: "This template links to similar entries, especially those that differ only in capitalization, diacritics, or punctuation." I don't see a reference to computational characters here, and there's a reference to "similar entries" which suggests that even the number of computational characters and/or linguistic letters might differ. What gives? --Pereru (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru Old wording, and the part about it being about characters etc. was left out. Vininn126 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a more recent reference I can check? (I'm not doubting your word, I just wished to have something I could link to in case someone ever makes the opposite claim to me. I note there are also occurrences of {{also}} that would seem to violate the rules you posit, like in pir where one finds cyrillic forms similar only in pronunciation, or self, where one finds forms with added hyphens that have one extra computational character / linguistic letter not found in the page title.) --Pereru (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

~@Pereru The usage of this template over time has been unregulated and misunderstood. This has resulted in many misuses, which leads to many people not understanding its intended application. As such, the template should probably be automated, and people have tried in the past; apparently dealing with all the characters is a headache, and also it's not a high priority at the moment. Perhaps some day it will be! Vininn126 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. No big deal anyway. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! --Pereru (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru Thank you for asking! I honestly foresee a discussion at some point somewhere, perhaps the Beer parlour, about the usage of this template. Perhaps it will turn out my understanding of it is wrong, as well. Who knows. Vininn126 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing of my edit on Template:pl-adjective

Hello

Concerning your [revert]

I'm not sure this is the way to respond and clarify why I made the edit; you'll tell me.

The reason for my edit is that as it stands this template, like many others, has hardcoded colors and thus is incomapatible with Dark Mode. I can do a large scale refactoring of this script myself, but before endeavoring this I wanted to try a harmless fix. Since the template has an edit restriction I didn't expect my edit to go through.

Please advise

Regards Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Petros Adamopoulos It gave the template a large, ugly, grey box. If the issue is darkmode, a different solution is advisable. Vininn126 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it a change you committed? Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Petros Adamopoulos Pardon? I don't understand. Your change introduced an ugly gray box. Vininn126 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I missread.

That's quite surprising, considering I changed the foreground color and didn't touch the background.

Since the background was hardcoded bright, it made the text in Dark Mode invisible basically, so I changed the text color to what it is in Light Mode, basically to have no effect there.

What browser are you using ? In Chrome here, the change didn't do anything except fixing Dark Mode to be readable. Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I was using Chrome. Vininn126 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

Yes, and no. Why? Supevan (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Supevan I just found it to not be a crucial request. Most of your requests are relatively fine, but some of the surnames seem to be held by one person, and until further evidence I prefer not to add them. Vininn126 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to add them right away, none of my requests are really crucial :D

That particular surname I got from the Musical Theatre of D. Baduszkowa in Gdansk, which I have visited - that's why I added it. Supevan (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

reverts on number box

It would seem practical to have the box transcluded on every page that it links to; it's not very obstructive either. Some of the entries had no reference to trzy whatsoever and it would help to compare the functional descriptions of the categories (potrójny is "multiplier", trojaki is called "multiplier qualitative"). The documentation of the template says "This template may be added to the entry of any number, whether a cardinal number, ordinal number or any other kind." Overall I find it hard to assume good faith for your rollbacks. Suryaratha03 (talk) Suryaratha03 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Suryaratha03 Many of those entries would be better off in CAT:pl:Three. If everything related to three were in the number box or had it linked it would definitely be too much. Vininn126 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

bat

I definitely think it's not in error. Why do you think it is? DCDuring (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring Check the history of the page. Vininn126 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It gave me quite a fright, as I was in the middle of extensive changes. It is easy to get confused by that kind of thing and lose the plot. DCDuring (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I misclicked. Vininn126 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation

You don't seem to grasp what a phonological merger is or how we (and most if not all dictionaries) transcribe words affected by one. Transcribing words in the LOT lexical set with both /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ would make them indistinguishable from THOUGHT. Nardog (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nardog You don't seem to grasp what "non encompassing an entire area" means. See the Tea room discussion. Vininn126 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Conflict with User:Наименее Полезное

Hello! I’m having a conflict with the user Наименее Полезное. I'm reaching to you as per Help:Dispute resolution. I’ve chosen you from the list of the administartors and because you’ve previously commented on an issue in the Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#сасновы — if that’s incorrect, please tell me.

We’ve had edit conflicts on pages сасновы, ружавы and ружа. A large part of the conflict is in the edit history, especially in ружавы.

I believe I can’t follow the first given advice, “Ignore them, assume that they are eccentric and will thus never be able to see eye to eye with you. If they won’t ignore you, ask them to”, because Наименее Полезное thinks he has the right to set conventions for the whole Belarusian section (even when they contradict Style guide). After adding a сасновы request for verification, I’ve got involved in a similar conflict at ружавы and ружа, and I believe the standard of the conversation has fallen to a quite low level.

More context can be found on our talk pages.

I would be grateful if there were some way to resolve this. Thanks! Хтосьці (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Хтосьці @User:Наименее Полезное I will look into this this evening. Vininn126 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Хтосьці @Наименее Полезное Before I start, you two need to stop edit warring. That's a bannable offense. So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is a dispute about whether these relational adjectives have one sense or multiple? I also see on ружа a few other things, such as text within inherited terms, placement, full template names?

Unfortunately a lot of these issues come down to editing preferences and we're going to have to find compromises.

As for relational adjectives, I can also see that Belarusian sources often seem to list these as multiple senses. I can understand why. We often tend to keep these as a single sense, since "of or pertaining to" contains many of these. "Of" can denote belonging to as well as being made of. I am unsure of Belarusian has possessive adjectives, but if not, perhaps we can use a single sense here? However, I could also foresee having a BP discussion on this.

As for glosses within etymology templates, my personal preference is not to include it unless it is surprising in some way, i.e. there was a semantic shift along the way. I think many editors share this opinion.

As for the placement of templates, things such as pronunciation templates do have a specific order as per WT:Pronunciation and should be IPA > Recording (if present) > Rhymes > Syllabificaiton/Hyphenation (I will also remind everyone that there is an often forgotten distinction between the two).

As to whether shortcut templates should be used or not, this is entirely preferential. I tend to use shortcuts and prefer them, as the vast majority of entries have them. It is better to try and aim for homogeneity between entries.

Finally, as for the order of categories, alphabetical order is preferred and bots are somewhat regularly sent to change the order of these categories. Vininn126 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

“you two need to stop edit warring” — what is the recommended way to act when another user changes something I've written in a way that I think makes it worse?

I'm not forcing my preferred style on the articles he writes. I think they would be better by being more focused, but they're OK and I don't fix what, in the end, is not broken; I'm not a person who likes conflicts.

But I find it disheartening when my work gets changed for the worse.

Should I not add articles at all? Consult Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы before adding any article? (Наименее Полезное takes sub-sections from there, promoting second-level meanings into first-level meanings; so if I only add words not split in ТСБМ, or not present in ТСБМ, he won't split it here too)?

“That's a bannable offense” — in my defense, it was me who stopped edit wars in all these cases. (Although this doesn't seem fair, since this way Наименее Полезное's version remains every time.)

“we're going to have to find compromises” — I've tried. On сасновы I've first tried to make Наименее Полезное's meanings into subitems of the main meaning: so that people who need a quick meaning can read the single main meaning, and people who want a longer non-exhaustive list of meanings can see it, too (although I'm not convinced such people exist), to avoid deleting his work. He didn't appreciate my attempt at compromise, restoring his version.

I can't make a compromise with someone who is unwilling to compromise. Хтосьці (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Хтосьці You leave it be and start this discussion way before it got to where it did.

How were some of these changes for the worse?

Please let him reply to my suggestions before throwing these accusations, as this is not de-escalating the situation.Vininn126 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

“How were some of these changes for the worse?” — change 1: in сасновы and ружавы, the changed variant forces the reader to spend more time to get an overall understanding of the word. If all the meanings on the same level, it means you need to read them all.

Also, these meanings are not inherent to сасновы or ружавы, they're inherent to the category of relative adjectives. I feel that describing them in an article for сасновы/ружавы is like describing meanings of cases in specific articles: e.g. as if page сястры has translations like '(1) to sister, (2) for sister, (3) (translated as subject with words expressing states and feelings, such as падабацца, холадна, etc.)', etc. I believe it makes much more sense to have a single place describing what relative adjectives, and not have this information scattered in random articles for specific instances of such adjectives.

Change 2: on ружа, removing a gloss loses information: ружа is a doublet of рожа 'infection' and not of рожа 'face'. In printed dictionary, this would have a number (like 'doublet of рожа I'), but here it's not an option.

“Please let him reply to my suggestions before throwing these accusations” — I hope the answer above is not in violation of this. I've assumed that, since your message contained a question, it's OK to answer it. Хтосьці (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you look at my suggestions and other advice at all, or are you going only to assume bad faith on their part, instead of WT:Assume good faith? I quite clearly mentions much of this is stylistic choice. You are assuming only making it worse overall, and not letting them respond to my suggestions. Go take a break. Vininn126 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vininn126 @Хтосьці Honestly, I give up, you're free to do whatever you want now, I don't care anymore, you can ruin my language at will, I'm indefinitely (or permanently) off Wiktionary. There's no point in me continuing to try to talk, there was already an agreement long before you showed up and fucked up everything I spent months building, I already had to face Insaneguy to make him stop messing around in Belarusian, but now I have to face you, I honestly don't have the patience to deal with this anymore, every time I remember that you don't even have the proficiency to deal with Belarusian, my head almost explodes with so much hate. Anyway, goodbye Wiktionary community, there will never be any evolution in the Belarusian language as long as there are such backward editors as you, you can block me if you want. Hugs and I wish you all the best Vininn126, the only sensible one here. Наименее Полезное (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Наименее Полезное Both of you are overreacting in my opinion. You're assuming too much bad faith on both ends and neither of you are willing to try compromise. Sad. Vininn126 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry how this situation is turning up. It was never my intention to drive you away.

I'm sorry, @Наименее Полезное, for my actions in сасновы, ружавы and ружа.

If you need proof of my Belarusian knowledge, I’m open to scheduling a video call to prove it. Or I could show my documents from Belarusian school and university to you, or a person you trust.

I do make mistakes (like when I’ve copied a noncountable adjective’s article as a base for another article, and forgot to remove the mark), and thanks for fixing them. I didn't at first understand some conventions, and did indeed assume bad faith (which was yet another mistake).

Sorry. Хтосьці (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand @Наименее Полезное's approach is to more or less copy the Skarnik dictionary, compare e.g. Skarnik's entry for сельскі with Wiktionary сельскі. But there aren't many languages on Wiktionary (is there any?) that follow the same approach, so this is simply a general discussion having nothing to do with Belarusian specifically. Regarding the example of сельскі, what 'rural' means should in principle be explained at English rural, so I personally don't see a need to have extensive definitions like those currently given. Exarchus (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tend to follow entries from WSJP fairly closely (and then supplement with other dictionaries), however not always. In many instances I break from their analysis. Vininn126 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Хтосьці: You don't need to feel sorry. This "leaving permanently" thing already happened before: Wiktionary_talk:Belarusian_entry_guidelines#General_Belarusian_entries

Back then it was a ridiculously insignificant matter. Or more specifically, the ({{inh+}}/{{bor+}} vs. {{inh}}/{{bor}} templates choice. Which was just pure cosmetics, even unrelated to the actual content and easily fixable by a bot. Nobody was really arguing against Наименее Полезное. I only asked Наименее Полезное to formulate his/her preferences as a written guideline for beginners. --Ssvb (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User: Username1233219128

Hello Vininn, I came to report a user (@Username1233219128). He keeps copying Czech entries ignoring langcodes, derived terms that don't exist in Slovak, links to Wikipedia that don't exist in Slovak, erroneous glosses, etc. I've warned him several times before in edit summaries and even on his talkpage, here are all the links so you can see: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nosoro%C5%BEec&oldid=84325474 : nosorožčí is not a word in Slovak, he just copied it from the Czech entry

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=budova%C5%A5&oldid=84239297 he copied the etymology from budovat, ignoring the true etymology.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=vzducholo%C4%8F&oldid=84223616 : it's literally the same coding with different langcodes

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Da%C5%A1n%C3%AD%C4%8Dka&oldid=84223578 : copy so blatant that he didn't even change the rhymes from the Czech page

Anyway, there are more examples of this, but this is enough; I have warned him several times to stop but he keeps insisting. F. V. Lorenz (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@SurjectionSorry for the ping but maybe Vininn is busy F. V. Lorenz (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@F. V. Lorenz I have issued a short block with an explanation. Perhaps the user will be more reponsive. Vininn126 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! F. V. Lorenz (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Soft blocking

Hello,

There have been two instances where you imposed self-requested blocks. It is best to allow account creation and disable autoblocks for self-requested blocks.

I am NOT requesting to be blocked myself.

Thank you Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 22:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You got it. We'll start with a temporary non-block and move to an indefinite block, then, the number 6 coming right up. Vininn126 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

VincentPH edit requested through a different wikimedia project

I dunno where to mention this because there is apaprently no Admin Noticeboard on wiktionary: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Circeus#Wiktionary

I actually did the edit, because he's right (I think maybe his edit got caught in an unrelated oversight action? since I obviously can't see the version, I can't be sure lol), but this feels like it ought to be noted because I'm fairly sure it's a form of pretty blatant ban evasion.

Still kinda stumped why he poked me on Commons of all place. Circeus (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Circeus To be quite frank, I don't recall interacting with this user much, but clearly I banned them a few months ago. The edits don't even seem that bad, not sure why one is hidden. I'm not sure what happened here. Vininn126 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vininn126: The hidden edit was right after the reversion of an edit by another user that added an inappropriate external link. Since the bad edit was in between two edits by VincentPH, it's possible you got the two accounts mixed up. That was the same entry (tata) where they requested the edit. They messed up the formatting a bit at Wilkinson, which showed up in the abuse log, and their contributions at get it weren't that great, but they seem to have edited in good faith throughout. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

~@Chuck Entz That is the impression I have no as well. Perhaps an unban while keeping an eye on the user. Vininn126 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Help

Can I ask for your help as an administrator to adapt the colors of the Slovak noun inflection template? User TTO did a horrible job that completely broke the color paradigm that templates use, and the module that contains the template and table colors is protected so that only administrators can edit it. F. V. Lorenz (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

By the way, can you check out the talk I pinged you? (it's about the pronunciation module and changing some phonemes) F. V. Lorenz (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@F. V. Lorenz Hi. I'm not so good at visual stuff to be honest. Also as to pronunciation, I'm not an expert on Slovak. All I can say is that phonemic representations are always going to be more symbolic, but if those changes are closer to actual realization, why not. I also wonder if at some point in the future we'll want to make a Czech-Slovak combined IPA module, like we have for Lechitic and apparently soon Sorbian. Vininn126 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, I just wanted to ask you if you could do something similar for Czech or even Polish because the template made by TTO is simply ugly and visually unpleasant. Well, I have advanced knowledge about almost every aspect involving Czech or Slovak, and speaking of Lechitic, I'm on a server that you're on too, in case you think it's better to talk there. Maybe in the near future we'll decide to "merge" everything to create a "Czechoslovak union" with templates and modules, but for now I don't think it's necessary since Czech is already well organized, only Slovak needs a bigger cleanup. F. V. Lorenz (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@F. V. Lorenz You might want to compare the Lechitic declension templates - but also I intend to update them in the near-ish future. Also, don't be afraid to ping me on the Wiktinoary WT:Discord. Vininn126 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

IMO, applying the current Polish template to the Slovak one is not a problem, and if you make any changes over time, I can update it as well in whatever way is most casual or best. I didn't know there was a Discord server, thanks for letting me know. F. V. Lorenz (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Slovincian sè·ršeń from Lorentz

Hello Vininn126, I was not sure how to convert sè·ršeń from Lorentz (from page 1015, Volume 2, hornet) to the Wiktionary Slovincian orthography. I am not sure which of the e's to use specifically for either vowel. Could you please help me with this. I was going to add this word to the Proto-Slavic *sьrxy entry. Thanks again! ElkandAcquerne (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@ElkandAcquerne serszeń Vininn126 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much again for your help as always! ElkandAcquerne (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)