User talk:Chuck Entz

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search



Welcome! Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

скорость and союз[edit]

Please stop undoing my corrections on the IPA for these words, I'm taking my material from the HarperCollins Russian dictionary, so I think that's a credited source. ThePhilologist (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't have the same policy toward references as Wikipedia does. We follow usage, not reference works. For one thing, Russian has a well-known tendency to devoice final consonants- союз has a final z only when assimilating to a voiced sound in the following word. If you listen to the audio file, the final sound is "s", not "z". I'm sure there's regional variation, but that's the standard pronunciation. Also, the person you're reverting, Stephen Brown, is a linguist and professional translator who's fluent in Russian. I would trust his judgement as to how people actually speak the language over that of a mass-market paperback.
Why don't you ask Atitarev (talkcontribs) what he thinks? He's a native speaker who's also a linguist and professional translator. If you can get him to agree with you, I'll stop reverting you. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying a dictionary has no professionals working on it? ThePhilologist (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs) has fixed the pronunciation (changed it back). Re: союз (/sɐˈjʉz/) - the difference between /u/ and /ʉ/ is not great but the latter happens between palatalised consonants /j/ precedes /u/. In скорость, it's more natural to pronounce /ˈskorəsʲtʲ/ - the last palatalised consonant affects the previous, so /s/ get palatalised as well. /ˈskorəstʲ/ is also possible but less common and less natural. I'd prefer just one version - the current in both entries. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Please stop undoing my corrections on this word. I am a Greek student and I should know that widstor is not Proto-IndoEuropean (the stem is probably, but not the word). I wrote a whole essay about the history of this word. You should look it up. Selasco (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

s > z misspellings[edit]

Just so you know, some of these may be valid archaic forms (17th Century or whatever). But I think it's okay to strike them without removing them. Removing anything is dubious unless it's patently invalid (no Google hits or something like that). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish plurals[edit]

Please use {{plural of}} with nocat=1 for Spanish, this is because we use Category:Spanish noun forms not Category:Spanish plurals. It's an unusual and fairly unique case, so don't worry about it too much. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry about correcting me- that's how I learn. Chuck Entz 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of minor things[edit]

Hi Chuck, just a few minor things. 1) The alternative forms heading needs to go before the part of speech heading as per WT:ELE; you might want to look through that (again) anyway. 2) When you insert a Wikipedia link, the best place to put it is just below the language heading. Some put it just before the part of speech heading, which is also fine. Just not at the bottom of the entry. It's just, well, ugly :). JamesjiaoTC 05:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomic names[edit]

I noticed your edit to Basella. If you like doing taxonomic names, take a look at {{taxon}}. It offers an approach for achieving some uniformity in such entries. I have only recently started using it, but appreciate the approach. I'm not sure what further improvements it should have, if any. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited {{taxon}} to eliminate the display of (taxonomy) before the definition, while retaining the categorization. A context like {{botany}} or {{microbiology}} can be added as appropriate. Are there other changes that would improve this template? I have been trying to standardize taxonomic entries by adding links to WP and wikispecies, "etymology" (often just suffixation, as with -aceae, -oidae, etc,), and an image from wikicommons. There is some disagreement about including binomial species names and whether we should treat species epithets used only in New Latin as Latin or Translingual. Personally, I favor leaving binomial species names to WP and wikispecies and treating New Latin words as Latin, but always including all taxons or rank genus or above as Translingual. There isn't any practical value to adding a Latin lowercase entry for a capitalized Translingual taxon either, IMHO. Thoughts? DCDuring TALK 14:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Could you check this entry for me (I am no botanist) and correct if you find anything wrong? Thanks. JamesjiaoTC 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek[edit]

There's not a ton of folks working on this language, so I try to at least say stop by and say 'hi' whenever I see someone doing so. Thanks for your help with the Ancient Greek request page; clearing it is rather a large task. Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I be really whiny and ask that you use noun/adjective form instead of noun/adjective in {{head}}, as I've done on πέταλον (pétalon)? It's not that big of a deal at the moment, but when someone starts autogenerating inflected forms (no idea when that will actually happen, but it'll happen), it'll start flooding pages like Category:Ancient Greek nouns unless we separate them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

New verb template[edit]

Since you've been adding transliterations, I assume you're aware that Maro rewrote {{grc-verb}}. Just thought I'd let you know that, if you like, you can remove the principle parts, as long as they're represented in the inflection tables. If you don't care to, you are of course not obligated to do so. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed or not, but your most recently edits to γνωρίζω were reverted, rightly in my opinion. We really shouldn't take out the principle parts if they're not represented by inflection tables. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I've stopped doing those, mostly because it's less efficient doing two things at once, but also because I had the uncomfortable feeling I was doing some of them wrong. I don't know the verbs well enough to do those right.Chuck Entz (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


As a newish Ancient Greek editor you would be the ideal guinea pig for the new version of this page. I wrote it several years ago, and it had since gotten so stale that I had simply stopped referring people to it. I'm hoping the refreshed version is a bit more coherent, comprehensive, and up-to-date. When you have some free time, would you be willing to give it a read, and let me know what you think? I'm especially looking for questions that you have/had which are not answered by the page, things which are unclear, or advice which seems contrary to actual practice. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Fulfilling my job as an administrator, I thought I'd berate you about a minor breach of format. Accents aren't supposed to be reflected in transliterations. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me where I did that? I seriously can't find it. I haven't been editing Greek much lately, and the few examples in my contributions log are mostly without a circumflex in the Greek.The only time I remember using circumflex in Latin letters was reproducing Old English passages in 19th century sources that used a circumflex instead of a macron. I certainly know better than to use circumflex in transliterations, but absent-mindedness is always a possibility. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
χοῖρος. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't realize how long ago that was. I guess I just noticed it because of the edit to requested entries. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi there Chuck. I notice that you do a lot of vandalism fighting. Would you be prepared to be a sysop - then you could use the "revert" function instead of "undo" (this also marks the edits as patrolled so the edits don't need to be looked at again by another sysop). You could also block vandals if you wanted to. If so, I can start a vote. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that, but I don't know a lot about all the other stuff an admin does, and I would have to learn the rules behind blocking or deleting before I would want to start doing it.
As for reverting, I've mostly been undoing the obvious stuff and leaving the tough judgment calls for others. I find it a good way to use the time where I've gotten tired of one thing and haven't decided what I want to work on next. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I have started a vote at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-04/User:Chuck Entz for admin. Adminship doesn't force you to do anything that you don't want to do. Many sysops have never blocked a user or deleted an entry ever. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It is widely known that SB is bitter about the inactivity of other admins. --Itkilledthecat (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to sysophood. Please add an entry at Wiktionary:Administrators.

May I ask that you always have a second session open on Recent Changes whenever you are editing Wiktionary. You may mark good edits as "patrolled", revert vandalism and stupidity by either deleting new entries or by using the "rollback" function. You may block vandals at your own discretion.

Note: As there are times when no sysop is active, it would be useful if you start your patrolling from the time you last left the system. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

time of asking[edit]

I don't see how this fails WT:CFI - it's an idiomatic construction, surely? In general, when the phrase is used there's no act of "asking" involved. 14:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have deleted that one by accident. It's restored, anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

* in nl-noun[edit]

The template no longer supports * as a parameter. It was removed because it was often misused to mean both 'I don't know what this form is' and 'there is no such form'. Now, leaving the parameter empty means 'I don't know' and adds the entry to a cleanup category, while using - means 'I know for certain there is none'. —CodeCat 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

torc torque[edit]

Please before mindlessly reverting changes, either do some research or talk to the changing party, unless of course it seems like vandalism. I have already had a long discussion with semperBlotto about the torc/torque problems and he agreed with me fixing it. I don't feel like having the same discussion with each new admin who doesn't understand the rules of reverting. See Revert Speednat (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • On the contrary. As discussed before, your (Speednat's) edit gives three meanings to torque where there are only two. I have reverted your edits. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Brown[edit]

Greetings. Thanks for the Peanuts reference, it is much appreciated. Also, well done on achieving sysophood. --WF's Lucy (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


so those entries were encyclopedic and they were either duplicates of properly capitalized entries or miscapitalized. I have edited them accordingly and nominated the misspelled versions for deletion.Lucifer (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They don't meet the CFI, but I presumed you may want to defend that as their creator therefore I left the possibility open to discussion. I am an inclusionist and perhaps it is salvageable so I think it's best that the community review it.Lucifer (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the correction of "<" to "From". Regarding my request at WT:RE:grc that ἄπυρος be added, please note that I added the request (01:18, 28 May 2012) before you created the entry (02:08, 28 May 2012‎), for which I thank you. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I couldn't help but see that anon readding stuff to this entry, for the second time even! So, I've protected the entry so it can't be edited by newbies and unregistered users for 3 months or so. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking. I have a feeling, though, that this anon will be back, absent the sun imploding or the End of Civilization As We Know It... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh...maybe, maybe. In that case I might just ban their ass...though three months kind of is a long time. We can but hope they're just gone off in a fit of rage perhaps hating the site, never to return. Also, a fair observation to make is all their bickering about us not being a Kamboj authority or whatever was in the edit summaries with not a single thing posted to your talk page here so perhaps they may not even really be all that wiki-savvy. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

More Polynesian linguistics![edit]

I spent a while constructing Proto-Polynesian out of boredom, and when I got back home I compared my chart against Wikipedia and it matched up quite well! So now I've decided to fill up Category:Proto-Polynesian language with some terms, but I feel like I'm forgetting a lot of descendants (especially with languages like Tongan that don't fit as well). If you're interested, please add descendants and link to the appendix pages in Polynesian etymologies. For an example of a good entry (in my mind, at least), see Appendix:Proto-Polynesian/qariki. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, would you mind taking a look at User:Metaknowledge/Proto-Polynesian personal pronouns? The fact that no extant Polynesian language that I'm aware of still has the trial made this a little hard, because the old trial forms replaced the plurals, and thus the plurals are basically guesswork. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't help you with the pronouns. My main focus has always been the nouns, and more specifically plant and animal names. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah well. In any case, if you want to work with those, that would be welcome. I was trying to find the Proto-Polynesian form of tapa/kapa, but the siapo/hiapo forms threw me off. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

'Okina standardization[edit]

Just to notify you, unless any concerns are raised, I intend to switch all Hawaiian and Tongan entries that are not already done from 'okina/fakau'a to ʻokina/fakauʻa. This is because only the US and Tonga have made any official effort to standardize; all other Polynesian languages will remain with 'okina. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a scientifically recognised word[edit]

I'm afraid you deleted the word araneicide. However, this word has been found in a scientific journal, the Coleopterists Bulletin, specifically referring to a toxin that kills spiders. It was not a misprint and its etymology can be traced. See here. Likewise, it was found in a PhD thesis entitled The life history of and behavior of the subsocial amaurobid spider Badumna candida, which can be found here. I did not make up the word.—Giant SquidTalk 08:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it, but your cites don't match your definitions: the cites refer to a substance that kills spiders, and I don't buy referring to a substance as "one". The "killing of spiders" sense is plausible, but you would need to cite it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, understood.—Giant SquidTalk 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

thank you for welcome. i am trying to develop the sanskrti wiktionary. in that way i came to english wiktionary. any hopw i am impressed the systamatic presentation of words. but i cannot copy them as many facilities are absent in our wiktionary. if you can help me we and that classic language will be blessed. for example in english wiktionary sanskrit words declensions are automatically getting. if i can copy to sanskrit wiktionary it will be a good help. do what you can do thanking you --Dvellakat (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


I noticed that you reverted my addition without comment. Care to comment? Specifically, I added usable content for the end user. --JBrown23 (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The fatal problem was having a an entry in katakana on the page for a word in the roman alphabet. In general, we organize our entries by spelling, with all entries with the same spelling on the same page. We even have separate pages for the same term spelled with a hyphen as opposed to a space- including an entry in a completely different writing system massively violates that. You need to read WT:AJA to see how we do Japanese entries. I'm also going to put our standard welcome message on your talk page so you can read the introductory information about editing on Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


hope you know that i am working in mostly in Sanskrit. though i cannot understood fully what you meant, i stopped the silly corrections like visarga and etc in en. Wiktionary. there are many to correct in English. i am concerned about the rich language of Sanskrit where very few works. so be free about my interventions in English. i am here for some helps in sanskrit wiktionary. are you able do that? --Dvellakat (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Kine vs Shoon[edit]

Hi Chuck,

Given your revert of my changes to Kine, please consider Shoon, shouldn't a similar change be made there too?


WilliamKF (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Done, though it's not as straightforward here, since the suffix is still in a recognizable form. Even the revert was a judgment call, with which others might disagree.
At any rate, please remember that reverting isn't a punishment, it's only a variation on normal editing. I could have just edited the entry and removed the template, but I reverted to save time.
This particular revert wasn't an official admin action prompted by a violation, just an edit reflecting my judgment as a fellow contributor. I don't feel strongly enough about this to edit war over it, and I certainly wouldn't block you for changing it back. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi! I saw that you removed the suffix categorisation for shoon. ?? Leasnam (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See above. It seemed like a good idea at the time, though it's looking less so on second thought. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Was the reasoning because it deviates from the strict "-en" form? Leasnam (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I reverted an edit that put kine in the category because the suffixation was in early stages of the language and no longer present in a recognizable form, so presumably not morphologically significant to (early) modern English.
The editor who made that edit pointed out that shoon could be interpreted the same way, and I changed it, in order to be consistent. Thinking further, though, the loss of the vowel isn't enough for one to make the argument that the morpheme is no longer present, since it's quite likely a regular, productive change that would be recognizable to speakers. As I said above, the edit on kine was a judgment call which I don't feel that strongly about, and the the edit on shoon far less so. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. Although it is orthographically written differently, it is morphologically identical, and still analysed as an -(e)n plural. Leasnam (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind if I return the cats to both kine and shoon? Leasnam (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
shoon- not at all. kine- I can live with it, Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


You know you can't do this, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If I did, I forgot. I stopped once I realized you were deleting them Chuck Entz (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


Please undelete this many-day hard work. This way of sandboxing on the Talk subpage was agreed with User:Eirikr at the end of Talk:城 #Long lists of synonyms -- help differentiating. BTW, are you an admin. concerning Hanja edits? --KYPark (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish-speaker advice needed on whether to delete some categories and templates[edit]

I recently nominated for deletion a block of categories and templates. These were for grammatical categories that would be wrong for most languages. I don't speak Turkish, however.

Your Babel box says you're a native speaker of Turkish, and you've been active on Wiktionary recently. I would appreciate it if you could look at the sections for the categories and for the templates and comment on whether they're useful, whether they should be deleted, and why (or why not). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'm not totally active but it's not a problem. Thanks for reminding. However, I'm uncertain at 2nd topic... Best regards...--Sabri76'talk 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Etymological assurance[edit]

Both Proto-Polynesian *taŋata and Pipil takat mean "man". This is just a really weird coincidence, right? (I can't find the Proto-Austronesian or Proto-Uto-Aztecan forms for either of those right now, so this is the best I can do.) Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. a coincidence. There are Takic reflexes of the same root, and Pollex traces the root to Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, so any borrowing would have to have been thousands of years ago, before there was any chance for contact. I thought we had some Cahuilla entries, but I'm having trouble finding them. I guess I'll have to dig some more books out of boxes in storage and enter some Chuck Entz (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes me feel better. It's still... unnerving. Like mama#English and mama#Aymara. It just feels... too right to be wrong, even though I can't believe it to be true in my rational mind. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Mama is a special case: labial consonants are among the first sounds that babies are physically/neurologically able to make, so they're heavily represented in the words for parents in the languages of the world: "ma" in Mandarin may mean horse and hemp, depending on the tone, but it also means the same as English "ma".
Another one that gave me pause is the Uto-Aztecan root for tobacco: something like *pipa. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That explains a lot. Is pa the next sound, then?
That's a little striking, but not quite as bad, I should think. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that there's a hierarchy. The sounds babies make aren't really classifiable beyond the major part of the mouth where they're made, and a lot happens to sounds as languages change. M, p, f, v, and b all show up a lot, though m and p seem to be the most common in words for parents. I think the phenomenon also carries over into words for infants, such as baby or bebé, and even, secondarily, to grandparents, such as baba (though probably not as much). I believe there are later stages where the infants' babbling progresses to include d-like and g-like sounds- and this is all before they have control over things like voicing and nasalization, and before they combine different consonants near each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If only Freud was a linguist...
Do you know where I can read up on this? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. This is all from a Child Language Acquisition class I took at UCLA a quarter century ago. I'm sure understanding has advanced quite a bit since then. It's important for linguistic theory, though. Language acquisition is a major factor in the mechanics of language change: For instance, the most stable forms are usually the ones that are typically learned directly from parents. If you look at all the irregular and strong inflections, they're usually basic, common household vocabulary. The stuff that isn't learned in childhood is much more likely to be regularized as the gaps are filled in by guesswork, or to be borrowed. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to tagging specific senses[edit]

This Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Direct_links_to_definitions might be what you described here? Wiktionary:Grease_pit_archive/2012/May#Tagging_Specific_Senses SebastianHellmann (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the whole senseid thing was about what I was thinking of, and I was surprised that I hadn't seen it in use. I'll have to look at your system, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not a system, but simply an html anchor + css highlighting. SebastianHellmann (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

βαπτισμῶν and τὴν[edit]

Thanks for your helpful comments last month on WT:RE:grc. I have a couple of questions I hope you can help me with.

  1. Is βαπτισμῶν (baptismôn) just a short form of βαπτισμάτων (baptismátōn) (the genitive plural of βάπτισμα (báptisma)), or is it a different inflection?
  2. What does τὴν (tḕn) mean? Τηνάλλως (Tēnállōs) seems to be derived from it.

I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I should have referred to βαπτισμός (baptismós), a second declension noun, rather than βάπτισμα (báptisma), a third declension noun (we already have both). As for τὴν (tḕn), it's just the feminine accusative singular of the definite article (see (ho) for the whole declension). I created an entry for ἄλλως (állōs), just to round things out. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Great, thank you. One thing though: Why, in this sentence: "Τὴν δικαιοσύνην, id est κατά τὴν δικαιωσύνην.", do both the uses of τήν (tḗn) (with the acute accent) have grave accents? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, also, in that same sentence, what is the difference between δικαιοσύνην (dikaiosúnēn) and δικαιωσύνην (dikaiōsúnēn)? I assume that they're the accusative singular forms of δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosúnē) and δικαιωσύνη (dikaiōsúnē), respectively, but are they ultimately equivalent? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Got my foot stuck![edit]

Hi Chuck, I added some etymology to Myrmecophagy, which you then reverted. OK, but I am at the moment adding several related terms (stenophagy, termitophagy and more) out of a need for them in Wikipedia. I encounter a need for such refs in WP, and I feel more comfortable in explaining their meaning with refs to their etymology. Do you recommend that I omit the Greek in all cases (perhaps half a dozen or so?) Cheers,


When you have live entries for the parts of the compound, it's better to have the etymology on those page. That way there's no inconsistancy between etymologies. Let's say I make a change to the etymology for the -phagy suffix. I'd rather not have to look for all the instances of that suffix in other entries in order to update them. It's unfortunately not all that uncommon for there to be multiple etymologies for the same thing that disagree with each other, which can only be confusing to Witktionary users. By the way, my computer is in the shop and I'm using some extra vacation time to check in from work, so I may not be very prompt in responding for the next few days. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Hmmm... I see. Okay. I certainly am thoroughly familiar with the multiple-maintenance problem. However, perhaps I am missing something; I am after all very naive about the facilities and the skills necessary for dealing with Wiktionary, so please be patient with me. Am I to understand that there are independent etymological entries for particular roots (steno-, termito-, etc)? If so, how does one look them up? (Especially if one is not a Latinophone or Hellenophone, as in my case.)

No problem about delays; here too I am on familiar territory, particularly at the moment!  ;-) Good luck with your situation! JonRichfield (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The roots were already there in the etymology section: myrmeco- and -phagy. Both of them were blue links, which means there were already entries for both of them. If you click on either link, it takes you to the entry, which, as you will see, already has an etymology (both do). As for which prefixes and suffixes have entries: you can type myrmeco- into the search box, or if you already have a link to a prefix or suffix, you can go to the entry and look for categories at the bottom of the entry. Clicking on the name of the category will take you to the main page for that category. As it turns out, whoever created the entry for myrmeco- didn't use a template, so it wasn't in Category:English prefixes. I fixed that. -phagy is in the correct category, though (Category:English suffixes). I have my computer back, so things should be back to normal (as soon as I catch up on my watchlist, anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


When undoing edits, please remember to mark them as patrolled. (This happens automatically when you click "rollback", but not when you use other revert mechanisms.)

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

rhetorical question[edit]

Why did you revert my edit there? I explained why in both the talk page and edit summary. The least you can do is respond.

And now you're just reverting me for no reason. I wrote the sentence at akilter and then reworded it like five minutes later. Are you just reverting everything I do?
In both cases, the new sentences were no better than the originals- actually worse. "Are your parents leprechauns, or just really short?" reads like a meaningless insult, even if it is technically a rhetorical question. The akilter sentence doesn't look right (the one reverted to isn't all that great either). As for reverting everything you do: when I see a suspect edit, I check other edits by the same editor to see if there's a pattern that might indicate trouble. So far I don't see such a pattern, just a few mistakes. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand, "Are your parents leprechauns, or just really short?" is an insult, that's perfectly consistent with being a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are often insults. And I think the replacement sentence is much more natural than what you reverted to. 02:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why revert?[edit]

Hi Chuck, I would like to learn what was wrong with this edit? --Trofobi (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. If you click the wikipedia link where it says "Wikipedia has an article about crossbones", it goes to a disambiguation page for several articles that aren't about the subject of the entry. At Wiktionary, a rollback isn't necessarily a disciplinary action, it also can just mean that, in the opinion of the person doing it, the entry is better without the edit in question. I had no doubt your edit was in good faith, it was just mistaken. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)



I saw you had blocked some people and given the reason as "Stupidity". I've been reading up over at Wikipedia, and doesn't this go against the spirit of "no personal attacks" and "do not feed the trolls"? It seems like it would be better to just say "Vandalism".

Fast Clear (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's admittedly a complex issue. First of all, we're not Wikipedia, so none of those pages or policies necessarily apply here. Secondly, we have a lot more vandalism to cope with (in terms of ratio of active patrollers to vandals), and less good faith contribution from IPs (as a percentage of total good faith contributions) than Wikipedia. This makes our anti-vandalism gameplan a lot different. Sometimes, calling a vandal a vandal or their actions vandalism is in fact "feeding the trolls", and becomes a badge of honour. I use "stupidity" as a reason because I expect that nobody will boast about being called "stupid", whereas they will boast about being a "vandal" (you must know how adolescents are...). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I've only used that reason ten times out of all the blocks I've done. There was a case involving three individuals to whom I gave three identical blocks, and that skewed the numbers quite a bit. As Μετάknowledge said, it can be useful in taking the bad-boy/girl mystique out of acts by young vandals. You have no idea how often we see edits inserting "poop" and "so-and-so is gay". It doesn't seem right to equate those with filling pages full of hate speech and/or profanities, or with some of the more vicious acts of sabotage. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting points. I'll say this: your system makes more sense than requiring multiple templated warnings as Wikipedia seems to do (and obviously there's less likelihood that someone will contribute positively anyway). Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. Cheers, Fast Clear (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It may not seem right, but in guaging your response and personalising it you make it interesting. Human beings will not amuse themselves with things that are not intellectually stimulating or physically engaging, and no matter how dumb and slobby we are, that remains true as it is what we are. The best worded response might be the closest equation to *error*, as machinely cold and unresponsive as possible rather than humanly responsive, but then I don't see me reverting ten vandals in a row and if they were writing poop or something was it smart or what? RTG (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


What's up with the Cahuilla section? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes when I keep editing when I'm tired, I forget things. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It's OK. Actually, that's the only Cahuilla word you forgot a definition for. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Why are you doing this? Why are you removing the lang parameter? --Vahag (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was cleaning up the entries where {{term}} tags an error due to etymology-only templates not having scripts. {{recons}} was the most convenient way of doing that. After I converted all of them, I realized that they were creating redlinks to a non-existant appendix, so I'm removing the lang parameter- which is how the "cons" documentation suggests to avoid the redlinks (it looks like you were using an empty parameter in {{term}} for similar reasons). Since these are all accompanied by an {{etyl}} with the correct language code, no information is lost, and since there's no link, there's no need to worry about which language section is linked to. I'm just trying to arrive at the best solution to avoid cluttering up cleanup categories without messing up the way it looks and works in the entry. I'm sorry if I've cluttered up your watchlist with cryptic edits, and I'm willing to redo all of them to address any other problems- I consider it my responsibility to fix my mistakes. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. {{recons}} creates a link to an appendix, which will be red until someone creates an entry. {{term}} has the same behaviour. We do want the links, with a correct language parameter. What's the purpose of recons if it doesn't create links? --Vahag (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that it creates to a link to an appendix called "Iranian", because it's a family and not a proto-language. If you think we should have an appendix with that name, I'll be happy to go and put back all the lang parameters. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
No I'm OK with removing lang=ira and other family parameters, but not lang=xpr or lang=xcl, as those appendices may some day exist. Indeed, I have thought of making a couple of appendices for some unattested Old Armenian terms. --Vahag (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Would they exist with the same names as the mainspace language categories? This seems to be a bit of a gray area, since it doesn't seem like a good idea to create a code just for the purpose of having the right name for an appendix. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they will exist with the same name. It doesn't seem like a good idea to create a code just for the purpose of having the right name for an appendix: the sole purpose of {{recons}} is to create links with the right appendix name. What else does it do? Italicize the term and add an asterisk? I could do that without a template. --Vahag (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should see about adding a switch to {{recons}} so it would otionally add something like "- Unattested Forms" to the appendix name. I don't think anyone has thought about how to treat unattested forms of attested languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If the etymology says that the word comes from a family called 'Iranian', then it really means 'Proto-Iranian' {{proto:ira-pro}}, the reconstructed ancestor of that family. A family by definition can't have any words, whereas a reconstructed ancestor can. —CodeCat 17:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Not always. It can also mean 'an Iranian language, but we don't know which one, maybe Parthian, maybe Middle Persian, maybe Median, maybe Old Persian'. --Vahag (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There is Appendix:Vulgar Latin/montanea, an unattested form of an attested language — Latin. No switch is necessary. Everything works fine, just don't remove lang parameters for non-family languages. --Vahag (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm almost finished removing the "lang=ira", so I can go back and re-add the other lang parameters I took out. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Vahag (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

new user of the year[edit]

I'd like to nominate you as new user of the year. If you accept, push the red button. If you have no red button, push the zit on your face. If you have no zit, or not enough strength to push things, click on "Edit" and mash the keyboard.

What- no lacerating wit, no double entendres? If this is all you've got for me in the way of invective, I should feel insulted! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


I was just wondering...why did you move-protect wallet and a bunch of other pages? I mean, they obviously shouldn't ever be moved, but there wasn't any indication that anybody was going to move them Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Refer to WT:GP#Spam Page Titles. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Alligator . . .[edit]

  1. The so-called 美洲鱷 (Měizhōu è), literary "American crocodile" (maybe refer to Alligator mississippiensis?), is not equivalent to alligator.
  2. It should be noted that alligator (鼉, tuó) is completely different from crocodile (鱷, è).
  3. If your knowledge is poor, please don't edit it. All right?  —— 18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I reverted you because you deleted the Min Nan section, not because of the details of the Mandarin or Cantonese edits. If you put back the Min Nan section- or at least explain adequately why it deserved to be deleted- I'll leave it to our Chinese-speaking admins to decide whether you're right or not about the rest of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


You invited me to discuss this diff. I'll assume you are a natural English speaker or well versed. Think about it carefully, the word humane is synonymous in almost all modern usage with diminished suffering. True regard for health and well being does not actually include the imposition of suffering, unless specifically to promote health and well being, and that is so often not the case. Practically, and I mean that literally in practice almost all rather than in rhetoric and philosophy, all instances of use refer to diminished suffering wether truly compassionate or not. It is unfair, in that it is tainted information, not to make this clear. Excuses not to make it clear: don't feel like it, others don't and that's all. The facts remain. What say you? Examples, I'll go into references if you'd like but these are common knowledge, humane ways to *deal* with a criminal. Humane ways to experiment on or kill animals. These are the most common practices synonymous with usage of the word humane and in all cases they are about inflicting suffering and not at all about health and well being. Is there some reason not to make this clear in a short simple way? Sugar coated is an almost perfect synonym for this definition of the word humane. Should we deny it as though it weren't so? Or what? Is it not about all that? Are you merely insisting that we stick to what other dictionaries have provided? That's a copyright issue, or a reliance on outdated information. So, I doubt you reverted for spelling mistakes or formatting errors, what says you? RTG (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making a special case for those who abuse the term, when, in fact, they're not creating a new sense but just mis-applying the original one. Also, we try to maintain a neutral point of view in our definitions- "murderous" is as emotionally-charged as it gets. By the way, we use {{context|euphemism}} rather than "sugar-coating", since that's the technical term. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I find misuse of the term to be prolific and significant. Do you not yourself? When you see execution methods refered to as humane, do you equate it as abuse or even error? I doubt it... It's just common usage today. And so, it's there, and it is somewhat obscure here. I can't see any incorrectedness in this although wording and formatting may be debatable. Maybe it is some form of slang, but it is there and it is prolific, significant and therefore ought to be acknowledged. It's too comonplace to completely ignore is it not? So let's do something then at least? Do we define the word or describe it's definition? See what I done there? RTG (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a straight-forward revert, as the first and second part of the definition contradict each other. Sugar-coated does not mean murderous or injurious. Injurious (which you spelled wrong) is a rare words with two different definitions, so using that is inappropriate. Finally both definitions (murderous and sugar-coated) seem really unlikely; can you provide an example of this? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It means bad things are happening to a lesser degree, not ensuredly bad things are not happening. The current entry does nothing to imply this. Nothing. My intention is to correct that. Care to help, or care less? RTG (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem has more to do with the part of the definition having to do with "health" and "well-being". I've always seen it as avoiding pain and suffering. This is highlighted best in the case of an animal with an incurably painful condition: the humane thing to do may be to gently put it to sleep, even though this is obviously not at all good for its health or its physical well-being. I've changed the definition accordingly. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your change to the definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well those changes are a lot more subtle than I had in mind but I think I sort of appreciate them too. Maybe the word "regard" (having regard for) was a little too noncommittal as well, in that regard is merely a view rather than a concern. And in current practice the quality is too often a beheading in between trials by fire. Good stuff cheers. RTG (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)



Please don't edit historical talk pages, closed or active discussions, no matter what templates they use(d). It's what other people said in the past. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Re. the Swadesh list for Romance languages: Interlingua is not a Romance language. It is a constructed language, intended as a simpler form fo Latin ( It is no more a "Romance language" than Esperanto. Since it doesn't belong in this Swadesh list, I have eliminated it.Mwidunn (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)mwidunn

Revert at bürgerlich[edit]

Hello Chuck Entz,

why have you reverted my edit of the entry on bürgerlich? Kind regards. -- 12:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. It must have been a mistake. Feel free to revert my revert, with my apologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert Rhymes Depart[edit]

The ending pronunciation for the word depart matches the other rhymes -ɑː(ɹ)t, but you have reverted its inclusion. Why is that?

Look again: it's still there. I removed a couple of others that didn't match. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A few phonology questions[edit]

Not just when I'm speaking my dialect of English, but in any language, I've found that there are a few common sounds I'm having a lot of trouble telling apart. I was wondering if you could help me distinguish them when I hear them or say them. They are: /ai/ vs /aj/ vs /aɪ/; /ei/ vs /ej/ vs /eɪ/; /nj/ vs /ɲ/; /a/ vs /ɑ/. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are some tricky ones. The problem is that everyone has a different phonetic realization of these phoneme combinations- not uncommonly the same person will pronounce them differently within a sentence or two of the same utterance. It's also true that sounds aren't as discrete and tidily separated as we'd like to think.
  • With the diphthongs, you start with the mouth in one position, and it moves to the other position- with lots of intermediate stuff in between. There's enough blurring there that there are different schools of thought on how to spell the same diphthongs: one person's /aɪ/ may be the exact same sound as someone else's /aj/. Semivowel approximants are tricky, because they almost cut off the flow of air, so they can vary from almost a vowel to almost a consonant. If you're starting with /a/ and ending with /j/, you'll probably have short /ai/ in between. To complicate things more, some people have more of a central articulation on the second sound, almost like /aɨ/. Basically, our brain is trained to take this vague sloshing from one sound to another and turn it into recognizable individual sounds. It takes training to overcome that and be able to recognize which sounds are really there (I'm not all that great at phonetic transcription, myself). I would recommend taking sound files and surgically cutting out different parts to hear how they process through the different sounds. I used to be able to do this with a cassette player: if you stop it at the exact end of the sibilance in the word "spin", it will sound like "bin" when you hit "play".
Now to some details:
  • /a/ vs /ɑ/: Think of a Bostonian saying "park the car". That "ar" is a very pure /a/. You can confirm this by lopping off the second half of sound files for the words "I" and "ow": it should sound the same (unless the speaker is from the South- you can hear all the vowel sounds of Europe in endless combinations by listening to different Southerners pronouncing a few words with "monophthongs", such as "spoon"). Now think of "open your mouth and say ah". That "ah" should be a very pure /ɑ/.
  • /nj/ vs /ɲ/: /nj/ is two sounds in different places of articulation, while /ɲ/ starts and ends in the same place. For most people, /nj/ tends to blur into /ɲ/ in rapid speech unless they're trying hard to enunciate precisely. Try saying "un" as it "sun", followed by "usual", first carefully enunciating the sounds with a pause between the words, then progressively shorten the pause until you're saying "unusual". If you're like me, you'll start out with /nj/ and end up with /ɲ/. The most iconic /ɲ/ in popular culture is courtesy of Curly from the Three Stooges- it's generally spelled "nyuk nyuk nyuk", but it's really something like /ɲəʔ/ /ɲəʔ/ /ɲəʔ/ (the /ɲ/ is somewhat syllabic, though, so it's hard to be sure what the vowel is). And of course, there's Russian нет (net). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm a little confused on the topic of /a/, though - did you make a typo or two there? As for the semivowels, does that mean that it's impossible to say /ea/ without accidentally saying [eja] along the way? And with /nj/, I was brought up in perfect IPA-cloud-cuckoo-land where monophthongs and dphthongs are separate things, not on a continuum. Is that fantasy wholly mistaken? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Contributing to developing the Bosnian Wiktionary and related[edit]


I am a new registered user. So greetings to all. I have a specific question. I went through the Help pages, FAQs, etc. but couldn't find an answer to my specific question (Maybe I missed it somewhere). I have also gone to the Bosnian Wiki page but didn't find an answer either. Probably because I am not familiar enough with the way Wiki works. While visiting Dicts's website (, I saw that Bosnian is available in the list of languages of the Wiktionary database. I have translated/localized several websites into Bosnian and have wide language related resources at my disposal.

My question is: is there anything that I could do to contribute develop/help on that Wiktionary?

I would be glad to contribute. Thanks in advance for your help and advice and best, Senad

First of all, welcome! Second of all this is a wiki. We accept and encourage assistance from everyone, as long as it's up to the standards agreed upon by the community. If nobody has done so yet, I'll go put our welcome template on your talk page, which gives links to several useful documents explaining how and why things are done here. There are quite a few things about formatting that one has to know before being able to make good Wiktionary entries.
As regards Bosnian, there's one very important thing you should know: after considerable debate, the community decided to treat Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, etc. as a single language under the name of Serbo-Croatian, but with two alphabets- Cyrillic and Roman. The reasoning was that, in spite of the use of the issue for all kinds of political and other agendas, the languages are simply too close together to be realistically treated as separate for practical purposes. It turns out that the most vehement arguments for this came from our main Croatian contributors, who had every reason to take the other side. I wasn't around when the decision was made, but I understand it got quite heated. The truth is, whatever was decided, someone was going to hate us to the death over it, so I assume the decision was to go with what made the most sense from a linguistic point of view.
If you don't want to participate in an operation that treats Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin as regional variants in the same way as we treat UK, US, Australian as variants of English, I'll certainly understand, though we certainly could use you. I don't know if we have any regular Bosnian contributors, but we can always use all the help we can get in every language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite true. The English edition of Wiktionary treats them as the same language, but I'm assuming you want to contribute to the Bosnian Wiktionary, right, Senad? Over there, they consider Bosnian to be a separate language. You can any questions you have about contributing there in Bosnian at this talkpage. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts)I just noticed, after writing all of that, that you were talking about the Bosnian Wiktionary. Since they're a separate wiki with a separate community, their policy regarding the separation of the language(s) is quite different from ours. I have no information about participating there that you couldn't get easier by just going over their. Their address would be instead of If you want to contribute to English-language entries about Bosnian words and phrases, you would do that here. For Bosnian-language entries about Bosnian words and phrases, you would do that there. I'm sure you would be welcome either or both places- you're certainly welcome here.Chuck Entz (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

United States National Forces[edit]

Hello, you just deleted a new entry for United States National Forces, generally citing WT:CFI, but failing to specify a particular reason.

The phrase is both attested and idiomatic.

Kindly specify your objections or re-create the entry.


(Please respond on this page, as I will monitor it.) Infoman99 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's neither attested nor idiomatic. Please don't waste our time without even bothering to read the link presented to you first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lampooning problems[edit]

Hi Chuck, I was a bit nonplussed by your categorical reversion of the edits I had made to lampoon. Could you drop a hint at the major problems that motivated you, so that I could have a go at cleaning them up? The sense that I added was in fact relevant to a WP link I had made to the WK entry, so it does seem to me worth a bit of effort to fix it. Cheers for now. JonRichfield (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the problems stemmed from applying Wikipedia methods and standards to a Wiktionary entry: first of all, citations aren't the same thing here. We don't use citations to reference works to verify content. We're a descriptive dictionary, so for us citations point to examples of the term in use that show it's used in the way the definitions say it's used. The template {{cite book}} is not the same as the Wikipedia version- it's used to display a properly labeled and formatted sample of text.
The other problems had to do with not paying attention to what was already in the entry: you added an unnecessary second etymology section, and your definition overlapped with the existing ones. There was an edit that fixed the etymology-section error, but the other ones remained.
This entry has problems with the definitions that need to be fixed by more drastic surgery than just adding another one, and it would have been too involved correcting the problems with your additions and restructuring the entry at the same time. A revert or a rollback here is more routine and less of a stigma than it might be on Wikipedia: we have fewer people here, so we don't have as much time to spend fixing problematic edits. I'm certainly not criticizing your sincere efforts to improve the entry- you just need to read up more on the differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and on how we do things here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
WT:WFW might be helpful? —CodeCat 14:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll take it from there. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Various H-droppin' words: etymology[edit]

'I there, just thought I'd let you know that the etymology I added for those words that 'ave an H-droppin' wasn't directly by me as I copy+pasted from 'ave (In which I 'appen to find this revision was added by an admin). Thankyou :) Tony6ty4ur (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

To an English speaker who has heard words like 'ave pronounced, the fact that the ' means the h sound has been dropped because the speaker's dialect always drops it (rather than that the word is merely elided like whate'er or prolly) may be clear... but especially if, as Angr contends on RFV, "eye dialect" means "spellings which indicate a standard pronunciation", it's probably opaque to non-native speakers. It also seems no less helpful than [[droid]]'s note that it represents android without the an, or the notes in a lot of hyphenated compounds that they represent part1+part2. However, I now see that the note applies to enough entries that it should be templatised. - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Superbus stress[edit]

I would argue that stress on the second syllable is in error; if the penult syllable is short, then surely the stress must fall on the antepenult syllable according to Dreimorengesetz (the three mora rule). As it is, superbus is written with no long syllables and therefore has its stress on the first syllable: /'su.per.bus/ - 01:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I just realised the r constituted an extra mora. - 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your revert in page דעת[edit]

Hi, why did you revert my edit in ? I added full niqqud (vowels) and you reverted it without explanation. --Thv (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. It must have been an error, because I don't see anything wrong with your edit, and can't remember why I reverted it. My apologies! Chuck Entz (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixing up things[edit]

Hi. Thanks for sorting out some of those placeholder etymologies I've been forced to use! Equinox 03:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. There are times when activity has died down on the forums and I don't feel like patrolling or starting on a major project, but I want to work on something. It's nice to have a request category that I can work on in small pieces and quit when I get tired of it. Lately I've been working on the entries needing Greek script.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

По revert[edit]

A grammar reference should be politically neutral. Why not undo the revert or replace "to launch a strike at Iran's nuclear ambitions"? I have no opinion on the matter, but it will probably look a bit silly in the page for "по" in a few years.

Who's to say that Ireland doesn't have nuclear ambitions?

The problem was replacing something political with something goofy. If you want to come up with a new sentence that doesn't mention Iran or nuclear ambitions, fine. What you did just looks like someone sticking smiley-face stickers over the genitals in obscene pictures- obvious and clumsy. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


I reinstated the more expansive entries because the previous entry made it sound a if only the Bible mentions those figures. Pass a Method (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

But the usage in the other religions traces back to the Bible. Those entries need to be fixed, since they use "Old Testament" rather than "Hebrew Scriptures", but throwing in obscure terminology like Abrahamic doesn't address that. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If our criteria is based on which scriputre mentions characters first then we would have to similarly mention the ancient mythologies or Zoroastrianism which influenced those usages. For your information, i used this as a reference. Pass a Method (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
"Influence" is a matter of ideas, not names. This is about the names- the rest is encyclopedic. There might be room for the kind of note you're adding, but not the way you're wording it. The Bible is a sacred text (more than one, strictly speaking), not a tradition (though traditions are definitely involved) or a faith. Islam isn't a sacred text, nor is Bahai, etc. We need to keep straight what we're talking about.
We also need to work out how to refer to everything Biblical, since such references involve competing faiths, world views, traditions, interpretations, etc. Our terminology is, of course, heavily skewed toward Christianity by virtue of our demographics and the traditions of English-language lexicography, but it needs to be replaced with something coherent and consistent- and also recognizable to our readers. That's not for me or you to decide unilaterally. It really needs to be hashed out in the Beer Parlour. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

pound town[edit]

the bro's website doesn't look like its commercial, it looks more like a magazine to me. is that one okay?

The main problem is that it's not durably archived, so it's useless as far as meeting WT:CFI, but it's also not a reliable source for anything having to do with lexicography. It's not representative of anything, just one person's idiosyncratic way of talking about things. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi! Thank you for the welcome template. In your edit summary on , you said, "Wikipedia-style referencing not valid here". Could you explain what you mean by this? --Odie5533 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was more to get your attention than to explain anything. It was mostly in response to your edit summary about removal of "sourced" content. Actually, it was a bit of an exaggeration: we do allow references for etymologies and usage notes, but referencing doesn't have the same central importance that it does at Wikipedia. We also don't have the same restrictions against original research that WP does. Having reliable sources doesn't give anyone a free pass to randomly dump loads of information where it doesn't belong.
The main problem I had with your edit was that everything was in the wrong place. Wiktionary entries aren't single units that you can add a Notes section to. All they have in common is the same spelling. Your Notes section should have been a References section nested within the Japanese or the Translingual sections, except that I'm not so sure it's a good idea to have the same etymology repeated in what's basically an alternative spelling of the other. I could be wrong on that particular issue, since I don't spend a lot of time with the Han character entries- I'm familiar with the issues involved, but not with current practices among those working on the languages here at Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and thank you for explaining it. It is very difficult to understand what one is doing wrong if no one explains it. The derivation of one character from another must be cited to a reliable source because it is not something that can be gleaned from attested usage quotations. By undoing my addition, you have removed any verifiable proof that the characters are even related to each other. After I wrote the etymology section, a user added a similar section to the previous form (), but their addition was uncited. I assume it's based on something, but a casual reader might assume that it was made up with no evidence to prove otherwise, particularly with some of the opinionated statements. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


The verb "to nugget" is a common idiom in some vernaculars. Please restore the edit. Thank you. Jackstormson (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish edits from IP range[edit]

Hello Chuck,

What can you tell me about the IPs listed here? I just left a note at the topmost one's Talk page in the interests of informing the user of how to play nice here, but I then found that you'd already blocked the other two IP addresses. Have you (or has anyone else) tried contacting this user before? If so, and they're just pernicious and stubborn, perhaps an IP range block is in order... Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The results of Geolocate are identical to those for all of the IPs used by that wizarding waste of time from England that we've all come to know and love. That, combined with doing bad edits on supernatural subjects, Japanese, Chinese, and almost always combinations of two or more of the above, and it's pretty easy to spot this idiot.
As I've said elsewhere, I've started to block him on sight on grounds of misusing multiple accounts (or disruptive edits, if I see he's already doing those). My reasoning is that he's been given instruction, pleading, warnings, threats, and blocks over a couple of years, but hasn't changed his ways in the slightest- so it's best to just stop him from editing as much as possible. Unfortunately, there are others who use the same ranges of IPs, so long-term or range blocks are out of the question. If we block him promptly, though, multiple shorter blocks will work just as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that guy. Understood. I'll give his current incarnation one more chance, and if the edit is bogus, I'll block him. (Or maybe "her"? Somehow I'm pretty sure it's a "him".) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated edits[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to use the preview function and thus reduce the high number of subsequent edits in Wikisaurus:horse? Great job, by the way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I do, but I always forget something after saving, and I'm paranoid about having something go wrong after I've got a whole bunch of changes. Also, I've been editing sections, and I tend to save when I switch sections. Those are all bad habits, I know, but I've been going through a bunch of WP articles and checking against WT and checking against Google Books, so I've been mostly concentrating on content rather that good editing practices. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the easiest way to do this is create a local plain text file on your computer, and edit it in Notepad. Each time when you think you are done with the entry, take a break and wait whether new ideas come to mind. When no more ideas and research come to mind even after a pause, you can copy it to Wiktionary. You seem to have made around 80 edits to Wikisaurus:horse in couple of hours, which is really quite many. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


why you changed it? give me a good reason for choosing indivisible as a way to say it in english. do you know greek dictionary Babniniotis? do you know anything about the history of science? by the way i am greek and living in Greece all my life

You may know Greek very well, but your English clearly needs work. To a fluent English speaker, indivisible is definitely the best word to use, as that is literally what the Greek means, as I'm sure you know — τόμος (tómos) implies cutting, but is negated by the alpha privative, therefore it can't be cut, i.e. is indivisible. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

yes my english suck but that's a different issue. take a look at my comment here [[1]] and read some things about philosophy and Democritus. that 'definitely best word to use' needs to be reconsindered. i ll put my comments in the talk page and i wont tangle with the english version again. temnō is also used in geometry, it means to cut through or to be tangent with a line Wassermagier (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was clearly wrong, since Liddell & Scott had "unmown", and πώγωνος (pṓgōnos) in the first paragraph- neither of which is compatible with "individual". On the other hand, the existing sense was an extreme oversimplification by itself. I haven't read the author(s) in question, but I think we're better off giving the whole range of meanings of the word, and letting those who follow a link from an etymology decide which sense applies. Going into the intricacies of what was meant in a particular text isn't something a dictionary should do. That's for a translation, or at least for an encyclopedia's treatment of the text and/or its author and/or its author's theories. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


You have new messages Hello, Chuck Entz. You have new messages at Grolltech's talk page.
Message added 11:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

make someone's teeth itch[edit]

Regarding For what it's worth, I added the second reference in good faith as a valid and used usage. In fact, I stumbled across your page here whilst searching in hopes that someone had YouTubed the very clip from The Benny Hill Show (the original being more than a decade pre-digital, of course, and possibly pre-videotape). The scene had Benny watching after a particularly curvaceous dancer, shivering, then looking into the camera and saying, "Kind of girl that makes your teeth itch." Classic Benny Hill: seemingly simple statements which keep setting off new interpretations every five seconds for a while. If I ever do find a digitised version of the clip, I'll come back here and edit the link into this paragraph as a definitive reference. In the meantime, enjoy in memory of Benny.



I was wondering why you reverted my addition of the Japanese meaning of katai, as given at かたい… Japanese romaji are listed on here, as at tsuyoi and shiroi. Being pretty basic vocabulary ("hard"), I think the romaji needs to be added for this. 08:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason I reverted was due to all of the stuff that should really be at the kana entry, romaji entries are basically for referring to kana entries, and not as entries in their own right. The main thing that attracted my attention, though, was your including interwiki links for the kana spelling (i.e. [[ja:かたい]]): interwiki links have to match the headword exactly. If other Wiktionaries had an entry for katai, you would have had interwikis for that, but not interwikis for かたい- those go at かたい Chuck Entz (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I'll see if I can do that properly then. 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Can you use edit summaries in Wikisaurus, especially when you are alphabetizing things and when you are removing things? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Any reason for your vandalism on wiktionary page "pensarci"?

Not vandalism, per se- apparently an honest mistake. It really looked to me at the time like you were duplicating Etymology 1, but with etymology and definitions- which should only go on the main entry. A lot of people who know more about their own languages than about how we do things at Wiktionary don't realize the mess it can create when content is spread out over several inflected forms- it's almost impossible to keep everything in synch. I normally don't do reverts of languages I don't know well, but this seemed pretty straightforward. I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion, and for not checking further to see if you really were an inexperienced new editor. By the way, there's at least one typo ("thnik"), so you might want to look it over again. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed typo. And apologies for jumping to conclusion myself. By the way, do you know what would be correct way to refer to particular etymology? For example, "ci penso io" and "pensaci tu" both contain "etymology 2" verb "pensarci". Is there any way to show this? Anceurs (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, there isn't any. If you were to refer to "Etymology 2", someone could rearrange them and make Etymology 2 into Etymology 1, or add another etymology in between and Etymology 2 would become Etymology 3. The best you can do is refer to whatever it is that distinguishes the two etymologies (not easy in this case). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. This was a real mess. I've tried to clean it up somewhat, but I can't help noticing that Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 are the same! (I've deleted the so-called adverb that didn't have a definition.) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


For cockpunch I am absolutely certain that it is used euphemistically to refer to punching ones cock in another's orifice. How can we get that definition included?Bipalabras (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You know the rules: three independent cites in durably-archived sources. The one you provided for this sense could have "punch" substituted and would make perfect sense: "may someone punch you in the mouth". No penetration required. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Chuck, I didn't get that. What the hell is that "common misspelling" "meaning" ("etymology")? Josh L. (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I thought we were talking about the noun. You would look at viral to see the etymology of the adjective, because that sense refers to people who mean to write viral and get it wrong. We're missing an adjective sense under Etymology 2, which is where the noun came from- but that's not an etymological problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Nah, what I mean is that misspellings is a bullshit (sorry for my "French"). Or, while we still must consider them, we'd better devise some special marking for this stuff.
Hm... I just thought — if a misspelling is some sort of etymology, you mean that?? Josh L. (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"Misspelling of" isn't strictly speaking an etymology, but I had to separate the misspelling from the correctly-spelled scientific senses, and the way specified by our rules is by etymologies. If you think about it, the misspelling isn't derived in any way from the same source as from the other senses, so it really is a separate, unspecified etymology.
As for why we have a "misspelling of" section at all: we're a descriptive dictionary, so we describe how people actually use words, not just how they should use them. If someone sees a reference to a "virial video" and looks up the words at Wiktionary, they need to know that the real word is "viral", so they can look it up under that spelling. If all they see is a reference to forces between microscopic particles and a figure in an obscure equation, it won't help at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
«for why we have a "misspelling of" section at all» — but we don't: that was an ordinary "etymology" section - with no noticeable differences pointing at that this is not a meaning of the article's word at all (Let alone the words "Common misspelling of" — cause they are not marking but only words in a row - without any formatting differences.).
«we describe how people actually use words»: WORDS. Another word misspelled is NOT the word of the article at all. IT SHOULD BE ISOLATED into a special reference.
«If all they see is a reference to forces between microscopic particles and a figure in an obscure equation, it won't help at all.» It will. It will help more than you think: it'll instigate people 1) to use their brains, 2) to realise that people (maybe including themselves) sometimes misspell something, and even maybe to realise that there are people who're inclined to do that, and/or there are words misspelled more frequently that others, and there are typos - which occur:) (I don't object the "misspelling" reference, to make it clear. I just tend to believe it should be out of the row - specially marked.) Josh L. (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you understand: Our entries include everything that's has the same spelling all on the same page. If there are words in other languages, they go there, too. In cases where there are completely separate words, such as wind (meteorological phenomenon vs. what you do with a string and a spool), we have separate sections for each (see WT:ELE). There's no place else to put the "misspelling of" entry. The definition line says says "misspelling of viral", so it's not like anyone is going to assume that it's a correct spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
«I don't think you understand...» I think now I do understand: that Wiktionary is not a dictionary about words/ lexemes; it is rather something about letter sequences, huh? :/ Josh L. (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No you don't. It's a dictionary about words/lexemes, which is organized by letter sequences. The OED isn't about alphabetical order, but the entries on a given page all start with the same letter. You wouldn't conclude that there's some kind of connection between "alpaca" and "alphabet" because some dictionaries have them on the same page, so why conclude that the "misspelling of" sense is connected to the "term in an equation" one? Chuck Entz (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me show.
I make a piece of text SOMEWHERE on the web. Then, having noticed a typo, I, instead of editing it (or being unable to), go to the Requested entries and REQUIRE the typoed word to be put onto the database. Is it that? Let's do an article on every typo, aha? Josh L. (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC) PS: Yes, I'm exaggerating - still it's in the same paradigm. Josh L. (talk)


If you are going to revert the edit I made, please may you take a look at the definitions here on this page. They could do with improvement. I don't really see why this got reverted, most other dictionaries don't break down the definitions like in the version you have reverted it back to, see for how other dictionaries define it. I was tempted to add a comment to the feedback page, but last time I submitted feedback about a particular issue nothing was done about it.

Wikisaurus:alcohol (drink)[edit]

On Wikisaurus:alcohol (drink): For one thing, as of now, we don't use brackets in Wikisaurus headwords. For another, there is Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage, a hyponym of Wikisaurus:beverage. The entry Wikisaurus:alcohol links to Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage in "See also". Furthermore, searching for "ws:whisky" gives me the following pages:

  • Wikisaurus:beverage
  • Wikisaurus:horse (whyever, but you would probably know, having created the entry)
  • Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage

Thus, a similar search should help you find whether a Wikisaurus page already exists.

A note on categories that you have been adding to Wikisaurus: I don't like them, but I will not ask their deletion via RFDO for the time being. They are in part made redundant by the hyponymy network, like:

  • Wikisaurus:beverage
    • Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage
      • Wikisaurus:wine

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage, but there's a hole in our coverage: all of the items refer to specific alcoholic beverages like whisky or beer or wine. There are several terms that refer to the totality of consumable alcohol, as in phrases like "I don't drink alcohol", "he's been hitting the sauce/the juice quite a bit lately", "you've been drinking booze again", etc. That's what I was trying to capture, though I wasn't all that happy with the name I used. If there's a better way to include this information, I'd be happy to hear it.
As for the categories, they're sort of an experiment to work out ways to make it easier to find things. As it stands now, all the lists of entries are completely unstructured: in order to find if a topic is covered, you have to read all the entry names and figure out which ones might be relevant. Although you can certainly search for keywords, that method is dependent on using a search term that matches the title of the entry. If I were to search for "ws:Booze" I would get nothing. If I searched for "ws:alcohol", I might figure out that "ws:Alcoholic beverage" would lead me to what I want.
It seems far too easy for redundant entries to be created simply because people don't know the magic words necessary to find out that an entry already exists. We desperately need some kind of topic or theme page to organize entries that aren't, strictly speaking, -nyms of the same Wikisaurus entry. Given the countless ways things can be paraphrased, and the large number of synonymous terms that might be used in the entry names, strictly-text-based ordering and searching is pretty close to useless. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not true that all the items of Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage refer to specific alcoholic beverages; check the synonyms section, which contains e.g. "drink". I have now expanded the synonyms section with "alcohol" and "booze", but there were synonyms even before my last edit. If you thought that Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage was incomplete, you could have expanded it. What you seem to be concerned with are uncountable broad terms for alcoholic beverages as opposed to countable ones. I think both can comfortably be hosted in one Wikisaurus entry.
People should not need to use any magic word to find a Wikisaurus entry; it suffices when they use the word for which they are seeking synonyms. If the particular synonym they have used is missing, the search fails; so much is true. Nonetheless, you say you were aware of "Wikisaurus:alcoholic beverage", so you did not really seem to have a problem finding the page. Moreover, there are links to Wikisaurus from the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


As I noted in edit, the second sense shown for "intimidate" is not supported by OED or any dictionary I checked. That sense was not included in the original entry for "intimidate"; it appears to have been added by at 21:02, 5 February 2007. Please delete the second sense or support it with an authoritative reference. Jwpat7 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you doubt the existence of a term or definition, please submit it to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 18:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:ES #withy[edit]

Do you agree CodeCat moved that aggenda to User:KYPark/withy? --KYPark (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it came to that, but, yes. Four screenfuls of text, including wholesale duplication of large parts of entries, lists of "possible cognates" that have little in common but superficially similar consonants, and long discussions about why you think everyone else is biased, wrongheaded, and out to get you. Maybe a couple of sentences out of all that has any relevance to Wiktionary, making it about 90% wasted space. It's bad enough that you bring up irrelevant topics, but then you add voluminous and elaborately formatted supporting material (most of it just for show), and no matter how anyone responds, you just keep going on and on about a given subject until your attention shifts to something else. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
By that unfair move, CodeCat in effect freed you from answering in the blind alley. Otherwise, why don't you respond to my last, most critical, conclusive talk at User:KYPark/withy? Simply I win if you give it up. --KYPark (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that Chuck failed to respond because even on April fool's day he had more productive things to do. Please step back and evaluate the function and mission of Wt (and don't bother to tell us your evaluation; some of us have already done that and are doing very nicely thank you) then if you find your evaluation incompatible with what all the other idiots opposing you seem to think, then favour a more deserving enterprise with your talents. You will win and they will have learnt a lesson, and serve them right. Have a nice day. JonRichfield (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice advice indeed. --KYPark (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

exactly an example of WikiDenail —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:55, April 18, 2013‎.

This is a descriptive dictionary: we include terms in actual use, not mini-essays about words someone would like to be in use. If you can provide three independent citations of actual use (with the same spelling) spanning more than a year in durably-archived sources, the entry is welcome (with an actual definition- if you want to hold forth or vent, get a blog somewhere else). Please note that wikis aren't considered durably-archived). A helpful hint: you can add citations to a non-existent entry, so that when you re-create the entry, others will know that it shouldn't be deleted. See WT:CFI for details. There was nothing personal about this- it just wasn't suitable for Wiktionary, as far as I could tell from the evidence I have available. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello, you reverted my references to 'cilemeatair'. The two items I'd put down as references are online dictionaries familiar to Scottish Gaelic users. Should I format references to online dictionaries (note, neither of these exist in hardcopy) as

cilemeatair, in Am Faclair Beag online dictionary. ?

Thanks for your advice! Thisissusanbell (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving a naked URL is not especially helpful. I have readded this specific URL in a better formatted way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
That's great thank you. I'll follow that format. Thisissusanbell (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm fairly new to wikiediting but I can't quite see why you removed my link to the swedish equilvalent of article: egotism. Care to elaborate? Bforsbe (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

{{se}} doesn't stand for Swedish; it stands for Northern Sami. This is why we have robots add interwiki links instead of humans. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Alcyonium palmatum[edit]

What do you think would encourage contributors to put in a vernacular "translation" into the translation table? Is what is there now good enough? DCDuring TALK 20:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Translingual entries are not actually supposed to have transtables. Those are stored at the English name for the organism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
That can't be our policy, because it would be stupid. Not every taxonomic name has an English vernacular name, though many, especially mammals, do. It is more than possible that there would be a local vernacular name for a taxon, but no English one. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It is our policy. Go and look at WT:ELE#Translations.
Whether or not it is stupid is totally unrelated. If you disagree with it, raise the issue in the BP. If people seem to agree and there are no major complaints, then we can edit the page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

rape culture[edit]

The word is not scientifically proven, but is based on a theory of radical feminists who after all have an interest in providing men in a bad light why I think you should make the reader aware of the fact in the advertisement. -- 07:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There's really no such thing as scientifically proven (everything is falsifiable), also how and why would you scientifically prove a word? How would you scientifically prove the word 'house'? What would that even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Words don't need to be scientifically proven. Theories need to be scientifically proven, but we're defining words, not theories. The way you randomly stuck those words in the sentence was ungrammatical and made no sense. You need to understand the grammar of what you're modifying before you add to it. Once you're able to make a coherent, grammatical sentence, we can look at whether your content is suitably neutral in tone. Hint: you might want to look up the words you use to make sure they mean what you think they do, and think about things like sentence structure and punctuation. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection of your userpage[edit]

Hope you don't mind but I made it so only autoconfirmed users can edit it. As you'll notice, another idiot was vandalising your page. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, it was the same idiot, using a different IP. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the explanation, I mostly contribute in Wikipedia and I am not familiar with Wiktionary customs and rules. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just sympathy[edit]

I just find it sad that everybody keeps irritating you, as I think that you are a good, intelligent contributor. No matter how many flies you swat, they just keep coming back. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why, Chuck Entz, Why.[edit]

I just dont understand the need to go and police the internet like you do! What makes you so important beyond us that you would delete pages? A simple apology might make it stop... You know, because that'd be the nice thing to do. But for now, just keep asking why? :) —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at May 20, 2013 21:43.

I'm not policing "the internet", I'm policing Wiktionary. I was elected by the people here to be an admin, so it's my responsibility to enforce the rules and policies of this site. This is a dictionary, not a place to express your opinions. My only regret is using the delete reason of "Stupidity", since it obviously hit a nerve. I was completely justified in doing so, because defacing a dictionary to add an inane comment like that is a pretty stupid thing to do. You posted a comment insulting the people who freely donate their time and effort providing this resource, so you don't exactly have the moral high ground here. Please note: I never accused you of stupidity- just your actions were stupid. And you'll have to admit, obsessing like this over a single word on a single website isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to do with your time and energies.
If I had known you would take it as a mortal insult, I wouldn't have used the word "Stupidity"- I'm certainly willing to apologize for that. I'm not going to apologize for deleting your comment, or for blocking you- yours was one of literally dozens of attempts at vandalism I had to deal with that evening. If I hadn't done it, someone else would have had to deal with it an hour or so later.
If you're willing to accept that much of an apology- fine. If not, you should realize that everything you've been doing is a minor nuisance, at worst- a click or two, maybe 10, 15 seconds, and it's gone. If you want to waste your time like that, I can't stop you- but I'm not about to alter what I do because of it. I don't get upset over such things, nor do I take them personally. If I had to spend a minute or two a day for the next 20 years dealing with it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Nothing personal, but I've got a job to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Who the heck is (talkcontribs) and how do you know? o.O User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 02:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An English anime fan (probably adolescent or pre-adolescent) who's really into magic and everything supernatural- and East Asian languages. They don't really know much in the way of Japanese or Chinese (or anything else), but they insist on adding lots of entries, anyway. I think they run things through Google or Bing Translate to get the Japanese or Chinese, then create the entries. But that's not the only reason their edits are bad- their English-language entries are awful, too.
They've been driving Haplology and Eirikr up the wall with the sheer volume of really, really bad edits, and the Chinese editors have gotten pretty tired of them, too. I suggested that we start just blocking them on sight, because they've ignored suggestions, hints, pleading, threats, blocks, and just about every other way to way to get through to them that you can think of, with only minor changes to their MO. They've amply demonstrated that they're not going to stop, so at least we can slow them down enough to limit the damage.
After going through years of their edits, I've gotten a pretty good feel for their editing style and choice of subjects, but they also are the only IP that edits Japanese and Chinese who geolocates to Sky Broadband, London. There's another IP who uses Easynet in the UK that edits religious subjects in Japanese, but they're pretty much harmless.
In this case, the subject matter looked like what a kid would think about (probably their dinner), the timing was right (this is their second block of the day), and Geolocate matched, so I blocked them. And in case you think I was totally off base, you'll note that Haplology has since reverted both of those edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, many thanks for your help in halting the anon idiocy before it gets very far. That is an intensely frustrating situation, not least as the one or two anons involved actually manage to enter correct information every once in a while (meaning we can't just nuke their additions automatically).
Now I see that other anons are persistent in vandalizing your page. My sincere condolences. I noticed PalkiaX50's note above about protection, but this edit by an anon suggests that the protection isn't configured quite right. I note that the page properties show that anyone is still allowed to edit your page.
Whatever the case, thank you again for your help, and good luck with the anons! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Eiríkr, I protected his user page, not this, which is his talk. I figure talk may as well stay open for good anon, if any come by. Though no one's stopping Chuck or some1 else protecting this too if need be. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 04:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Like PalkiaX50 says, I can't protect my talk page, because it wouldn't be fair to deny access to anons who disagree with my reverts, blocks, etc. My user page is protected, though. As for this anon, it's a minor annoyance, at worst. I made my case in a message posted above, but I'm not about to change what I do because of any harassment campaign- in general, the more people try to manipulate me with garbage like that, the more stubborn I get. At any rate, carrying on a one-sided vendetta gets boring after a while, so I expect that they'll go away, eventually- with an occasional cameo reappearance every once in a while. They may be annoying, but I doubt they're so pathetically obsessive as to keep at it forever. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

-'re reverts[edit]

Hi Chuck, I was wondering why my edits on they're, you're & there're were reverted? Cheers CokeHanx (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you had all of them as derived from these + 're, which makes no sense. They're really from they+are, you+are and there+are, with elision of the a. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


I am curious why you reverted the edit for Telugu. If you believe that I made a mistake, let me know what it is. Xit vono (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a huge problem, but the word nyelv doesn't seem to have been necessary, and being added outside the template made it look suspicious. See the Hungarian translations for some of the other language names. Still, I seem to have overreacted. Feel free to add it back- but check how other Hungarian translations are formatted. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna revert it as I did originally. I decided to follow the pattern of other translations, such as bahasa Telugu and lingua Telugu, with only Telugu as part of a link. I checked hu.wictionary, where it had just telugu, but for Quechua it was kecsua nyelv. Xit vono (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Our JA anon -- shifting tack to target JA translations in EN entries[edit]

I've noticed a disturbing trend where our anon has started crapflooding EN term translations with mostly bogus JA listings. See Special:Contributions/ for an example. I've gone through and cleaned up that lot; they were almost all execrable, but again not entirely, so nuking from orbit might be overkill.

I'd softened slightly on our anon and had reduced my penalty block to one month; this change in tactic increases my concern, so I'm going back to three months.

Just FYI, and TIA, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

New appendix[edit]

As a participant in an associated discussion, you are invited to contribute to the list of terms and criteria at Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English. Cheers,   — C M B J   11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

oleifolius and other -folius[edit]

Sorry about the Usage notes/See also issue. It was a matter of copy-paste and I didn't even realize. Sobreira (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Declension of Latin compound numerals[edit]

"When ūnus is used to form compound numerals, such as ūnus et vīgintī ("twenty-one"), the masculine nominative singular is used, and does not inflect."

The same for "duo", "tres". Is this statement correct? Google Books gives many instances for "viginti unius anni", "viginti uno anno", "viginti una" and "una et viginti", but only one for "viginti unus anni" (perhaps a typo) and none for "viginti unus anno". Cicero also used "unius et viginti": [2]. A comprehensive Guide to Wheelock's Latin seems to have mistaken (and also mistakenly named "viginti unus" etc. ordinals instead of cardinals). "Twenty-one horses" is certainly "viginti unus equi", but this word combination should decline: "viginti unius equorum", "viginti uni equis", etc. Burzuchius (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking about this rollback, I only did it because the templates added don't exist on Wiktionary, which should have been obvious to anyone who actually looked at the results after they were added (it was rather ugly). Wiktionary doesn't do things the way Wikipedia does- we have far fewer editors, let alone admins- so we can't afford the detailed procedures that are the norm there. The correct thing to do would have been adding {{attention|la}} to either the entry or the talk page, in order to bring it to the attention of someone who knows Latin (I know the basics of the morphology, but I'm not much help on the finer points such as you're addressing here). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In my experience, Burzuchius is correct. I will remove that line. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"welcome to dictionary"[edit]

Hello Check,

Thank for your "welcome to dictionary" post on my talk page. However, would you tell me the purpose of this post? I'm a wiktionary member and participant for years (even if my contribs usually are small).

However, I take the opportunity to ask how to make interwiki links that display correctly. See exemples below:

Salutation, Denispir (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The welcome template has links to pages with a great deal of information, which your edits showed you needed. As for how to make links display properly: add a pipe character ("|") and put the text you want displayed after it: [[w:dictionary|dictionary]] shows as dictionary this also works for wikilinks: [[car#French|car]] displays as car. There are templates that are more useful for linking within Wiktionary: template:term creates an italicized wikilink suitable for use in etymologies ( {{term|car|lang=fr}} displays as car), and template:l creates a plain link ( {{l|fr|car|lang=fr}} displays as car). This is especially useful with other scripts: {{term|γλῶσσα||tongue, language|lang=grc}} displays as γλῶσσα (glôssa, tongue, language). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Botany seems to be chock full of terms such as the above. I think we should enter them as we notice them because a botanically naive person like me could believe that they have something to do specifically with Asparagoidea or Asparagoides (apparently obsolete, but attestable) or with species:Asparagoideae, whereas such terms leave open the question of what taxonomic level, or clade for that matter, might be associated with or assigned to the grouping. Could you take a look at and improve the entry or characterize how such terms are used? The idea would be to have a generic definition which might be improved and made more specific for individual cases.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


I am somewhat certain that you probably have much more important things to be attending to, rather than responding to questions, but in your pursuit of studying linguistics, how difficult would you say it was? Porokello (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries 2[edit]

Can you use edit summaries in Wikisaurus, especially when you are alphabetizing things and when you are removing things? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


I think this rollback is in error. Jnestorius (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I undid my rollback. The quotes aren't the greatest, IMHO, but they didn't really merit removal. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


Why did you delete the translation? I think it should be there.

Because that's not the lemma form for the verb. The definitions should go at לחבל, which is in fact where they already are. And please remember to sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC) All other pages inform of neighbouring counties, this one does not if uncertain about validity please check:

Why did you delete my page with the translation of ღვთის პირიდან გადავარდნილი? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

Because it was a translation of a sentence, not a dictionary entry. See WT:CFI for what we consider suitable for dictionary entries, and WT:ELE for what an entry should contain. The only reason we have sentences is to either give examples of how a term is used in order to help people understand it better, or to give samples of how it's used in order to document that the term is really in use with the definition we give in the entry. In both cases, the quotes go right after the definition in the main entry page, or, for the second, in the Citations tab for the entry. What you posted was useless for dictionary purposes without an entry to add it to. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


I noticed you undid an edit for the Slovak word motýľ meaning butterfly. I don't actually speak Slovak, but I know Czech and I think his edit looks legit, since it is a masculine animate noun. Xit vono (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The content might be legit, but they also deleted the language header and otherwise mangled things. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry aboun mangling things. The changes in the declension are legitimate, but I didn't know how to correct the declension pattern, so I deleted it. It is declined by the "stroj" patern, but only in plural . In singular it is declined by "chlap" pattern. It is a special "gender", it is called "masculine, animate, animal" in Slovak language. Kirkekol (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Hello (re:North Yorkshire) please check the validity of my edits from: and after all wiktionary is "Designed as the lexical companion to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia project" The form of this page is out of sync with other county pages eg take nottinghamshire for an example it gives the neighbouring counties where as 'north yorkshire' and 'east riding of yorkshire' I keep correcting this an then an admin undoes the changes and asks to leave a comment on their page which I initally do then another admin comes redoes the roll-back and ask the exact same question if the roll-back is in error then please leave note on their talk page. Some even block you and don't allow you to do this.

I think the key is the difference between a county and a ceremonial county. At any rate, I'm following the lead on this from SemperBlotto (talkcontribs) who's from the UK not too far from there and knows more about this than I do- discuss it with him. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


You have reverted back my edit on Kamboh/Kamboj. But you have not given any reasons for doing so. The edit I did on citations on kamboh/iKamboj is for the general interest of the common readers so that they can form an independent view about the kamboh/Kamboj and their link to the kambojas. if you want to discuss this issue further, let me know and we will discuss and agree to an acceptable view. Please do not revert it back without assigning reasons for doing so. I am reverting back and inviting you for general discussion on this page.


Reply to protection[edit]

@Chuck: As long as it is just the user page, I'm fine with it. You'd probably need cascading protection (if that exists here), if you protect the main user page. Razorflame 03:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat discussion closing request.[edit]

Greetings, Chuck Entz. I have recently proposed in the Beer parlour that since WT:RFD and WT:RFV are perpetually backlogged with discussions that should have been closed long ago, it would be nice if editors adding a new section to one of these pages would help to move some old sections towards closure/archiving. Since you have added some new RfV sections, please consider closing or archiving some old ones. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

poeciliid etymology[edit]

I believe that your rollback of my edit was quite in error. Can you explain why you did it? —Dajagr (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. The word poeciliid isn't directly from Ancient Greek. As the etymology currently says, it's from the scientific name Poecilliidae, which in turn is from the generic name Poecilia (to be precise, per the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, from the genitive of Poecilia, minus the inflectional ending, plus the family ending -idae). As for where Poecilia came from, that would probably be ποικιλία (poikilía, being marked with various colours, striped, spotted), though a case could be made for ποικιλίας (poikilías, a kind of fish). The original description doesn't give an etymology, so it's anybody's guess. You claimed that the English word came from ποικίλος (poikílos, many-coloured, spotted, pied, dappled), but that's correctly transliterated "poikilos", not "poikilios". I'm sure ποικιλία (poikilía) itself comes from ποικίλος (poikílos)- but that's not what you wrote. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I realized that what I initially wrote came across as passive-aggressive, so I wanted to try to adjust it to a more neutral tone. I appreciate that you are trying to make sure that the entry is accurate. I think it would have been more helpful to provide corrections or, if you felt those were not ready to hand, at least an explanation of why the information was being completely reverted. I have done further research into the term and am basing the current etymology on information in Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionaries, both of which cite ποικίλος (poikílos) (OED as the direct predecessor; M-W as the basis for the poecil- prefix. Whether the direct predecessor is the -ia or -os form seems to be a matter of some question in the specific term, but I think this provides at least a starting point. —Dajagr (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to say without full access to the older scholarly literature, but at Google Books the use of Poeciliidae (1820) predates the use of poeciliid (1859) by nearly forty years and Poecilia (1801 for the official description) predates them both. It seems implausible that the latter terms were invented without reference to the genus name. The sequence of use in the community of scholars was Poecilia > Poeciliidae > (p|P)oeciliid. I'd be fascinated to see the evidence that poeciliid had a meaning that was not basically "like a Poecilia" and instead had reference to the underlying Greek or New Latin. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Up yours" vs "Shove it up your ass:[edit]

What I found is that in slang and insulting usage, "up yours" is essentially a short form for "shove it up your ass", and it actually originates from that term. Therefore, "shove it up your ass" seems like the real definition of "up yours" —This unsigned comment was added by 'Samaria-Mack' (talkcontribs).

Perhaps, but we don't do redirects, especially if it means gutting an entry that's been there a while. We may need to rearrange things- but not with chainsaws, bailing wire and duct tape... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


I hope we can figure this out without more drama on our user pages...

Who are you to italicize "will" in your threatening post on my page?

"You don't need to editorialize (and if you insist on continuing to do so, you probably will be blocked, after all)," you write.

What's up with that aggressive claptrap, guy? I never "editorialized" anything on any Wiki property. In regard to your irrelevant example, pea, pease and peasen—unlike "crostinis"—are defined in many credible dictionaries.

I'd consider any credible definition of "crostinis" sufficient. Is that too much to ask for?

You're right: I "don't seem to know the rules" around here. What I did: I removed a word that in fact..."isn't a word."

You want me out? Save me the trouble of learning the rules by pulling the trigger, bud.

Mcormc (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, there isn't anything wrong with Chuck Entz's edit. The revert was justified because the information you added did not belong in the dictionary entry. He also tried to explain how Wiktionary works with regard to what is a word and what isn't, and you just more or less ignored him. He even gave you a helpful link: WT:CFI. He wasn't threatening you at all, just stating a fact which I can certainly corroborate. Edits such as the one you made to crostinis are indeed undesirable and will result in a block, if you keep making them despite being asked not to do so. Your self-righteous and aggressive attitude on this page and on your own talk page certainly does not help your cause either. —CodeCat 02:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Funny, "according to The New York Times, whose credibility remains in doubt" certainly looks like editorializing to me. As for "credible dictionaries", you need to read the CFI: dictionaries have absolutely no role in deciding whether Wiktionary considers something a word or not. We're not Wikipedia, which requires references to authoritative sources (like dictionaries). We go by usage. Period.
As for what you did: you didn't remove anything. You added your personal opinion on the headword line where it didn't belong- we put explanations under a "Usage notes" header, where, in fact, there already was one. Wiktionary has very strict formatting requirements, which you seem to have no clue about (as no one would expect you to). It's sort of analagous to writing corrections in a printed dictionary with a big, fat, black marker.
As for being aggressive, you're the one who re-added content after an admin removed it, and you're the one who's posting an angry message on my talk page. The problem is that you're trying to change things without understanding what you're changing, and in an inappropriate way. I can guarantee you that any other admin would have reverted the edit that you've added twice, and some would have blocked you on the spot to keep you from doing it again.
Simply put, you're trying to change Wiktionary into something it's not, without checking to find out why it isn't that way. There are any number of decisions that have been made over the years that you would disagree with, but they were arrived at by debate, compromise and consensus among the people who edit here. You can't just wander in and demand that things be changed the way you would like just because you think they should be that way.
If you don't like the rules, make a proposal at the Beer Parlor, and see if anyone agrees with you. Otherwise, don't expect a meat market to switch to selling produce just because you're a vegetarian.Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Strictly factual—The New York Times' credibility remains in doubt. That's a joke, mostly. I'll take a look at the CFI and then do the Eight Clap.—Mcormc (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Three-quarter sibling[edit]

Why not give readers a plain-language definition in addition to the one with all the jargon they'll have to look up?

Message at talkpage on article[edit]

Hi there, I have left a message at Talk:tarkhan.

Strange edit of yours[edit]

What was that? Keφr 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not something I actually typed- that's the first time I've seen it. I evidently substed to get the language name, and the system put the actual code from the template into the wikitext of the revision instead of the template. Very odd. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion after a while. {{subst:langcode}} still works, though, while {{langname}} has not been yet adapted to be suitable for substitution. And it was not at the time either. Keφr 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

mein talk page[edit]

I know that it was kind of a random question, but I was thinking that user discussion pages were pretty subjective compared to stuff in the mainspace; hardly restricted areas. Can't I ask it anywhere on Wiktionary?

Oh well, I guess I'll enquire somewhere else... -- 00:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User and talk pages are for dictionary business, though those who've made valuable contributions aren't held to that as strictly. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


Kinda useless if you hide the content, but not the user name. Also, I made a contribution to another entry under the same IP. Delete and undelete maybe? I can redo it... Keφr 14:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I just forgot to select that option. As for the other edit: given no one else knows it's associated with your user name, does it still need to be hidden? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess not. Thanks. Keφr 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
After looking at the contributions listing for the IP, I realized that it would allow someone to figure out the connection- so I hid the author info from the revision. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Cornwall as country[edit]

I don't see why you removed Cornwall from the Appendix:Countries of the world as it is a country just like Brittany, England and several others which are not independent countries but countries regardless. As Cornwall has a people with a language and a region. It is recognized by the Celtic League as a country and by the UK as a Royal Duchy and ceremonial county. Spshu (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And I see you decided to ignore this statement regarding the Appendix and rolled back the Cornwall country definition. Since, you were informed before about Cornwall there was no reason for the roll back at Cornwall. --Spshu (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My recent edits[edit]

These were my recent edits: 1, and I think your redemptions were rollbacks, since I only wanted to expand the etymological section of a several words. If you think I should reduce/expand or improve the information content of my last edits, please designate the criterias. --2001:638:505:102:0:0:0:90 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits were simply wrong. It takes more than a vague, superficial resemblance for two terms to be related: they have to come from a common source. You obviously have no idea about how etymologies work, so you shouldn't add anything to etymologies without a reference from a reliable source. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Like I said, If you think you have arguments, state them. I don't mind if you revert my edits, but please tell why. -- 03:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to the details of the Dutch (though I trust CodeCat's judgment), but you also messed up the headers. See WT:ELE. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, would diff 23410263 do?
I have no reason to revert it based on my limited understanding of Dutch, so I'll leave it to CodeCat to decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, but did I align the headers according to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained this time? And if I did, how can I avoid the wrath of the WT:ELE brigade next time? -- 05:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikisaurus and attestation[edit]

As you are someone with a significant contribution to Wikisaurus[3], I'd like to bring Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus_and_attestation to your attention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

single malt brandy?[edit]

Than what do you think of triple-distilled peach brandy, then? 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether it exists or not, I have my doubts as to whether it passes the requirements of our Criteria For Inclusion (WT:CFI): peach brandy might be idiomatic, and maybe triple-distilled (I have my doubts), but combined, it looks like it would be covered by some combination of the definitions for the terms that make it up (See WT:SOP). single malt whisky might run into the same problem, but I don't have terribly strong opinions on that. At any rate, I would probably nominate it for deletion at WT:RFD rather than speedily deleting it as I've done with your "single malt brandy" entry- it would need more than just my opinion to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

the anonymous Croatian[edit]

Isn’t one week a bit harsh? I’m sure that he was just making innocent mistakes. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, he/she was systematically changing Serbo-Croatian to Croatian to make a statement. The language header might arguably be chalked up to confusion, but changing all those interwikis isn't the kind of thing one does by accident. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


I have been attempting to improve our taxonomic entries by putting a little more into their definition and placing a little less emphasis on taxonomic placement, especially not trying to have a "latest", "correct", or even best available placement. There is also the question of changing membership of a taxon. The latter I think can be handled by:

  1. referring the user to WP, which often has at least some explanation of the uncertainties;
  2. some summary text if things seem clear; or
  3. some explicit grouping under Hyponyms of current and past members.

At Protozoa I am attempting to address the question of multiple placement.

Recognizing that this is a wiki and that I am only trying to improve the entries, which have been rather terse and inadequate, as perfection is far beyond my capabilities, does this look like a sufficient improvement to apply elsewhere? Any thoughts you have about multiple definitions would be appreciated. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding boba's etymology[edit]

I edited boba's English etymology and somehow it was reverted by you. I am from Taiwan and I know what the Chinese characters are. When the term 波霸 first came out back around the 1990s, we simply knew what it meant and why it was called that way. And if you can read Chinese, you should read the Chinese version of bubble tea on Wikipedia Timluo (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

{{be-conj-table}} et al[edit]


There were not Russian but Belarusian grammatical glosses - I did copy them originally from Russian, modified to work with Belarusian and translated each term into Belarusian. Mzajac (talkcontribs) also removed my Ukrainian translations from Ukrainian conjugation tables but for a different reason - he didn't want Ukrainian glosses. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry- I should have asked. Feel free to revert. It seems odd to link to a bunch of non-existent entries, but that's not my call. Unlike Mzajac, I'm unlikely to work with the language, so my opinion isn't important in this case. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Same reason, really: I couldn’t think of a good rationale for linking an English term to a non-existent Ukrainian dictionary entry. Confusing for readers, and clearly also for editors. The link didn’t work. If it did, then a link imperfective aspect would take the reader to an entry for недоконаний вид, that would simply gloss it as “imperfective aspect.”
I had no idea Anatoli thought of these links as translations or glosses. But I didn’t merely remove something, I updated the links to pages that actually offered definitions and translations of the linked grammatical terms.[4]
I could see some value in pointing out that en:imperfective aspect = uk:недоконаний вид where it is used in a Ukrainian entry, but I can’t see a justifiable way of doing that in every inflection table without cluttering it up (e.g., in plain text), or that is mainly inaccessible (e.g. as merely a tooltip). It also seems odd to inject monolingual translations into English working copy in an English-language dictionary. For foreign-language readers, entries already have multiple foreign-language entry links in the sidebar. Michael Z. 2013-10-27 18:10 z

{{#invoke:language utilities|language_exists|rgn}} at canis[edit]

Was this edit intentional? (Specifically the Romagnol part.) Did it result from some sort of automation? If so, has that automation already been fixed? —RuakhTALK 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have automation- I must have tried substing something and been unaware of the mess it left. I'll be very careful to click edit after I subst anything in the future- if I do it at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Chuck,

When you patrol an edit and clean up after it, please remember to mark it as patrolled. Otherwise it stays in the patrol queue until another patroller investigates, which is just a waste of time.

Thanks in advance,
17:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


I have taken a crack at this, but I have so far found support only for the obsolete definition. It seems that this name has been recycled to be a tentative home for the taxa represented by new specimen fossils recently discovered in China. French WP may have something on this, but my pitiable French makes even simple search there unrewarding. If you find this interesting, please take a look. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has nothing on this. As for it being "recycled", a better term would be "revived". The one place I saw it used in Linnaean nomenclature was with the Chinese fossil taxa added to Archaeopteryx to form an expanded Saurornithes. I also saw a PhyloCode-type clade representing all descendants of the common ancestor of Archeopteryx and Passer domesticus, which would basically include all birds, as far as I can tell. In both cases they're using the old taxon name, but changing its scope to include more than Archeopteryx. I'm not that much into paleontology, and my main areas where I'm comfortable with obscure taxonomy are terrestrial arthropods and plants. Have you checked with Metaknowledge? He's pretty knowledgeable about zoology, though perhaps with more of a focus on aquatic organisms. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the false lead to fr.pedia. I had the impression from Wikispecies that it was something like that. But I haven't seen anything at Books or Scholar that makes me think the new sense is attestable in English, which makes me wonder whether it is used in multiple languages. I'll also check with some folks who can advise on the Chinese literature, maybe Jusijh. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

sexual intercourse[edit]

Um hi Mr Entz,

I was notified that you reverted my edit "widening the def" of all, and specifically vaginal sex. It is my opinion that mammals and particularly humans are unusual in/when regarding this, and it could be documented as an exception from a purely scientific point of view. I also consider that using a fish to illustrate the "usual" understanding of this term implies I am a fish; you are a fish; we are all fish somewhere deep down inside (I took a while to finish this sentance, it's meant to arouse a sense of nervousness from being out of one's depth and references a quote from science fiction. I was carried away by all those meta usernames, sorry I'm trying to remain neutral, how am I doing?) I understand that the community of editors here and now, and particularly the Wiktionary:Administrators are unlikely to side with me on this usage however I feel I should leave this comment here seeing the Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#vaginal_sex is now Closed. no consensus to delete. Riverstogo (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. However I will say that just because an organism reproduces sexually doesn't necessarily imply sexual intercourse. The inter- is the clue here, a male fish fertilizing a female's eggs outside of her body isn't intercourse because there is no insertion. I hope this helps. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I would really like everyone to understand, can you show me the thrust where you are expending most of your energy (are you working from Chuck Entz's edit summary?) Thanks for hinting at a wider definition of reproduction but the other definitions of intercourse do not appear to imply insertion, only when regarding mammalian sex and humans in particular does this arise. 'inter-' would suggest simply a duration within which, among mutually consenting partners a reciprocal exchange occurs, amid some activity or course. I hope this does not deflate your helpful assertion that the subject of intercourse or communication must be inserted, though twice as small a thing might be said if it were left unsaid. This section illustrates the anatomical crux of how unusually penetrative human beings are in regarding [their own female reproductive system. Riverstogo (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My main problem was with cluttering a general definition with details about just one of very very many variations on sexual interaction. Just looking at spermatophores, there are a huge number of ways to get them from males to females (or from one hermaphrodite to another, or from a hermaphrodite to a female, for that matter)- I know of spiders where the male leaves a packet of sperm for the female to pick up, for instance. Since the definition says "usually", the fish in question are included- so why open such a huge can of worms? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand your reluctance towards eating worms. I have come to believe the first subdefinition widens the def beyond what Mr Gardner has asserted above, which I found difficult to swallow. I wish well being to all beings sufficient for inclusion, and those used at least three times, estimatedly within a metre or two of being found or squashed. I hope I can reemphasise especially for captured FISH, releasing from cells.
From this distance my identification with one of the 1680's thinkers leaves much me much divided. If you want to see why, please create User:Riverstogo/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you might create meta:User:Riverstogo/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across Wikipedia.
What kinds of fish, being marked with various colours, striped, spotted, many-coloured, spotted, pied, and/or dappled are we trying to entice with our worms then? For instance Poecilliidae is the incorrect spelling of the scientific name [Poeciliidae] but you probably have no need to correct yourself with a full mouth, we are only humane after all. Mr Gardner deserves twice as little mention, i.e. June 5, 2009–May 19, 2010; May 24, 2010 (second appointment).
Fine, you believe us. No need to be graphic at all. To mate equally, we are not fluent or expert in this, but we see lots of connections others do not yet consider connections. The direction taken by ourselves is an interactive path, sequence, development, or evolution.
Typically becoming unusually involved. Riverstogo (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Does the speed continually surprise us, despite the rate of incomplete gender, with which language has united or joined two or more into one velocity?
It is the act or fact of communicating, this transmission: ii_tao_foctt
What?] Riverstogo (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What? Ii tao foctt (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for using taxlink[edit]

Thanks for inserting {{taxlink}}. Once there are more than 5 it pretty much guarantees that the taxon will be added after I run a little Perl script against the next dump. I have put in a category designed to help me keep track of new uses of the template, mostly so I can express my gratitude. To suppress the (hidden) category, you can insert "noshow=1" in any use of taxlink.

This tracking will almost certainly be a temporary thing, so don't be too alarmed. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You never thanked me. Is it because I make insensitive jokes? --Vahag (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just started thanking (only 3 so far). Chuck happened to be making a few score uses of {{taxlink}}. I 'thank' for the taxlink-using edits that I find, as they are generated by Mediawiki categorization or as I stumble across them. I'm sure that I'll be finding yours.
Insensitive remarks are bad-ish. Using taxlink ensures entry into heaven. It's like a plenary indulgence. DCDuring TALK 02:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 :D Cool, I'll use {{taxlink}} more often to repair my karma. --Vahag (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not a get out of jail free card (poorly defined IMO. It only works for past sins. Go and sin no more. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'll probably tone down my trolling in the future. Not because I regret annoying people, but because I love Wiktionary and my previous shenanigans have caused some psychologically fragile but useful editors to leave the project. --Vahag (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


I feel that your reversion of Styx is wrong. One: 'Styx' means 'Hate'. Two: In Greek mythology, Styx is both a river in the underworld, and the goddess of then same river. She was the consort of Pallas, and the mother of Nike and co. I did the research, its on both Wikipedia and on -- a online encyclopedia of Greek mythology! 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to learn about the difference between encyclopedic and dictionary content. There may have been some dictionary-worthy content in your edits, but most of it is totally unnecessary to understanding the meaning of the word.
The problem is, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and we have no reliable way to communicate with you to explain what you're doing wrong. Right now, I would say that you're causing far more damage in terms of wrong information, bad formatting, invalid links, and just general useless clutter than any useful contributions- the effort required to clean up your contributions outweighs the minimal amount of good information in them.
In order for us to stop blocking you and reverting you, you'll need to set up some way we can let you know what you need to improve on, and show that you're actually listening to us and working to clean up your act. I've looked over thousands of your edits going back at least 3 years, and most of them are just garbage. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I repeat, non of the information was wrong! 23:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. An encyclopedia can have all kinds of details about who's related to whom, their background, attributes, etc. We're a dictionary: our job is to tell people what the term means, not every possible thing that someone may find interesting about the subject referred to by the term. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for inserting "noshow=1" with {{taxlink}}. I am somewhat embarrassed at the amount of extra keystrokes and low-value editing that a recent change to {{taxlink}} requires. I was looking to provide a way of keeping track of new uses of {{taxlink}} to thank the contributor (not for every use!!!) and to make any adjustments to the entry and to the linked entry that seemed appropriate. I track new additions to a category for that purpose. "noshow=1" suppresses membership in that category.

By some time in January, I hope to have superseded {{taxlink}} with frequency lists for taxa in Wiktionary created from the XML dumps. The list is intended to lead to:

  1. linking one use of each taxon in each L2 section in which the taxon is used.
  2. a frequency-ranked list of redlinked taxa.

I have other ideas to use this kind of capability. For one thing, I would like to extract all the vernacular names in Wikispecies and the associated taxonomic name(s) to create lists of such names to be added by vernacular language. I do not particularly want to add all taxonomic names to Wiktionary, though that might be appropriate at some time in the next decades.

I have some Perl to learn to do this. The effort needs a clean list of all taxonomic-name headwords (plus redlinked taxa) in Wikispecies, possibly with some additions from Wikipedia's headwords, which is why I had resorted to the labor-intensive {{taxlink}} approach.

I will continue to produce the lists of multiple occurrences of taxlink until the alternative will be available.

This may affect the contributions you choose to make. Adding taxa, preferably those with vernacular names or in some way topical or interesting, is definitely a Good Thing. Taxon entries need lots of work and the paths to improvement are clear. Deployment of {{taxlink}} in the course of other work is definitely useful. Among other things I will want to see whether the Perl-created actually would include all the taxlinked items without specifically looking for "taxlink". DCDuring TALK 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm back[edit]

Chuck, I am back editing after a school induced hiatus, and have noticed some changes. Before I make too many mistakes would you mind pointing out any major changes over the last year. What I already noticed was the change with the {{context}} template. Also I believe I saw that (X)Sampa is no longer utilized.

Anything else you could point out would be helpful. Thanks Speednat (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

wrong word in Uyghur[edit]

The word ساەت is wrong, it should be سائەت. --Oyunqi (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Two things:
  1. We're a descriptive rather than a prescriptive dictionary. That means we keep anything that's used by fluent speakers whether it's considered right or wrong- we may mar it as a misspelling, or as non-standard or prescribed so that people know not to use, but we have a page for it. See WT:CFI for details. If you're positive no one actually uses it and that it's a simple mistake like a typo, there are a few options. If it's so obvious that no one would disagree with you, you can request speedy deletion by adding {{delete}} to the entry, preferably with an explanation as a parameter: {{delete|this is a typo}}, or something like that. If it's not completely obvious, you can add {{rfv}}. The best way to do this is to click on the "+" symbol in the box created by the rfv template, which starts a topic at Requests for verification, and explain what's wrong with the entry. Someone will check to see whether it meets the requirements of WT:CFI as far as evidence that it's used, and if it isn't, it will be deleted.
  2. As far as making the entry into a redirect: because there can be many languages with words that have the same spelling, at Wiktionary we strongly discourage redirects unless there's no possibility of overlap with another language. See WT:REDIR. That's the main reason I reverted your edit rather than waiting for an admin who knows something about Uyghur to look at it. Of course, the fact that it was created over five years ago by an experienced editor weighed on my decision (though she isn't fluent in the language, as far as I know), and the fact that you were basically throwing away all the previous edits.

At Wiktionary, we have very few people checking huge numbers of edits, so we don't have as much time to issue warnings and follow detailed procedures like you might be used to at Wikipedia or some of the other Wiktionaries. As far as I can tell, your edit was done in good faith and you couldn't be expected to follow rules that you didn't know about, so you shouldn't interpret the rollback as anything like a sign of official disapproval. Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chuck. Now I know how to edit it.--Oyunqi (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

fairy chess[edit]

Thera are no problem on my second edit. Rollbacking is error.--0lympic (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The worst errors were still there. See WT:ELE. If you can't write a simple sentence in English without several major errors, you really shouldn't be editing dictionary entries in the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


The "rollback" removing "approaching flyer" as an additional gloss for "anfloga" is unwelcome. A precise definition given for this word in Bessinger's "Short Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon Poetry", 1960, is "attacking flier". He specifically gives the meaning of the prefix "an-" as "against, opposite, towards," etc. Both "attacking" and "approaching" as modifications for "flyer/flier" should therefore be added as fully acceptable glosses for "anfloga". I will now make this re-correction. Newsailormon (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello Chuck Entz, could you please help me with this request? Regards, Mathonius (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an urgent request, but not responding at all seems a bit strange in my opinion. I hope I didn't do something wrong... Mathonius (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Initialization[edit]

Hi Chuck, why was the initialization for steam removed? Should I create a new page 'STEAM' instead of adding it to 'steam' page? Thanks.

Two things: we're case sensitive, and we go by usage. That means adding an initialism sense to steam would only be valid if people are actually using the lower-case spelling of the initialism, and I only saw upper-case examples. You need to read WT:CFI to understand what's permissible here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

About the Gothic words that have no entries, but romanizations[edit]

I understand, and i know that there is thousands of Gothic words not yet with entries, but they do have romanizations. I've been trying to look at what those words are, but the net doesn't really have any information on them, what can we do to improve that? Moonspell Bloodlines (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

About "piss" and "birdshit"[edit]

I think that these words are not vulgar,and are spoken and quite acceptable in oral speech. Even the majority of the population about bird droppings always says "birdshit".```` George

Disagree, lots of people use vulgar language in oral speech (as you put it). But these terms are vulgar, you wouldn't use them in situations that require non-vulgar language. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


I moved this discussion to Talk:writable.

Dtrebbien (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cricetus etymology[edit]

I have added a possible etymology for this genus (hamster). Century, which has a lot of taxonomic name derivations doesn't have this. Is there any good source for this kind of thing? DCDuring TALK 12:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look right. Here are some etymological sources. Medieval Latin cricetus looks solid enough, and a Slavic source seems plausible. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Leske is credited with the species identification. He was born in Muskau near the German-Chech border, which might have influenced his choice of name, but perhaps his competitors has already published using Hamster. It was not in Classical or Late Latin. I don't have access to any Medieval Latin reference. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Leske just described the genus, which he probably took from Linnaeus' Mus cricetus. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


Can you actually think of any prescriptive dictionaries? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To start with, they all were- if it wasn't in the dictionary, you knew you weren't supposed to use it. The major print dictionaries have been moving away from prescriptivism in the past decades, but if you go to and try looking up ain't or irregardless, it's not just the older dictionaries that won't have anything at all, while some of the new ones will have entries, but you can almost hear harrumphing, throat-clearing and sniffs of disdain in the background as you read them. The major ones, though, mostly say something to the effect that it's ok to use those words in informal speech, but they're nonstandard, so don't use them in formal settings. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet another reversion[edit]

Any reasons to revert my changes to zestawiać? I've recently updated the zestawić entry and both are just the same words, there's no need to duplicate the definitions of both or even worse - revert the former to the incorrect version (I've also corrected a misspelling in a conjugation table). You make so many changes and don't justify any of them unless people report back to you, why is that so?

-- Quagmind (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution is, but you shouldn't have "see..." as a definition. Perhaps you could ask at the Information Desk, or see how similar entries handle it. I have no clue about the other corrections, which are no doubt ok. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong deletion[edit]

Please restore 從……出發. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Justification for deletion of User:Trollaxor[edit]

You deleted User:Trollaxor. On what grounds is it, according to WT:USER, an inappropriate user page?

True, it's borderline, but the fact that your only edits to Wiktionary consist of setting up a pseudo-entry for a word you apparently made up, and your user name is based on it smacks of using Wiktionary solely to promote your interests. There are quite a few contributors who have various bits of nonsense on their user pages, but the body of their contributions shows that they're primarily contributors, not self- or agenda-promoters. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

top shelf[edit]

In California it has come too mean high grade marijuana with strong medicinal qualities specifically marijuana, exclusive of other items, its understood to mean marijuana

File:Pt pagar.ogg[edit]

The bot does not have any 'blacklist'. I could implement it, but I think the better way is to remove the problematic file from Commons. There are many Wiktionaries and most don't use my bot for pronunciation files, so it would be not fair to leave the English one correct and let others use the erroneous recording. Actually my bot is not capable of removing pronunciation files from entries, so wrong pronunciation will stay forever, until someone removes the file manually. Note that people who remove files from Commons have bots that remove such files from all wikis that use them, which is a proper solution to the problem. Could you consider filing a deletion request of the file on Commons? I have no knowledge of Portuguese so I don't feel competent for discussing the file deletion. --Derbeth talk 07:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


"haus" is not the imperative singular of "hausen" because every imperative singular has in the german language a "e" at its end. —This unsigned comment was added by Impériale (talkcontribs).

@Impériale: I am aware that you may not be a native German speaker. In German, one can omit the final e in words, just like what we do in English: heaven->heav'n, given->giv'n. (Français: En allemand, il ne faut pas écrire toujours le "e" final en un mot.) --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I am a native German speaker and you can trust me that the right form is "hause" and not "haus". Take a look at "hausen" in the german Wiktionary. --Impériale (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I'm not a native German speaker. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I may not be a native speaker, but I can find references showing haus as a correct singular imperative [5]. Please note that hause is also listed as a singular imperative. The point is that there seems to be some variation, so that some people use the form without an e, and since we're a descriptive dictionary, we document that. @Kc kennylau: the elision of vowels in English poetry isn't really analogous. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz:You may want to use {{ping}} next time. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Or not. I reverted the edit, which should be enough. Also, it's not necessary to use a template: User:Kc kennylau does just as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
One would agree that @Chuck Entz: is more convenient. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Word "valued""[edit]

Hello, can you please let me know why you have rolled back an inclusion I made to the pronunciation of the word "valued"? The current audio file on the page is not very good, and since I'm not an American or British or Australian (and the list goes on), I put my own recording under the label "International". Have I done anything wrong? Can a word only have one audio pronunciation file by any chance? Thanks for your response. Prubini87 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Prubini87: Firstly, then where do you come from? There is no such a country called "international". Secondly, I don't think the format of the name is correct. We don't use quotation marks. Please refer to the format of the name of the first recording to see what I mean. NB: Since I am not the worm in his stomach, I have no idea whether he is thinking about the same thing as I am thinking. Please use my points only as a reference. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@kc kennylau: Hi there. I'm from Brazil. The reason I labeled the pronunciation "international" is because, even though there are recognized, distinct accents for American, British and Australian English (to name a few), there is no such thing as "Brazilian English", or at least not in official terms. I have been to the U.S. a couple of times and I believe my accent is brazilian-american, but once again, what category can it fall on but International? I'm open to suggestions. As for the format of the name of the file, I will certainly take another look at it and change it to an acceptable pattern. Thanks! --Prubini87 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

re Valorize[edit]

Hi Chuck Entz, thanks for watching this page and protecting it from poorly-explained changes, but yes in this case I do contest your rollback (here).

"To give something a value" implies it could be a low value. "Your spoon trick is useless" would not be valorizing the spoon trick; "your spoon trick is amazing" would be.

"To fix the price of something artificially" calls to mind price-fixing, a bunch of private entities getting together to set a price for something artificially higher than the free market would. Valorize definately does't mean that, it basically means the government mandating a higher price for something than a free market would, for whatever reason. (I said "usually" government action because I'm not 100% sure that something like "We'd make the most profit selling our high-end watches at $10,000 but let's sell them at $100,000 even though few will sell and we'll make less profit" (for the cachet or whatever) wouldn't also be valorizing.

I basically got this from other online dictionaries, also a quick google and looking at a few other sources. I didn't put in any refs because I'm a little rusty on how to do refs here, and I figured since it didn't have refs before it was no loss anyway. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for creating all those categories[edit]

! —CodeCat 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Irreverent[edit]

I would like to politely dispute your reversion of my edit on the first definition of irreverent. My addition was not created by myself, it was taken from the Oxford Dictionary, a source I would consider pretty authoritative on the matter. I think the original definition did not cover the word comprehensively enough. If you would consider revising your change, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Xwoodsterchinx (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was mostly reacting to facetious as a synonym, since you can be facetious without being disrespectful, but the addition to the definition seemed unnecessary. Not that either issue is huge, but together I felt they merited a revert (not a judgment on you- it was definitely a good-faith edit). I didn't notice the second definition at the time, which I'm going to rfd as duplication. That's much worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Chinese additions[edit]

Hello, can you please re-add the information you removed from this Chinese-language entry? I am a long-time editor and know what I am doing, relying on authoritative Chinese-language sources such as the Zdic online dictionary. Thank you for having this consideration. 14:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

-culus - -culum[edit]


I think your modifications on spectaculum, etc., were inappropriate: please see this. About osculum: "the resulting suffix -culum (from *-ko- + *-lo-) is different from that resulting from *-tlo, since diminutives in -culus do not have variants without the u as **osclum" (next to saeclum, poclum). And spectaculum, ientaculum, habitaculum are not really diminutives (of what nouns?). --Fsojic (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me. This was prompted by their presence in the non-existent Category:Latin words suffixed with -culum. Should I create that category, or is there another way to do the etymologies of those terms? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It might be useful, I think. At any rate, I've completed -culum now. But I see there is a lot of questionable material in Category:Latin suffixes... --Fsojic (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

/au.sum/ > /au.zum/ > /au.sum/[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary talk:About Latin#/au.sum/ > /au.zum/ > /au.sum/.

Phoenix rollback[edit]

So you rolled back my addition to the Phoenix page without a note or discussion. Maybe you think this is the way Wikipedia works?

I'm sorry to tell you that you were wrong in reverting my addition since there are plenty of references about the persian Simorgh being substantially the same as the Phoenix. For example, read this article from the Encyclopedia Iranica:

"Fauth (p. 125ff.) has argued that all the mythical giant birds—such as Simorḡ, Phoenix, Garuḍa, the Tibetan Khyuṅ, and also the Melek Ṭāʾus of the Yezidis—are offshoots of an archaic, primordial bird that created the world."

This is not the only one. You can easily find many other authorities saying the same.

For the derivation of Phoenix from the Sanskrit word denoting a falcon or hawk, this is linguistic matter and, yes, I am a linguist, so if you think to know the subject better than a linguist, well, we are all waiting for you to show your credentials.

P.S. I have read the other entries in your user page. It seems that this misbehaviour does not represent an exception for you. I think you should stop doing that. Your incompetence is embarassing.

What I saw was someone inserting a collection of seemingly unrelated facts, with no explanation as to how they might be related, or why we should assume that a Sanskrit term would show up in a Canaanite language. You may indeed be a linguist- I see nothing to argue against it- but without the "credentials" you speak of, you're just another IP. You may have the benefit of extensive studies in the subject- you may even be the world authority, but you haven't provided anything here to distinguish you from the fellow who keeps adding Turkish etymologies to terms in European languages because they're sort of spelled the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


The rollback in the entry for the concept "eigengene" is in error. SemperBlotto agreed to that via e-mail earlier today. Please see the citation page created by SemperBlotto for proof. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by Orly.alter (talkcontribs).

  • <butting in> I did no such thing. The citations page, by itself, is used to show who first used a word.</butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaning the citations page. I note that notes on the first mention of a word are possible, e.g., see "sociology," and that qoutations can also be used in addition to citations, e.g., see "jump_the_shark." Orly.alter (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request edit for Module:labels/data[edit]

Please express your view in here. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

sil etiketi (delete)[edit]

When you will that "sınalgı" word? There is no that a word at Turkish. Also, look at TDK and turkish wiktionary. You will see too. Television is televizyon at Turkish. -- 19:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have to follow our rules. Right now, sınalgı is being considered at Requests for verification (rfv), so it shouldn't be deleted. I've been reverting your edits for two reasons: most important is that you don't write comments, requests or arguments in a dictionary entry itself- that's what the Discussion tab is for. Also, the {{delete}} template is only for cases where the entry is so obviously deletable that no debate is necessary. In this case, it's tricky enough that verification in necessary to decide whether to delete it.

Here's what you can do to help with the verification:

  1. Read our Criteria For Inclusion (CFI. These are the rules that say whether we can or have to delete an entry. Whoever has been posting these made-up terms has learned the hard way that anything that doesn't meet the requirements there gets deleted, so they've gotten fairly good at using these rules. The better you know the rules, the better you'll be at using the rules against them.
  1. Go to the section on the word at rfv, and explain what's wrong with the examples that have been given to prove that the term is in use. Since our CFI are based on usage, not other dictionaries, enough examples that meet CFI will force us to keep the entry.

As I understand the rules, there have to be at least 3 examples of usage (we call them "citations" or "cites") covering a period of more than 1 year that are:

  1. Independent. If they're all copies of the same text, or by the same author, or referring to the same text, they only count for 1 cite.
  2. Conveying meaning. Just mentioning or defining the word doesn't count: they have to be saying something like "I was watching the sınalgı", not "sınalgı is a word for television" or "use sınalgı instead of televizyon"
  3. In a durably-archived medium. Websites don't count- even ones that are in the Internet Archive, which can be deleted at the site-owner's request. We consider Usenet to be durably archived, though. Books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. that have appeared in printed form are usually considered durably archived.

The problem is that most of us don't read Turkish, so we have trouble telling the difference between cites that just mention a term and those that actually use them. We also aren't familiar with the background behind some of the sources in which the cites are claimed to have appeared. An opposing viewpoint from someone who knows the language and can provide background would be helpful.

It's entirely possible, however, that they'll be able to scrape together enough to meet the cfi requirements, in which case we won't be able to delete the entry. We can, however, keep them from adding it as a translation for television, since it's too rare to be useful, and we can explain in usage notes (as I did at sanalgı) about what these really are. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Here is the source: Journal of Eurasian Studies, Volume V., Issue 4., Supplement, Mikes International 2013. ISSN 1877-4199.

I hate to break it to you, but whatever the author of that paper may know about Turkic languages, he's abysmally ignorant about Germanic and Indo-European historical linguistics. Starting from his citing lexicostatistics and genetic evidence as if they prove anything about word origins, to his including all kinds of words with known and attested etymologies as Turkish substratum words, to his talking about the Kurgan theories of Indo-European migration, which have long been replaced by other theories, to his tendency to treat phenomena hundreds and thousands of years apart as if they all happened at the same time, etc., etc.- it's very amateurish and totally unconvincing to anyone with any background in Germanic historical linguistics- or just the basics of historical linguistics.
You're welcome to discuss it at the Etymology Scriptorum, but I hope you have more evidence than that paper if you want to be taken seriously. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It actually calls "eat", one of the clearest reconstructed roots in Indo-European, a Turkic loan into Proto-Germanic? —CodeCat 04:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. It seems like the author of this "Eurasian Journal" is not credible enough. Anyway, is this a better source?
Some years ago this was also used in the wiki article History of the Slavic languages. Hirabutor (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
And what about this guy:
Those may very well be credible, and, given the existence of Indo-Iranian loanwords in Proto-Slavic, Turkic ones would seem plausible. Of course, that's Proto-Slavic- not Latin. Its use in Latin goes back well into the Classical period, so a Turkic borrowing seems out of place, though I'm not qualified to make a categorical judgment on that. My main objection was to the comment: "It is also worth mentioning that the whole horse-related diverse and fractured lexicon of the Indo-European languages ascends to the Turkic vocabulary" which is hogwash. The rest seems implausible, but not out of bounds as idle speculation. I should also mention that caballus originally had nothing to do with cavalry- it was a colorful term for the kind of worn-out old nag that would be totally useless in warfare. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for catching my goofup in the etymology of transclude. I meant to put "See transclusion", where there is an etymology of the coining of that word. I have undone your reversion, with that fix (there were no intermediate edits). --Thnidu (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Hey, interesting finding, regarding transliteration of the Persian word, you are right that it is shambalila, the practice for transliteration of Persian in Wiktionary is transliterating based on modern Iranian Persian accent, in which it is pronounced shambalile. (see also شنبلیله#Pronunciation) --Z 16:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Chuck. Your rollback was correct. I inadvertently duplicated 'Related terms' and didn't realize the mistake. Thanks!-- 22:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


I just wanted to let you know that I realized the next morning I had messed up, I blanked and forgot hortari was a deponent. You got to the page before I could undo it and make a note though, so now I will look stupid for eternity! Anyways maybe including (deponent) like on the page for hortor would be helpful, since if you search for just a specific form you might not see the main page that lists it as a deponent.


Couldn't have you have moved this to the protologism area for me instead of deleting it and losing all my saved work? Now I'll have to redo it all from scratch. Harsh.


Hi, Chuck

I did not coin Persianoid on my own, it's actually part of a series of anthropological terms, as various human populations have divergent bone structure that a forensic scientist can use to identify the race of a skeleton with, this is due to common genes found in geographic populations of the same ancestral and natural origin and have predictable traits such as con hair in negroid people, staggered fingers in Araboid people, fair hair and eyes in Caucazoid, and other unique traits among Mongoloids or Indianoid, such as distinctive eyes or particular melanin epidermal content. I myself have distinctive Celtoid feet with Hellenoid hands, the later of which predominate among humans of Greek genetic ancestry demonstrated as having a longer middle finger than pointer or big toe, a trait passed down onto millions of the descendents and diaspora, also knownas Hellenic people. The modern people of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and surrounding areas including the diaspora and people that originate in this area such as Jews and Zoroastrians are Persianoid people and form a genetic commonality group or race of people quite different from Araboids (Non greek non arab fingers and toes) and also different from Indianoids, whom are genetically descendent of Persianoids, that descend from Araboids, that descend from Ethiopians. These more genetic terms to refer to the various humanoid forms of the greatest ape, man, allow us to explain evolution tribally as opposed to using denonyms for national origins that no longer correspond to nations once known for having everyone be of the sane tribe race language and religion many with arbitrary boundaries, it also serves to educate people about national origin, history, and biodiversity in addition to celebrating diversity and people need to be able to look these words up, here is a google search that shows the term is in use, []

No, you didn't coin it yourself, but I see no evidence of usage with your definition. A few of the hits in your search are ambiguous enough that they might be interpreted that way, but most of them refer to Persianoid culture, language, lions and kittens. Besides, they don't count for our Criteria For Inclusion because they're not durably archived. You need to show that the term is part of the language, not just used by you and a few other people. Remember that we're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, and we're descriptive- which means we go by actual usage. For that matter, you haven't even shown that these terms are in use even among forensic anthropologists and not just your own idiosyncratic version of the terminology. Read the CFI, then add examples of usage that satisfy the CFI requirements to the citations tab for the term. When you meet the requirements of the CFI, the old content can be restored, or you can create a new version. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


This is two genders, not one, so it shouldn't be entered like this. You should specify them as separate genders. —CodeCat 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Just trying to clear script errors so I can see the forest for the trees. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that quite a few have been showing up since I made this change. —CodeCat 00:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't the first time someone has expected this information (that a term is both masculine and feminine) to be enterable in this way ("m-f"). Perhaps it should be added as an "alias" of sorts. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's only because all the Romance languages allow "mf" as a gender if you ask me. I'd prefer it if we moved away from that practice and used the g2= parameter, like many other languages already do. It reduces the mental load of learning templates if they are more alike. —CodeCat 01:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If several common templates/modules/languages already allow "mf", and people continually expect others to allow "mf" or "m-f", then it seems to me that the direction we should go in is towards making the templates alike by making them all allow "mf" (and/or "m-f"). That would remove the mental load of learning which ones allow "mf" and which ones don't, and reduce the amount of typing one must to do. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
But that would mean adding an exception to a system that makes sense otherwise (at least to me). I'd rather not water it down. —CodeCat 02:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It makes sense, but so does "mf". Are we more worried about the conceptual integrity of your user-interface scheme, or having it usable by actual human beings? Whether it makes sense or not, this is how people are expecting it to work. You can still have your logical way of doing things, but you can also provide for those who don't learn it the way you think they should. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
They're only expecting it to work that way because of past practice. Practice can be changed, logic and structure can't except if you find a better logic. —CodeCat 02:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


There's nothing conflicting about the entry page sh|šport having qualifier|Croatia and the entry sh|sport having an Alternative form (a link to sh|šport) that describes sh|šport with that same qualifier. 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Did you already read my e‐mail? It was about a telephone number, but I forgot which entry it was inserted into. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoring item "in-bed-at-six"[edit]

According to "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components" the mentioned phrase can be considered idiomatic because the meaning "dull" or "not dissolute" can not be derived literally by any of the parts of the phrase.

In this case, this phrase should be accepted rather than treated as a SOP.

The phrase apparently only occurs in The Assassin's Creed so it is not in general use. Equinox 04:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Software development process article[edit]

Hi Chuck. This is regarding the adding of a link to infographic as a reference for software development process article. Is it an inappropriate link or infographic?

Revert of my edit to "pleasant"[edit]

Hi Chuck, Noticed you reverted my edit on the etymology of the word pleasant. I appreciate it was unnecessarily long-winded and included a lot of extraneous information, but I do think some of it was relevant.

What I originally put: From Old French plaisant, present participle of plaire. The verb please is also derived from plaire, and the use of -ant (either borrowed from Norman French or used as an allophone of originally Anglo-Saxon, then later Old English and Middle Scots and English -and) to form the present participle was also previously common, so in some older texts "pleasant" may be an attempt to form the present participle directly from "please", rather than being a direct borrowing from French.

What is there now: From Old French plaisant.

The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue however gives an etymology that common sense would suggest is cognate to the point of identical to that in English: [6] (or search "plesand" at

Plesand, -ant, ppl. a. Also: pleis(s)-, pleys(s)-; pleas(s)-; plais-, plays-; pless- and -ande, -aund, -aunt, -end, -ent; plesan-. [Partly pres. p. of Ples(e v. (cf. Plesing(e ppl. a.), partly ME. plesant (Gower), e.m.E. playsaunt (Caxton), OF. plais-, pleisant (12th c.), properly pres. p. of plaisir Piles(e v.]

(could dive further into the etymology of Ples(e [7], but that's probably overkill)

I'm no philologist, but it seems that claiming "pleasant" is simply an adjectival borrowing is ignoring part of the history and evolution of the word. Would something like the following be to your taste?: Partly from Old French plaisant, partly (Middle English) present participle of please.

I look forward to your reply. - Ryan White (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Appendix: Just in case you think it would be relevant to trace the full etymology back, here is the DOST's etymology for Ples(e:

Ples(e, Pleis(e, Plais(e, v. Also: pless(e, plece; pleisz, pleiss(e, pleice, pleys(e, pleysse; pleas(e, pleais; plaize, plays, plas(e; plis. [ME. and e.m.E. plesen (a 1325), plecen (c 1350), pleis (c 1440), please (1423), pleace, also playsen, plasen (both 1398), place (c 1460), plaise (Caxton), OF. plaisir, L. placēre to be pleasing, f. root plac- as in placidus gentle, placāre to calm, etc. Cf. mod. F. plaire (f. pop. L. placĕre). See also Plesit.] To please, in various senses.

Katsu (喝, かつ)[edit]

I think that your rollback for katsu, (, かつ), is wrong. Just check out the wikipedia entry for Katsu (Zen) to varify if you don't believe me. 00:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Although there are some similarities between your version and Wikipedia's version, yours wanders off into the weeds here and there due to invalid assumptions. Sifting through everything and coming up with a version that's not misleading or wrong takes a lot of time and work. Given your track record of basing many edits on bad guesses, it was safer just to revert the whole thing.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


On Wikipedia it lets you connect an article to a number of other articles in other languages. Only a bot is able to do that it seems. Is it possible for me to do this as well? If so, how? LalalalaSta (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[[langcode:{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] Keφr 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


{{poscatboiler}} and templates like it should automatically add a TOC. At least I thought they did, because I remember adding code to that end when I converted it to Lua. Either way, you probably shouldn't manually add this. —CodeCat 00:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I see why it's not added automatically. {{catboiler toc}} looks for language-specific TOC templates. But it doesn't fall back to this generic one. Then again, I don't know if this generic template should really be used, because it uses the English alphabet, which obviously isn't right for other languages. —CodeCat 00:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit to Gay, I put the right info.--MRivera25 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MRivera25. P.S. Sorry for taking 2 mounths to respond

MRivera25: You misformatted it as a part of a quotation, the definition was wrong (the noun gay refers to people) and the entry for this meaning is at [[gay]]. Keφr 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Kephir well you should said that in the first place--MRivera25 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)MRivera25


Hi, birdem word has written here. But there isn't that word at Turkish. University is üniversite at Turkish. -- 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

düşerge, türküm[edit]

Hi, düşerge isn't camp at Turkish. Düşerge is "miras" and türküm there isn't at Turkish. Türküm is Uzbek.-- 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Please see my comment on User talk:Conrad.Irwin/creationrules.js. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Why did you revert this without explanation?! Lysdexia (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

To start with, a deception is not necessarily an error, and an error is not necessarily a deception- it's something completely different. Also, errors are actions performed by someone or something, but something can be amiss without any actions being involved at all. In short your edit was completely in error. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This was under the Latin entries where other dictionaries agree with me: Error is the abstract case of erratum, where the latter (errata) could be actions. If you are ignorant of the meanings of words, don't edit them. Lysdexia (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see that you were editing the Latin section. My mistake. I should have at least noticed that when responding to your first post. My apologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


There is no policy about obscure terms. A revert is only valid if the term worsens the entry, and this obscurantist reaction can only be a PoV move that can only make the term more obscure. Whether the terms are in the Etymology or sense sections you [and User:Atelaes] don't want them listed or linked at all. Where are they supposed to go? or do ye want them forgotten altogether? Am I supposed to make a See also section only to show one word? Lysdexia (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


The Hyponyms is accepted for 花御札, yet not for the 12 suits of 花札? 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a bad idea for both, but I hadn't thought about it at the time. I've now removed it from 花御札, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


In Italian language, tata is the colloquial form of bambinaia and its primary translation into English is nanny. —“Collins Italian Dictionary” 1st Edition © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, and Ragazzini/Zanichelli 2nd Edition 1984.
It also has the secondary meaning of elder sister. —Il Nuovo Zingarelli/Zanichelli 11st Edition.
Happy editing! –pjoef (talkcontribs) 09:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that seems to be covered by the existing definition: "governess (or any young woman looking after children)". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

deleted user page[edit]

Sir, Please contact my user's talk page regarding your continued deletion of my User Page. I have removed all and any links which may be viewed as advertisement or otherwise. I do not see what the current problem with my User Page is. Please contact my Talk page, Thank you. DJ Colonel Corn (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


I see you're interested in insects. Actually I think that's quite amazing. I think bugs are really cool myself. They look really creepy and weird, but that's why they're fun! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sticky-backed plastic[edit]

Sticky-backed plastic was a term invented on the BBC television children's magazine programme "Blue Peter" because of their policy not to use commercial product names. It referred to the vinyl sheeting sold in the UK under the name "Fablon" (see

Sellotape ( is an entirely different product manufactured by Henkel (referred to on Blue Peter as "adhesive tape"). In the US the equivalent product is manufactured by 3M and is sold under the name "Scotch tape".

Nicholas Aleksander


Why revert?
If the format is wrong, what is the correct format? SzMithrandir (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollbacks on personality disorder entries[edit]

Hi. So, r plural entries not supposed to be under any categories except for "English plurals"? Because if that's the case, I need to go back and fix a couple of other entries that I did the same thing to. 03:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. Only the main entry should be in categories that apply to all the forms: all those extra entries can really clutter up the category pages, and if you've seen one form in a category, you've seen them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert at subspecies[edit]

Cf. difference. I think the rollback is in error.

  • In German "Rasse" and "Unterart" mean the same. The difference is that "Unterart" may appear more like a biological term while "Rasse" may appear as politcally incorrect, "bad" (as it's used in "Rassismus", "Rassentheorie" [racism, race theorie]). But even if it may appear that way, it isn't. "Rasse" is just another word for "Unterart". Duden says so too: Rasse, Unterart.
  • In English one meaning of "race" means the same as "subspecies", even though "race" can also mean "a contest in running, contest in being fast" etc. Oxford Dictionary says so too: race.

-Quark8967 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that races are lower in rank that subspecies: a subspecies could have multiple races. Also, zoological subspecies are regulated by the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, but races aren't. Although subspecies and races are both subdivisions of species, they aren't the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
German: Rasse, Unterart (and also Subspezies or Subspecies) mean the same, a sub group of a species (Art in German). Art (also Spezies or Species): Animals belonging to the same species can mate with each other, but not with animals from other species; e.g. dogs are Art, cats are another Art. Unterart, Rasse (also Subspezies or Subspecies): Animals belonging to the same species (thus they can mate), but 'different' from other animals of the same species; e.g. like the Hunderassen (dog races, dog breeds) German Shepard and Jack Russell Terrier are different.
English: race has multiple definitions of race:
  • Definitions which lead to something like "race = sub group of species" without clear definition of that "sub group" part respectively with different definitions of it.
  • "Science Dictionary [..] race [...] A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.". That means that race and subspecies are something different but similar in that science dictionary, and reads like race being colloquial, subspecies being scientifical.
  • "World English Dictionary [...] race² [...] a group of animals or plants having common characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species, usually forming a geographically isolated group; subspecies [...]" and "Medical Dictionary [..] race [...] A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies." [bold not in the original; just used for emphasising]. Thus race can mean subspecies.
synonym: "synonym" also means "A word [...] with a meaning that is the same as, or very similar to, another word [...]". So synonyms can have a different meaning. So race and subspecies in the definition of that science dictionary might be synonyms even though they are different.
-Quark8967 (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Module error[edit]

[A] module error […] happens if you change the IPA-based spelling in a template to a transliteration, but don't replace it with something else.

Hang on: is this supposed to be a feature rather than a bug? (I was planning on going looking into what's up w the errors at some later point.) What's the method we are supposed to use for citing material from a language variety that has no orthographic standard? (For etymological purposes, before you ask.) --Tropylium (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:en:History of the United States[edit]

I disapprove of your depopulating the category, and then deleting it because it was empty. I am going to re-add it to the pages it was on, and I would appreciate it if you did things properly, with an RFD/O. I am quite confident that there are enough pages on Wiktionary to populate the category Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have decided to recreate the category. As it is no longer empty, please do not delete it without a discussion. And, per BRD, please do not remove pages categorized with it, as another editor disagrees with you on their removal Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Zoological Family Names[edit]

Thanks for the welcome and for your advice, I can work through my changes and modify them as you suggest.

As an example, should your recent edit (revert) to the Bembicinae page not contain the ultimate etymology of Bembix, or where should that go?

Uppsilon (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it was pretty straightforward: you removed the reference to Bembix and replaced it with an origin in Greek. To replace that edit, you could add the etymology of Bembix after the reference to it. The fact that Bembicinae is formed from the genitive of Latin Bembix explains the fact that the stem ends in "c" more easily than a strictly Greek-based etymology could.Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it back. I used the parentheses as your original comment suggested. Are they required? Uppsilon (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Not really. They just make it clearer which etymological details apply to which part. My problem was mostly with the substance of your etymology, not the style- and it's not a huge one at that. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AGF warning[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith. You failed to do so in this edit Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Assumptions can only be made when there is no evidence either way. I don't think that's the case here; there is no room left for assuming anything. (You might compare it to assuming that a car is green when you've already seen that it's red) —CodeCat 00:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Not clear why an impoverished and partial ety is preferable? Timpo (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Anything's preferable to a blatantly wrong one. It's not your fault- the etymology at sanctio is wrong too. Some Proto-Indo-European words had forms both with and without an n, so sanction is actually related to sacred. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Topical categories[edit]

I hope I'm not driving you crazy with all these changes to the categories. If I am, I'm sorry. —CodeCat 00:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Wyang was nice enough to come up with a working version of my topic cat front-end template idea (KcKennyLau came up with a fancier one, but it tried to do too much), so I just paste {{subst:tcez1}} and hit submit for cases where I know the language code and category are good, preview otherwise. Creating a topical category takes me just a few seconds of typing, and I never misspell anything. It doesn't work for the root categories, and it fails everywhere manually typing in the topic cat template would fail- but it saves me hours of time. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

My revert at fey[edit]

Yeah, y'got me. I had thought about doing exactly what you requested beforehand, but I hadn't the time when I had first noticed the issue that I presented.

I had hoped that someone else would put the definitions under there correct etymologies so that I didn't have to, but whatever. Sorry about that.

Regarding the etymologies themselves, I can indeed tell you for certain that the "magical or fairy-like" meaning, at least, is not a derivative of the "destined to die" meaning, and is instead derived from what I have previously said it was. Anent the others... it's difficult to figure precisely, but I'll try nonetheless. Tharthan (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Italian words suffixed with -[edit]

Deleting it won't keep anyone from recreating it again... If it shouldn't exist, it should be emptied out. —CodeCat 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You do know you can lock pages from being created on wikis, right? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
She certainly does. She was really telling me to correct the template parameter in an entry that was adding a redlinked category to the entry that was causing her bot to think the category needed to be created, instead of just deleting the category when her bot created it. Sometimes you have to know the context in order to understand what other people are talking to each other about. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I am really bad at this kind of thing. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Could you please help me with the citations on Beyblade? The term is in clear usage, do not doubt me, and I have given citations, but I do not know the year these books were made. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that we don't include brand names if they're just brand names, so none of those citations will help the entry. You have to show that they have some other meaning. See WT:BRAND for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The definition does not define the brand, it defines the toy itself. I will just go and add a whole shitload of citations, not just the minimum three, to help keep this entry, tomorrow. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Read the policy I linked to. At any rate, it's not the quantity of citations you've added, but the quality. Adding more like what you've already added won't make your case, it'll just make a mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't someone go in and improve them though, by like putting the year in and stuff? And no it doesn't matter, however the definition doesn't define the brand, it just defines a toy that happens to only be made by this brand. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Your definition refers to a specific company by name. It simply does not do well as a definition of a generic type of toy. As for finding citations, you could find QQ quite useful. On your Gadgets tab. Input your search terms, click "pick" to the left of the citations, go to "Picked citations", copy and paste what you get, make corrections, save. You still have to be a bit cautious, make sure that the quote shows the context, that the OCR is correct and avoid re-published editions (QQ takes the publication year as the quotation year, which may be misleading sometimes). But it speeds up the process greatly anyway. Keφr 07:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note[edit]

That my social skills are very bad and I have about no idea how to interact with people even online.... Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, which is why I went to the trouble of explaining things. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for respecting me by doing that, I very much appreciate that. You're very nice, and I really look up to you for that. Being nice is one of my favorite qualities in a person. I am bullied almost every time I'm around people my age, in little ways but it still hurts. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Japanese terms suffixed...[edit]

Something went wrong with a recent edit to Module:compound so a lot of these are now in the wrong category and appearing in wanted categories. Just letting you know that you shouldn't create these, if you were intending to. —CodeCat 22:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be careful to check before creating. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

truc[edit] What's wrong ? --Ludela (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in the entry are supposed to give a brief example of usage. Yours was really two quotes, with lots and lots of verbiage in between. If it's more than a line or two, it should go under the Citations tab. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bottle opener[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted my translation of "bottle opener" as "destapador" in Spanish?

I am from Argentina, and "destapador" is actually the only word we use here for a bottle opener. Yesterday, I was trying to remember how to say that in English, and I couldn't find it here (because I was looking for "destapador"), until I eventually came across the word. So I thought I'd contribute this word so others wouldn't have the same problem I had trying, to find it.

I admit I didn't know (I do, now) that in Spain it's called "abrebotellas" as is mentioned on the page. But I can asure you that is not a word I would use or likely hear in my country. Moreover, here's a link to an entry of the Real Academia Española dictionary including "destapador" as an Americanism for "abrebotellas":

Maybe I should have labelled the word as locally restricted, but I don't know how to do that. I actually had a hard time (and a couple of failed attempts, if I recall well) trying just to post my contribution. But if you show me how to label words, or if you refer me to a page that teaches me how to do it, I promise I will do it next time.

Thank you.

Eduarodi (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't the translation, it was the stray text that went with it. Take another look at the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still don't understand. I checked the edit history, and my final post, which you reverted, reads:
Spanish: abrebotellas (es) m, destapador (es) m.
I sincerely don't know what is wrong with it. Eduarodi (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you didn't realize at the time that you were doing it, but look at this diff. Like I said: it had nothing to do with the translation itself, which you're welcome to add back. I didn't have time right then to do any editing, but I didn't want to leave it that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC) or 88.XXX.XX.XXX[edit]

Hi, 88.XXX.XX.XXX in IP writes false words. "emes, yağday, karadamazdan..." Those words aren't Turkish. It's lie of Jalpi Turkic Language. Those isn't with relative. Trying to show like Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Chinese, again[edit]

Sorry, I know that. BUT the rule is too COMPLICATE. The only convenient way to Add translation is use cmn code. --Dingar (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?[edit]

You deleted, without even trying to attest the deletion in a discussion.

The REASON I added these entries was because I went on Google Books myself and found 3 books with the usages of each of these definitions. Want me to give them to you? I can happily do so. But could you please revive the pages and let's discuss them in an RFV if anything instead of a speedy?

I don't know how to cite a page, but I do know that these books are valid citations. LalalalaSta (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please give me the cites. I went through hundreds of Google Books and Google Groups hits (to be precise: all of those found by searching the exact phrase "flippy thing" in quotes), and there was nothing even vaguely resembling your definitions. The closest I saw were using it to describe some kind of whatchamacallit or doohickey that could be described as "flippy" because it was something anchored on one end and movable or flexible.
More importantly, your term is extremely SOP: it basically boils down to flippy + thing, with any number of possible off-the-cuff meanings for flippy, and using thing as a sort of dummy noun so the adjective has something to modify. You could probably find similar cites for "green thing", "stretchy thing", "electronic thing", etc. About the only sense I saw that has any prayer of passing rfd is one used in romance novels to half-humorously describe what's described as "having one's heart skip a beat" or "having butterflies in one's stomach", and that's only because it might be a set phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's what I saw too, "my heart did that flippy thing again", couldn't this heart thing go in a definition? I mean, certainly, I saw this used describing the heart several times in these books. LalalalaSta (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Uno aree[edit]

Hey, thanks for removing that nonsense from my talk page. Cheers, BigDom 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hiding unharmful vandalism[edit]

I am curious why you tend to hide edits (such as this one) that are vandalism, but do not contain anything harmful (personal information, libelous accusations, etc.) --WikiTiki89 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with why people do such things: it's normally for the purpose of either showing off how clever they are, or demonstrating their power to make marks in highly-visible places in order to feel important. In both cases, having their deeds visible in the edit history provides a sort of "trophy" of their "accomplishments". Hiding their edits is designed to get rid of any visible long-term evidence of what they've done and reduce the ego rewards of vandalizing.
Anyone who deals with graffiti vandalism in public places will tell you that the most effective way to discourage it is to paint graffiti over as quickly as possible so the vandals have nothing to show for their efforts. I'm just applying the same logic to online vandalism.
Of course, you can only do this if there's nothing that can be construed as usable content in the edits hidden, in order to provide the attribution required by licenses- if someone makes a legitimate edit before the vandalism is removed, you can't hide that edit unless the edit is harmful for the reasons you mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


If "Aglaea Asclepiades" is not the epithet that defines Aglaea, daughter of Asclepius, from Aglaea of the Charites, then what is her epithet? 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Who says she has to have an epithet in English, or that there should be a dictionary entry for it?
I checked Google Books and Google Groups. Neither has the words "Aglaea Asclepiades" in any book or Usenet post. The general Google search has nothing but the reference in Wikipedia that you just added. No one uses epithets in English to distinguish between people in Ancient Greece--at least not phrased the way you do. As usual, you figured there must be some way to say something, so you made something up. We're a descriptive dictionary: if people don't use a particular word or phrase in a given language (or haven't done so in the past), we don't have an entry for it in that language. Period.
Please read WT:CFI before you add any more made-up stuff. You've been adding so much of this nonsense that we haven't gotten to it all, but eventually everything you've added to this dictionary that doesn't match the way actual real live people use or have used words and phrases will be gone.
What you've been doing is far worse than the the vandalism from idiots who replace entries with "poop" and obscenities. That kind of thing is easily spotted and removed. Your edits look like the real thing, but they're based on your guesses, faulty sources and misunderstandings, and more often than not are just plain wrong. The only way your edits can be fixed is if someone who actually knows something about the subject checks to find what the real information is. That's time they could have spent adding real, genuine information to the dictionary.
Not only are you misinforming the people who use our dictionary, you're reducing the quantity and quality of the work that others contribute. Please stop! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I just found the "Asclepiades" meaning and assumed. I was told that there was a distinguishing name to separate Aglaea of the Charites from one of Asclepius' daughters, Aglaea. You have since told me that this guess is wrong. While I'm grateful for the correction before I could make a further fool of myself, this does not get me an answer. I even sent away for a book, "Goddess in World Mythology: A Biographical Dictionary", having been told by a friend about it, but it only mentions the Aglaea who is one of the Charites.

This is very fustrating. I just want answers.  :( 01:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi chuck, I am following up on your revert. I think there may have been an error because the additional definition is clearly unique and distinct from the first. Perhaps the sentence could be trimmed a bit (remove the second sentence?). The original source can be found here. Cheers, Xtraeme (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the way people actually use (or have used) terms (see WT:CFI). A definition that's not in use except in the writings of the one who coined it isn't appropriate for a descriptive dictionary. If you can find enough examples of it being used with that sense in the right kind of sources, and add those examples as quotes in the entry or in the Citations tab, no one will object to your adding it back (or if they do, you can successfully defend it from removal). See the Criteria For Inclusion linked to above for details.
Your definition was esoteric and counter-intuitive enough that, after looking through a good number of examples in a Google Books search, I took the calculated risk that it's not out there somewhere in actual use. Prove me wrong, and I won't take it personally- but I won't be holding my breath waiting. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Blocking policy[edit]

Hello, I hope that now you could make your own idea about how to manage Wiktionary:Blocking policy in the future.

Personally, I've noticed that whereas I was more experimented than you in the Wiktionary adminship, you've blocked many many more accounts than me in the past. Actually, I use to patrol every day and have never blocked indefinitely anyone who could give us something sooner or later, so I didn't feel that I deserved to live it "from the other side", and especially during the beer parlour cherry picking presentation.

I've also seen that you're doing a great job (even if I could avoid to lose one detail with a precision this morning) and we must try to retain something valuable from this little adventure.

Yours sincerely. JackPotte (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your silence is putting me in a difficult position, I'll be forced to refer your detractor behavior to somebody. JackPotte (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it really depends on what the block is for; if they are idiots spamming URLs and such trying to promote their shitty websites or youtube videos, etc. they deserve to be blocked for all eternity. Also, you have to realise that some of these accounts could be bots. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 21:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume this regards, directly or indirectly, the block of JackBot. I have commented in the BP. - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Correcting typo in page name I created[edit]

Hi, I created a lemma yesterday and today I noticed that I misspelled it. This is the page: pauwaun wojoku#Wauja The entry should be paunwaun wojoku, not pauwaun wojoku. I will be very careful in future when I enter the name of the lemma. I read about changing mispellings on this page: m:Help:Moving a page and it appears that I will have a permanent page with my typo pointing to the correct spelling. Is there any way to simply correct my typo? I hate to keep a permanent record of a typo that is not an alternate spelling a native speaker would use. Thanks! Emi-Ireland (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The page has to be moved. An admin can move a page without leaving a redirect (which I just did), but the usual practice is to move the page yourself and add the {{delete}} template ({{d}} will work, too ) to the redirect page so an admin can delete it. It's a good idea to include an explanation as a parameter: something like {{delete|Created in error- misspelling}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! You did it so quickly I had to blink to make sure I was reading it correctly. I will make note of the procedure for future reference. Emi-Ireland (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the article 枯萎[edit]

Regarding my edit that you reverted for 枯萎, well, I understand, because I left it as an error. But actually, what I was trying to do is to change the pronunciation. Because 枯萎 is one of those words in Chinese that have different official pronunciations in Beijing and Taiwan. In Beijing it's ku1wei3, but in Taiwan it's ku1wei1. Some examples of these kinds of words are 星期 and 垃圾. Well, I simply don't know how to show the variant pronunciation like they show it on 星期 and 垃圾. If you could tell me how to do it, that would be great. Because there are a lot of Chinese words here that don't show the Taiwan official pronunciation which I would like to edit. Thanks in advance.

P.S. sorry I left the article with an error. I tried to ask in the community portal and I thought that I would get a quick response. Turns out that I didn't.

See my response at the Information Desk. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Feedback#faith; but really about the rigid capitalizing of section headings[edit]

Hope you don't mind but I'd like more input here; I'm thinking maybe someone with more solidified knowledge of grammar (not that I don't have confidence in my own) might make this guy clam up or at least be less objectionable to our standards. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 16:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture in dust[edit]

Can you tell me why you removed it? I hate Tory Ailes (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a really odd way to illustrate the word "dust", and the caption isn't very good style for a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix the caption. I hate Tory Ailes (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Goidel Etymology[edit]

The etymology I provided was a valid one. I provided the older, previously accepted etymology (that scholars of Irish history have accepted and studied since the 11th century). Wikipedia itself has 2 articles, to which I linked as reference, that provide the detailed basis for this etymology. I understand another individual has provided another etymology, based upon a Welsh-origin for the word. I did not delete that theory. I provided the reader and researcher with the previous etymology for the sake of allowing scholastic integrity and further inquiry and debate among those interested in this subject. To outright delete my valid etymological entry is to choose a theory that is not yet proven, and is newer, less tested, and has significant flaws of its own. Throughout wiktionary there are words with multiple etymologies. Why should we treat this word the same? It is the name of a Culture and People. The Gaelic people are based on this word. So you are against providing the etymological basis that was relied upon by the Gaelic people since the 11th century? That is heavy-handed. So, the etymology that the Irish people are named for a Welsh-word is a proven fact? I don't think so. You will find that is not the case. John Koch proposed this concept in 1994. Before that, it was not a serious consideration. It has not been further proven. In fact, look at the etymology that he proposes. He claims that the welsh word means "Irishman." Well, that seems a bit difficult to grasp considering that I doubt Welsh speakers of the 10th century or early heard Irish people calling themselves "Irishmen." Isn't it more likely the Welsh word is derived from Goidel instead of the other way around? Be that as it may, I am not deleting that etymology. I am simply putting the earlier and alternate theory into this article for the sake of completeness. The Gaelic people believed themselves to be the people descended from Goidel Glas, since the 11th century into the modern age. That is a sufficient basis to allow the entry explaining that fact to be included in this article. Please explain to me why you think otherwise. Thank you. Oghmatist (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In the event you have yet to read this, I want to direct you to your own words from a few posts above. In that post you said, "The problem is that we're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the way people actually use (or have used) terms (see WT:CFI). A definition that's not in use except in the writings of the one who coined it isn't appropriate for a descriptive dictionary. If you can find enough examples of it being used with that sense in the right kind of sources, and add those examples as quotes in the entry or in the Citations tab, no one will object to your adding it back (or if they do, you can successfully defend it from removal). See the Criteria For Inclusion linked to above for details. Your definition was esoteric and counter-intuitive enough that, after looking through a good number of examples in a Google Books search, I took the calculated risk that it's not out there somewhere in actual use. Prove me wrong, and I won't take it personally- but I won't be holding my breath waiting." So, if your premise is that you are a descriptive dictionary that describes the way people actually use (or have used" terms, then why would you delete an explanation that Goidel has been used since the 11th century through at least the 20th century as a derivation of Goidel Glas as found in an 11th Century Text (a text that carried significant import to an entire culture for hundreds of years?). Would we delete etymological definitions that were based on Biblical references? What if they were based on other cultural or ethno-linguistic materials? Do we delete them because they are "Medieval?" as another poster commented in his deletion of my entry? If Wiktionary is meant to serve the purpose I quote you as saying yourself, then why would you want to eliminate all explanation that the word Goidel was once considered (and may still be considered by some) as derived from an eponymous ancestor? If you did a Google Book search, you will find Wikipedia itself accepts this theory, and even has TWO articles devoted to the theory. Along with cites and references galore for you to verify. Should that be sufficient to allow my one-sentence etymology to stand? Or do we have to delete it because a new theory has hit the books and it sounds more "Scientific" (as the other poster claimed in his/her validation to delete my entry)? I see no reason why Wikipedia would allow the other two articles I cite to be published as they are, but that it would delete my etymological explanation. I am summarizing what those two articles painstakingly detail. I reference both of them. I believe I've provided far more depth and detail for further research in my Etymology than the one that the other poster provided, and yet you deleted mine and let theirs stand. You are an Admin for Wiktionary it seems. But, are you being fair and equitable in how you apply Wiktionary standards? You explain that you are a student of linguistics. Fair enough. Do you believe that the Irish (and Scottish) Gaelic people's 900-year old self-explanation for the origin of their name, with its various attestations and attributions by various authors and scholars over those 9 centuries, is not worthy of a one-sentence mention in the etymology of the word itself? But, you think that the Gaelic people are self-named because they borrowed that self-name from another culture altogether? And that makes such etymology more valid? In order for the Welsh-origin theory to have any scientific merit, don't we need to see more evidence of other Welsh-based words in the Gaelic language? Don't we need to see more evidence of a cultural transmission from Welsh to Gaelic? The current consensus is that Welsh and Gaelic both derive from a Celtic or Proto-Celtic strata. There is no evidence that Gaelic evolved from Welsh. There may be borrowings of some words, but that is not a given. In fact, some words may BOTH be derived from a Celtic predecessor. But even if that is the case, and even if the Welsh word did precede the Gaelic word - there is still the incontrovertible fact that we have in our possession an 11th century manuscript with a claimed origin of the word "Goidel." Do we dismiss it because it is old? That is the reasoning provided by the poster that deleted my entry the first time. And when I reverted his/her deletion of my entry, you then reverted that reversion. So, I retyped the entry fresh. Let's see who deletes now. As a linguist, do you think Medieval texts have no bearing or importance on a word's origin? What if the word is older or at least as old the Medieval period? What then? We have extant texts of the use of this word, and a claimed origin for this word. That is worth referencing. I don't have to be "Correct" in this being the "Right" theory. The fact that it was the established understanding for 900 years should be weighty enough for Wiktionary to be willing to publish it. Particularly based on your own description of Wiktionary as a descriptive dictionary that wants to describe the way people ACTUALLY used the word. Well, the Gaelic people actually used the word Goidel as an Eponymous ancestor for about 900 years. Particularly the learned class of the Gaelic people. The rulers, poets, artisans, and boaire of the Gaelic people used the word that way. So, what is the problem with identifying this reality to the readers of Wiktionary? Is it because another poster and many like him/her are driven to try and prove a "Brythonic" origin to the very name of the Gaelic people themselves? Perhaps its worth considering the other motivations behind the other theory. Maybe they are less to do with linguistic process and more to do with politicization of a concept for other motives. There is no evidence the Gaelic culture derived from the Welsh any more than vice versa. Both were heirs to the Celtic culture. Their languages are likewise found to be parallel, not derivative, to one another. The Gaelic people self-identified as being named for an Eponymous ancestor. The purpose of Wiktionary is not to pass judgment on whether those 900 years of self-belief were accurate or not. Wiktionary is not the arbiter of whether a culture's traditions or language or theories of genesis are "scientific" or not. Wiktionary is the forum by which those words are described, in the context they were known by at the time. If there was a culture that clearly had its own theory about the origin of a word, but it didn't comport with modern theories of the origin of the word, should Wiktionary arbitrarily decide that 900 years of cultural inherited perception is irrelevant? Your own quote would say otherwise. I strongly urge you to not delete my new edit, and to reconsider whether your rollback of my previous edit was proper. I don't see why other posters have a problem allowing a very old and very well known etymology from being published. I didn't invent this theory. I didn't craft it in a work of fiction and paste it here for self-promotion. It is as old a theory as the 11th century manuscript I cited on the Wikipedia Article itself. So, if you want to delete my etymology, you should delete those two articles as well. In fact, if you think the entire Irish Mythological Cycles are "unscientific" why not just delete those too? And while we're at it, why not just delete the entire Irish history from Wikipedia too? Then you can insert whatever you want. And call it Welsh. Thank you. Oghmatist (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of "also" link between ΔΝΤ and ANT[edit]

The purpose of the "also" link at the top of pages before even the Translingual section is to connect visually similar entries. ΔΝΤ and ANT look alike. They do not need any other kind of relationship. I'm unreverting your changes.

If the policy has changed away from visual similarity, please reply here and include a link to the policy. — 08:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the anon here. --WikiTiki89 11:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly enough about this to make an issue of it, but Delta and A don't seem quite the same type of visual similarity as C and the Cyrillic S. Should we have Russian лит on those pages, as well? How about putting W on the ש, ա, ш and щ pages? Are people really going to go to ANT instead of ΔΝΤ? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
To me personally, лит looks nothing like ANT, but if someone feels strongly that it does, I won't protest. I do think that w does belong at ש, ա, ш and щ. --WikiTiki89 12:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


I am aware of your block comment "block evasion", but I quite appreciate his/her effort to this dictionary. Is it possible to unblock him/her? --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea how much garbage this person has added to the dictionary. They've been adding some innocuous stuff about asteroids combined with all kinds of misinformation and pointless minutia. They have no comnmon sense and don't understand anything about sources or dictionaries, and they've added an enormous amount of Japanese and Chinese content even though they don't speak a word of those languages and their only sources are anime fansites and Bing Translate. At one point they even added a Cantonese section to a Chinese entry, complete with Mandarin pinyin for the romanization! There's no reliable way to communicate with them, and they keep making the same types of mistakes over and over even when you can briefly get through to them. Sure, they've improved in some ways just by imitating other editors, but they also make some real boneheaded mistakes because the don't understand what they're copying.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way I would stop blocking them is if a) they stop editing in areas they know little or nothing about (but first they have to realize how vast their ignorance is), b) there's a reliable way to communicate with them at length, and c) they show that they're willing and able to learn how to do things right. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you clean up this page for me as an example? I'll do the rest. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a good example- they copied it word for word from Wikipedia and converted it to Wiktionary formatting. The asteroid sense was the only original part. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


I noticed that you reverted my edit on Sophrosyne. Sophrosyne is an important word in the study of Ancient Greece, it is multivalent, and not translatable as one single English word. The definition of the word is extensively discussed by Socrates, and discussed by Artistotle. It is an idea that underlies several ancient Greek plays. It is a doctrine that gets at how man should live. It is certainly not a "Goddess" -- that is a ridiculous mistake. It is such an important word that this should be corrected as soon as possible. I'd be willing to work on fixing up this article, which as it stands is not well expressed or well-sourced. But if contributions are to be deleted with no reason given, then the error may live on. What are your thoughts? Barklestork (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Our entries are case-sensitive. The entry you're looking for is at sophrosyne. The entry at Sophrosyne is about the goddess who is named after the virtue she personifies, because proper nouns are capitalized. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are mistaken to suggest that there is any such goddess. It is an error and is unsupported by any reliable source. Pardon me for repeating myself in this regard. Barklestork (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That may be, but there are proper ways to deal with such things. Your addition just made a mess out of the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
First, thank you for listing “sophrosyne” at the Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Just to remind you — you had reverted my edit to the definition of Sophrosyne, so I thought I might write to you about this word. I think that the definitions in Wiktionary for both forms of the word (with and without the initial upper case) contain errors and need to be edited. In the Sophrosyne entry, the first and third definitions should be deleted. In the lower-case sophrosyne entry, the definition is misleading — sophrosyne is more complicated than to be attached a simplistic definition like: temperance. And in fact, I can’t find the word being used in that way. (Such as: ”Fred used to get drunk but now he’s a sophrosyne type of guy.) Instead the word only ever seems to be used in reference to the more complicated ideal or concept. I believe that a better definition for the word with an initial lower case would be: “sophrosyne is an ancient Greek concept of an ideal of excellence of character and soundness of mind, which when combined in one well-balanced individual leads to various other qualities, such as temperance, moderation, prudence, and self-control. Sophrosyne is especially important to Ancient Greek dramatists who contrasted the idea with its opposite: hubris. The definition of Sophrosyne was notably argued in Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Charmides.” The etymologies in the two Wiktionary don’t agree and it appears that the lower-case etymology is better, and could be used for the upper-case entry also. By the way, the word in its English-language Arabic-lettering form seems to be fairly new — perhaps 60 years old, and isn’t in the old OED. The word is very important in certain areas of scholarship, and it seems to be subject to people getting it wrong. I’d like to see the handling of this set right here at Wiktionary. Do you have any thoughts about this? Thanks again. Barklestork (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Theoi Nomioi[edit]

Theoi Nomioi, not made up. Check out this link: 03:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As an English term, yes it is. Just because you didn't make it up doesn't mean it's a valid word according to Wiktionary standards (see WT:CFI). Basically it's just the transliteration of a Greek phrase mean "gods of herders/shepherds", and I don't see it in anything that's not derived from The guy who created the site wasn't trying to deceive anyone, because his goal is to explain things from other languages and cultures in English and show off his expertise- not to provide documentation of English usage. For all I know "θεοί νόμιοι" may be a common phrase in Ancient Greek (though I got only one hit from a Google Books search), but it's not English, and transliterating it into our alphabet could be construed as making up an English phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


You have reverted my edit in the word "sial". However, the word "sial" is also Indonesian word. The word "sial" in Indonesian, if translated into English, it means "suck" in the best translation, or "damn" or "shit" in the worst translation. The word "suck" is not considered profanity in English. —This unsigned comment was added by YolentaShield (talkcontribs) at 05:04, September 5, 2014.

I have no problem with your creating an Indonesian entry, but don't put all that discussion on the definition line(s). That's for defining what it actually means, not talking about how different things in English have different connotations- those would go in the entries for the terms English terms, themselves. Also, you had no part of speech header. You used {{id-noun}}, but what you were describing doesn't sound like a noun, though I'm not completely sure, because, among other things, it wasn't clear whether there are two meanings, or whether you were translating one meaning two different ways. If there's just one meaning, it should be all on one line, and the definition should describe in English what it actually means, so readers can decide for themselves the best way to translate it. If you still need to explain things, add a "Usage notes" section after the definition. Please see WT:ELE for more details.
If I could have fixed your edit, I would have, but that would have required either knowing the Indonesian term, or being able to figure what you really meant to say. Neither was possible, so I reverted your edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

sic semper tyrannis[edit]

Thanks Chuck :) WritersCramp (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: sister[edit]

I'm not sure adjectivation/denominal adjectives in English can be described so simply/brutally, but I'm not sure of the opposite either, I see your point. The section was only meant as a different way of that "adjective" label, but I understand it's not ok. Thanks for reverting! --Nemo 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the point :)[edit]

Re: beating around the bush edit:

No biggie but I thought that the information provided a useful background on the phrase. I had checked content at a number of sources and was happy with the content.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Re: overpopulation and edit:

In the first definition my intention was to make a clearer link between overpopulation and the environment as is the general definition in the Wikipedia:Overpopulation article. An area may be able to give temporary support to a population because it happens to have an oil well or a diamond mine but this is not the general conception of overpopulation.

I agree with the second definition which, while being supported by some scholarly opinion, is not in common use.

Gregkaye (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Smoking and beating around[edit]

Re: smoke out and edit

I'm not to sure of the conventions on Wiktionary but I would have thought that the two entries has notable commonality.

Gregkaye (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, we don't use notability here at Wiktionary. This is a dictionary, so we keep to the terms themselves and leave interesting facts for encyclopedias. But even if we did, I think the terms are distant enough from their origins that the connection is rather trivial. I have a feeling that most users would follow the link and wonder why the two have been connected.
We do have categories for navigating within groups of terms that have something in common, in this case you would add Category:en:Hunting to the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

References for zoological specific epithets?[edit]

I have begun spending more time on specific epithets. I have a reference on Botanical Latin which has been helpful and I had gotten one on zoological names from a local library. But some of the epithets are used for only one species that I can find are compounds that can be puzzling. For example spilorrhoa at Ducula spilorrhoa might be σπίλος (spílos, stain, spot) + ῥόα (rhóa, pomegranate). w:Ducula spilorrhoa mentions that the heads of these mostly white birds are often stained by the fruit they eat. IOW, I was lucky that the WP article provided a clue, as other Greek words would be possible components of the compound. I like the guesswork, but I am not comfortable having Wiktionary rely on it. Is there some reference you would recommend, especially for zoological names, that would help on etymology? DCDuring TALK 00:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any specific reference. The first thing I do is track down the original description ([8]) to see if it has any explanation or clues. I usually do this by first doing a Google search containing the specific epithet, the author and the year ([9]), which, with any luck, will turn up a catalogue or website that will reference the publication, the volume/year, etc. & the page ([10]). I then track down the publication itself (I prefer the Internet archive, but Google Books has more bells and whistles to aid your search). In this case, it's not very helpful, so I go to Perseus. After looking there, I would say that ῥόα (rhóa, pomegranate) isn't the best candidate: ῥοά (rhoá, stream, flow, flux) strikes me as more likely (the lemma is actually ῥοή (rhoḗ), because the Attic dialect has eta where the other dialects have a long alpha in endings, but it's usually changed to "a" when converted to Latin). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I suppose there is no getting around going after the original description. For fish there is actually a site that provides the missing link: why a given epithet was used for a species. In this case, as in many others, it is not obvious, whichever interpretation is given to "roa". I use images and any physical or behavioral description of the species that I can find to help with that. In this case I can't get a plausible rationale for the "stream, flow, flux" interpretation, either with σπίλος (spílos, rock, cliff) or σπίλος (spílos, spot, stain, fleck).
I don't think that the Etymology Scriptorium is much help as they don't seem to take much interest in the applied semantics of why a person selected a given word for a specific use. I suppose that the alternatives, in this case for both components of the epithet could be presented and a guess hazarded favoring whatever seemed more likely after a bit more research and thought.
In the meantime there are many New Latin compounds with multiple uses that have no Wiktionary entry at all. But I still don't have a sound basis for assigning an L2 header to many New-fangled specific epithets: Latin or Translingual in many cases; language of other original or derived vernacular name or Translingual in many others. The only obvious cases are those for which the epithet is a use of something which is in Lewis and Short or my Late Latin glossary. I don't even have access to a Medieval Latin dictionary online and library access at nearby Fordham University would have to be specially arranged. Semperblotto has entered the genitives of "pseudo-Latin" personal names as Translingual. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not the part of the world where one would find pomegranates, and pomegranates aren't the sort of thing that's often used metaphorically in scientific names. As for flow: the pattern of dark feathers looks sort of like what you would get if the bird were partway immersed in black ink. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't suppose a description of that vintage was likely to rely on accidental features or behavioral characteristics such as fruit stains, except as a mistake. There was another name that used spilorrhoa: Myristicivora spilorrhoa (probably now Ducula myristicivora.
This image might support "rock flow". DCDuring TALK 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


I undid your revert. The only flaw was the added etymology was off, I fixed that. Choor monster (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I would put it another way: the original edit was wrong, and you replaced it with the right one. Either way, I agree with your edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Whatever works, it's all good. Choor monster (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:English fused-head constructions[edit]

Why are you removing these? By what legitimizing process? DCDuring TALK 19:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a tendency to create one-off categories that you never populate- apparently because you forget about them- and this seemed to be one of those. I only remove these if there are only one or two members after a good period of time in what should be a huge category- which seems to indicate total lack of interest. If you care enough to object, then I was wrong in this case.
If you ever run across actions like this that you disagree with, feel free to revert them. They're not based on any rule, but just on the principle that it seems wrong to leave a redlinked category that's deceptively empty and is unlikely to be ever used. In other words, it's me exercising my own personal discretion as an editor, and you're free to use your own personal discretion to change it back. It's not something I care enough about to edit-war over, so your action will probably stand. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. As you know I have a bee in my bonnet about our categories. The basic difference between CodeCat's whimsical topical categories and mine is that s/he has a bot. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the basic difference is that I actually create and maintain the categories, whereas this category was abandoned and left redlinked. I agree with Chuck that if someone adds entries to categories, they should also be responsible for creating the category page and placing it in the appropriate place in the category tree. My bot can create categories easily, but only if they have a recognised name and place in the tree, so it doesn't know what to do with categories like these. That means that redlinked and unrecognised categories like this one are left for human editors to deal with, which Chuck did, because you did not. —CodeCat 21:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The topical categories, such as they are, are "maintained" and populated largely because of the destructive misappropriation of the usage context categories. Instead of reversing Daniel dot's original unapproved misappropriation you continued and extended it in the high-handed manner that has marked your contributions for some time now. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
When I see a category that I think should be kept, I often spend an hour or so adding it to as many of the applicable entries as I can easily find. This also gives me a feel for how useful the category is. I've come up with a number of ideas in my time here. Some were great, some were ok, and some truly stunk. There's nothing wrong with brainstorming, but you have to accept that not every idea is ready for prime time, and that some need further development and/or implementation before they will work. I've only been targeting a few items that have been in Wanted Categories for a long time with no change and that I'm not really sure what to to with (not just your categories, by the way). My feeling is that a category in just one or two entries may not have the critical mass needed to make it useful as a navigational tool, regardless of its potential. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


What issues do you have with my edits to rime that you reverted? Tharthan (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, rhyme is a direct descendant from Old French via Middle English, so the (influenced) seemed wrong. True, the spelling reflects the Ancient Greek ancestor, but that's just a learned "correction" of the spelling, not replacement of the entire word. On looking further, I see that the etymology at rhyme disagrees with me. I've taken it to the Etymology Scriptorum for confirmation one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds swell. Things should indeed be deemed there in this instance. Tharthan (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Please take a look, especially at Hyponyms, not that that wouldn't have attracted your attention anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


I thought you might have missed the fact that I added a note to the sophrosyne section listed up above. I don't mean to prompt you in any way -- but just in case it went unnoticed. Thanks. Barklestork (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi. You reverted the usage "swathes of territory". I'm not wrong- try googling itǃ I have no idea if this is chiefly a UK usage, however, as I am from UK. I have reverted your reversion. (PS, the tilde button isn't working for some reason, so I'll leave this un-signedzzz.)

That's covered by "alternate spelling of swath". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:Deletion requests[edit]

Re:Deletion requests

Hello! I'm aware of the {{rfv}} template usage, but it's quite obvious for a Spanish speaker in the case of *cervezería since, according to the spelling rules, the combinations ze/zi are not permitted (except in very few cases, usually loan words – see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2011/May#Category:Spanish words with ze or zi). In case of doubt, many of these are properly documented in the RAE's Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas (enzima, Azerbaiyán...). Regards :), Peter Bowman (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Concerning the minor Roman deity, Pestis: 05:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

None of your sources say Pestis is a deity, except the theoi personifications page, which seriously overgeneralizes things: For every personification that was genuinely considered a deity, such as Eros, there are lots that were just referred to allegorically in poetry. Both of the pages on Nosoi refer to them as "daimones" or "spirits"- not deities.

Chuck Entz (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why not simply edit the entry instead of deleting it? And you did the same thing to Nosos (Nosoi/Nosi) as well. 18:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

New user[edit]


Per request, posting to talk page. Newer user here to doing edits. The word was used for a company and I was curious if I was allowed to tag it from wikionary in that aspect with abbreviation spelled out? I held off on doing that, after I had put up the english sub-header on the page as I was looking up rules still. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 08:27, October 7, 2014‎.

What word are you talking about. I couldn't find anything in your contributions history. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"madidos" ... the question remains unattended, is a link to the blog of the same name allowed?

I removed the long history concerning sub iugum, the brief entry now reflects the etymology of the phrase "pass under the yoke." Please be aware that it was not solely a Roman practice. I'm sure you are already aware of this site, but just in case: for all your Greek delights. ---

setting up non-lemma term[edit]

Hi, Chuck, I'm not quite sure whether I should ask you or someone else how to do this. I just added an entry for "aitsa ha," which is an interjection, but I suspect I didn't set it up correctly. I think I need to set it up as a non-lemma term, but I'm not sure how to do that. Here's the word: Thanks for any advice you can offer. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You put "intj" as the part of speech, instead of interjection. There are some customized templates for specific languages such as Chinese that use abbreviations, but {{head}} just takes the part of speech unabbreviated. As for "non-lemmas": the lemma is the main form for a term, with inflected forms being the non-lemmas. Your entry is the only form of the term, so it's the lemma.Chuck Entz (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I was using the French interjection "non" as a model, but it now appears that page may be using a special template. I'll check more than one model next time when I'm doing something new.Emi-Ireland (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chuck,

Today was my first experience to write on Wiktionary. I found out that my article was deleted ,but I don't know why? I believe that I might have made some mistakes against the rules of writing.Could you please advise me?

Thank you,

Tamer Osman

This is a dictionary. We don't do articles, we do dictionary entries in a very specific format (see WT:CFI and WT:ELE). Also, user pages are strictly for dictionary business, not for publishing personal content (see WT:USER and WT:NOT). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Linguistics degrees[edit]

Hey. I just wanted to ask you a question about linguistics degrees.

I've told some people before (in my real life) that I was considering a linguistics degree in college, since I've been interested in many multiple languages for a long time (which is why I joined Wiktionary in the first place), but some ask me "what would you even do with a linguistics degree?"

Some people would respond that it's mostly in the field of academia, meaning that most of the jobs I could get would be teaching jobs. I don't really want to be a teacher though, because of my social anxiety as it is, I don't think I can handle teaching a class every day. But then that would mean I'd have to go for 2 degrees, 1 in teaching, and 1 in linguistics. So that doesn't seem like it would work out.

I'm already aware of the translator job which doesn't seem too bad, but what other (general) opportunities are there out there for linguists? What jobs? What can a linguist do for a living that can pay the bills, so to speak? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a good one to ask, because I've never done anything with my linguistics degree. My impression is that computational linguistics is the only part of linguistics where there's much non-academic work available (and maybe intelligence- I believe User:Stephen G. Brown knows something about that). That's not to say that there isn't work out there for linguists, but I'm sure it requires quite a bit of investigative work and/or resourcefulness and/or networking to find it, and you have to already have credentials and be good at it to get a job. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To chime in, I've made my career as an applied linguist, of sorts -- translation. Networking over the years, it's become clear that most of us, at least in the Japanese-English language combination, don't have backgrounds in linguistics. Actually, having such a background can be an impediment to getting into the field because of the time involved, as clients are looking for people who are 1) at least passively fluent in the source language, 2) functionally fluent in writing in the target language, preferably as native speakers, and 3) experienced in whatever field is at hand, in terms of life and job experience. So coming right out of school, with studies that aren't immediately applicable to the subject material on offer (the great bulk of which is business-related), translation can be difficult to break into. One of my colleagues didn't get into translation until he was in his late forties, after spending the first half of his career as a salaryman working at injection molding companies. Because he knows that business back-to-front, and because he's got lots of former coworkers and other contacts in that field, he has a relatively easy time securing work.
If you're thinking of translation as a job, another factor to consider is the language combination. English-Spanish doesn't pay that well, simply because there's so much competition. English-Igbo has a lot less competition (in North America at least), but also little demand. I stumbled into English-Japanese by pure dumb luck, and that has a nice balance of higher demand and lower competition.
That said, I wouldn't say don't go in for linguistics, if that's a subject that floats your boat. My point in writing the above is to try to make sure you don't have any overly rosy ideas of landing a dream job in translation right after school. (But then who knows, you still might. :) ) In any higher education, it's probably best to choose fields that make you happy. University is a lot of work, and (at least in the US) also a lot of money, so best to choose something where you won't resent the work (and you'll get less out of it if you're unhappy) -- and if you like the field, chances are that this will come through in a positive way in job interviews.
Anyway, my advice is worth what you paid for it, so no worries.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese categories[edit]

I'm curious why you're removing the templates from all of these. I would think having a template is more useful. —CodeCat 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the wrong template. {{ja-readascat}} is only used for "Japanese terms spelled with kanji read as", not "Japanese kanji read as この‎". The first categorize into Category:Japanese terms by kanji readings, while the second categorize into Category:Japanese kanji by reading. I didn't notice the difference for a long time, so now I'm fixing my mistake. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And there's no template for the latter kind of category? I think we might as well have one. —CodeCat 22:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's for Japanese editors to devise. If it's just the one cat, I don't see the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Hey. I often see you remove visibility of edits with the reason "Graffiti/Vandalism". I'm just wondering, I understand it's a vandalism edit, but why is it that you have to remove its visibility? It seems like it could be the same person, since I often see this visibility removal on talk pages. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the same person. I check pretty much all the IPs that I block, and they come from all over the world- though there are some repeat offenders.
As for why I remove these edits from view: my philosophy is that no one who deliberately defaces or sabotages a resource like this should have the satisfaction of seeing their handiwork in the edit histories. It's all about eliminating the emotional rewards as much as possible. I don't do it for edits that are due to ignorance, incompetence, or errors, just the ones where they do things like replace content with things like "poop" or delete things, or deliberately put misinformation into entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Clever tactic. So there wouldn't be anyone who went over there and "laughed at the troll" so to speak. This system is a way to keep spammers off the site. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert in topic[edit]


You reverted the changes I made in the entry topic a few days ago. Can you tell me why?--Sae1962 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes: the US IPA looked wrong and the hyphenation wasn't hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reason for rollback - Albatross around one's neck[edit]

albatross around one's neck got a rollback despite the additions being significant, accurate and more precise than the original definitions. No reason given in the revision summary. Throw me a bone so I can fix it?

2 reasons:
  1. The definition is much too verbose for a dictionary definition- it reads like something from an encyclopedia. That's understandable, because:
  2. You ripped it off verbatim from Wikipedia's article on w:Albatross (metaphor) without attribution, which is a violation of the Creative Commons licenses for both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. Understood, I'll work on it.
  2. It was attributed per the license, check the references section. Please be nice, I'm just a stranger on the internet.


Did you read my edit comment explaining why I edited "instar" [11]? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You very clumsily tacked on the new etymology without editing the existing one, leaving the etymology section contradicting itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Just a quick question about the revert on sanctus. "proclamata est" is the third person, passive perfect form of prōclāmō, isn't it? If it were to be "Kateri Tekawitha is proclaimed a saint", it would need to be "Kateri Tekawitha sancta proclamatur [ab ... ]." As such, "Kateri Tekawitha sancta proclamata est" should be translated as "Kateri Tekawitha was proclaimed a saint."--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It's a bit tricky because "is proclaimed" in this context seems to have perfective qualities: the implication seems to be that this is something that just happened, or that is accomplished by the utterance of the sentence- not something that is still going on. To translate "proclamatur" accurately, I believe you would need to say "is being proclaimed", rather than "is proclaimed", unless you were talking about a general or habitual practice, since the English present tense isn't really, strictly speaking, a true present tense: "whenever x happens, y is proclaimed" or "every day, x is proclaimed", for instance (w:Present tense refers to "habitual or usual actions or daily event"). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Passive verbs in Latin are weird because the present conjugations, when translated into English, often have a "past" sense to them (ie, "amatur" is "I am being loved"). However, "proclamatur" can be translated either as "he/she is being proclaimed" or "he/she is proclaimed" (Here's a good cheat sheet I found, which shows that the passive present form of cano, canitur, can either be "it is sung" or "it is being sung"). It's kind of like the different between "I eat" and "I am eating" (edo), or "I love" and "I am loving" (amo); the difference is apparent only in the English. With that being said, "proclamata est" is still a perfect tense ("proclamata" is specifically a perfect participle), and should probably be translated as such. However, I'm wondering if its a Classical Latin v. Newer Latin issue, too, because I know that many modern languages use "est" or a variation thereof (for instance, is) to form perfective verbs and verb phrases (such as "is proclaimed", which has a perfective sense but also uses a present verb). Anyway, sorry for my rambling... tense is weird.--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Newly added category doesn't show up[edit]

I created two lemmas and then I created the category (expressions of time) but it doesn't show up when I go to All Topics. I must be leaving out a step. Please tell me how you fixed it so I don't have to bother you next time. Thanks very much! Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You can look at the page's history, and then compare versions. That would show you what changes were made. —CodeCat 01:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's because the categories such as Category:wau:All topics are usually added by category boilerplate templates (in the case, {{topic cat}}). if you didn't use a template, you would have had to type the categories in by hand. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Is there any Kurdish evidence before Yunus Emre? -- 08:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this the correct way to code the page for a plural?[edit]

Thanks very much for your help a few minutes ago. I just created the page for the plural, but I set it up manually, which seems wrong. Please see I suspect I should be using a convention instead. Also, I want to set up a category of countable nouns, but the examples in English and French I looked at did not seem to have a line for that category at the bottom of their entries. Is plural a special kind of category? Thanks Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct way to list possessives[edit]

Possessives in Arawak languages are very important, and there are numerous classes of possessives. It would be good to include the possessive form for nouns that have one. Could you point me to some advice as to how I should set that up? I did not find any. Thanks very much. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I added onamula as a Related Term to the Wauja lemma amunaun. I'll add a page for onamula as a non-lemma. Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

Chuck, I tried adding a non-lemma page for onamula with the following code: # {{possessive of|amunaun|lang=wau}} but that triggered a template issue. I did add the possessive in the head of the lemma form, as you did with the plural. (Because there are four forms of any possessive (e.g., my chief, your chief, his/her/its/their chief, your(plural) chief), I am listing the third person singular/plural form in the lemma page, because that's usually the root form). Then on the non-lemma page I could list all the forms. Is that a good way to proceed? Thanks for your advice.Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, on the non-lemma page, I would have a table similar to this one:, except the first column could be headed 'Possessed by' and there would be rows for only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person. There would be only two additional columns, singular and plural. Is there already a template like that available? Thanks for all your help.Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just remember that the headword line is for a few selected forms to give an overview, not to cover everything. For a complete version, you would create an Inflection section on the lemma page. It would be a good idea to learn how to do wiki tables so you don't have long lists running down the page, or to get someone who knows templates better than I do to create templates.
If Arawakan languages are anything like the North American Indian languages I've studied, I'm sure the hardest part would be figuring out how to manage all the rows and columns. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's what I needed to know. I agree, it needs to be mentioned on the lemma page, but not on the first line. Only the plural on the first line. I moved the possessive info to an inflection section as you suggested.

Wauja doesn't have some of the options I've seen for Navajo. I think Wauja tables will be a bit simpler. I will try my hand at learning to do wiki tables.

My remaining question, please: How do I handle the non-lemma page for the possessives? I tried adding a non-lemma page for onamula with the following code: # Template:possessive of but that triggered a template issue. Should I just code it manually? Emi-Ireland (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

For onamula, I would recommend using {{head|wau|noun form}} in the headword line. For the definition line, {{inflection of}} would work, since you can have just about anything as a parameter (i.e. {{inflection of|amunaun||third person|possessive|lang=wau}}, which gives: third person possessive of amunaun. I might be tempted to use {{conjugation of}}, in spite of the inappropriate name, because it handles person and number better. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you. Will do. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Justification for reversion at 'lee'[edit]

I would like to know why you removed my contribution to the entry

With respect, Shawn

It belongs in the plural entry (lees) since it was for a sense the only exists in the plural and is completely unrelated to the senses listed at lee. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Dissentio amice. I believe it refers to the plural of lee in the nautical sense of 'a protected cove or harbor, out of the wind'. May I reinstate my addition?
No, it definitely refers to sediment/dregs being stirred up. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I concede you may be right. It seems unclear to me now which meaning is meant and thus I agree it ought to be omitted for fear of error. Thank you for your feedback, friend.


Hi, why have you please reverted this? Is it because I explained the meaning in a clumsy style? Or do you think that what I wrote belongs to pages "jsem", "jste" etc. but not to "be"? Have a nice day --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To start with, "werb" isn't a word in English. More importantly, we have very strict formatting requirements and your edit wasn't even close- it would have taken more time than I had to fix it. I've added our standard welcome template to your talk page, which has links to the information you need to meet the requirements (and a lot of other helpful information, as well). You should also take a look at some of our auxiliary-verb entries to see how others have handled the same type of definition. The English ones such as have, be, and will are probably the best examples, though you can look through Category:Auxiliary verbs by language as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the links. I will try to do the same edit in a better manner. Thanks for warning me. --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Etymology format for suffix gloss[edit]

Hi Chuck. You gave me some advice about formatting Etymology relating to this page: but I can't find your advice now for the life of me (it's bookmarked on another machine). It was not on this page (your talk page). I apologize if I am not referring to your original advice. The format you gave me for including a prefix (with its definition) in an etymology was: From ke- (relative, attributive) +‎ uwein (replacement) So I tried modifying your example to use it for a suffix, like so: aupepei (are numerous, populous) +‎ -ki Alas, it triggers an error, as you can see. What am I doing wrong? I want to produce an etymology that glosses each part of the etymology separately, like this: From aupepei (are numerous, populous) + -ki (nominalizer) Thanks for your help. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed your example- you need to put an empty parameter so it knows that ki is the suffix and not the base. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
An alternative is to use {{affix}}, a recently created template. It detects the type of affix (base, prefix, suffix, interfix) based on the parameters given, so there is no ambiguity. —CodeCat 01:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks to you both. You are so helpful. I'll study it in the morning. Emi-Ireland (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Is there a reason why you can't use Talk:MGTOW? -- 02:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to add an interjection, but there is already a proper noun with the same spelling[edit]

I want to add the Wauja interjection atso, but there is already a Finnish proper noun Atso, and I cannot get a new page for atso to come up. Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

To bypass the usual search, either search for something that doesn't exist, and use the search in the search results section, or bookmark Special:Search. Both of those show the search results (including redlinks) without going to a page. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much. I was able to add the word. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to search for terms I added today?[edit]

I would like to review all the words I added today. Is there any way to search for words added by myself on a certain date? Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Just look at your user contributions page. There's a link to it on the left side of your user & talk pages, and also after your user name in the edit history of any page you've edited. There's even a checkbox so you can look only at contributions that are page creations. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks again! Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC) I realize I added a few terms before I remembered to log in. How do I see all the changes made for the Wauja language on a particular day? Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think there is any. The Mediawiki software doesn't recognize language sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Ah. Another good reason to remember to log in. Thanks for your very prompt reply. Emi-Ireland (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding categories to alternative forms, plurals, etc[edit]

Thanks for letting me know of this category convention. I added the categories in good faith, but seeing as it is only convention to add them on main entry words, I will follow this from now on. --Devin Murphy (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


There is no such thing as "Racial anthropology" in todays world, the racial anthropology of the pre-1950s is today considered a kind of scientific racism.Maunus (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, racial anthropology was definitely racist, but the way you did the wikilink was wrong. If this were Wikipedia, your method would make sense, since the goal would be to direct the reader to the existing article on the topic. This is Wiktionary, however, and we wikilink to dictionary entries, not to articles.
We have no dictionary entry for Scientific racism (the capitalization is wrong, and it's probably SOP), so the few who clicked on the redlink would probably be wondering why they were creating a page for something they didn't click on. I tried to modify the page to address your concern, though it probably could use some tweaking to get it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fido etymology[edit]

As far as I'm aware, there is no reason to believe it is not derived from fidus.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

If we were talking about the dog name, I would agree with you, but the entry in question (at least the English section) is for a very specialized term restricted to coin collectors- one of the few types of usage where terms are regularly created from acronyms (if you think about it, there's absolutely nothing "faithful" about a defective coin). Besides, if you had checked, you would have found references like this one at Google Books that are very clear about the origin of the term. The only thing open to dispute is whether the entry should be at fido or FIDO. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That is a specialized term and does not belong on the same page.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
It's not- the dog name is capitalized-see Fido. But even if it weren't, Wiktionary is arranged by spelling, so everything that's spelled the same (including capitalization) has to be on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi I have a question and have no idea how to talk to you! So here I go... Why did you take down my thing on fangirl lingo??? What rules were broken that that could not remain up??? ALL of that was accurate, ask any fangirl alive! I just thought that mabey somebody might need to know the lingo who is new to the fangirling community! —This unsigned comment was added by Band geek35 (talkcontribs).

@Band geek35: It's very simple: this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Entries have a uniform format, and throwing in a bunch of random text about words that aren't the subject of the entry just makes a mess of things. For the rules about what goes into an entry, see Entry layout explained. Believe it or not, we already have entries for many fangirl terms, and you're welcome to add entries for any we missed that meet our Criteria for inclusion- just try to format things correctly, and be more careful about your grammar and spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

hospital pass[edit]

I appreciate you might not like the tongue in cheek style of my edit, but the point i wanted to add was: a hospital pass is so named because it leaves its recipient liable to be hospitalised - this wasn't clear from the definition. Also, the reference to "law" variant is just a figurative use of the football hospital pass, and is not specific to law: in any collaborative environment being assigned a task or project that the passer has neglected and is doomed therefore to fail or create a lot of extra work for little reward or recognition is called a hospital pass. ElectricRay (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We do try to maintain a neutral point of view, so that style wasn't a good idea. My main problem, though, was making the entry into a sports essay rather than a clear, concise dictionary entry. Defining a term in a single, relatively short sentence isn't as fun- and it's certainly a lot harder- but that's what dictionaries do. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


What's wrong with Nike as a definition when it comes to shoes? Revert.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See WT:BRAND. We don't have entries for company and brand names as company and brand names. If they've become part of the language with other meanings, such as jello referring to any gelatin dessert, whether Jell-o™ brand or not, then we include that. We're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia and we don't have a notability criterion like Wikipedia does, so we avoid that kind of entry altogether- otherwise we'd be nothing but brand names. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Why does Apple have Apple Inc. too?
Why does Apple have Apple Inc. too? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I tried to edit the entry on the etymology of τί. I do not think that the wording ultimately derived from Proto-Indo-European is sufficiently neutral or objective for a dictionary with international users. PIE is a theory with many critics and at the very least the entry should refer to the fact that it is a reconstructed form. Heorotlives (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What critics? PIE has been almost universally accepted for at least a century or two. The only debates are about details of the reconstructions, not about whether PIE exists. As for the fact it's a reconstruction, that's what the * is for. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

whoa, steady on. Your ignorance of the critics somewhat casts doubt on your authority to edit these articles. PIE is a fairytale. You might as well ascribe ultimate origin to esperanto. PIE has definitely not been accepted for a century or two - big fail for you I'm afraid. Heorotlives (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? So far all you've given me are vague assertions that don't match my own experience at all: I've read widely in the etymological literature, I've taken courses at a university in the subject (I have a degree in linguistics), and I've yet to hear of any serious opposition in the last century or so. There are lots of debates as to details- but not as to the validity of PIE. Having looked at cognate sets in dozens of languages, I can't see how one can explain the correspondences other than as inheritance from a common ancestral language, and I don't see how one could reconstruct anything all that different from what we know as PIE. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that PIE hasn't been accepted, but any rejection of PIE is definitely waaaay out of the mainstream. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The point I am making is aptly illustrated in your response further down to another user regarding the Bulgarian/Thracian issue. You rightly note that it is not logical to assume there is a link between the two words given there is a thousand year gap in the 2 written records. For PIE we have zero written records, only a construct. Yet in the case discussed here, you have no qualms in ascribing a reconstructed form "kʷis" for "τί". That particular reconstruction evidently relates to the "que", "what" etc. However, I don't see how this form can explain "τί"? It "may" explain ancient Greek "έφατ" but there are some spectacular acrobatics required to explain "τί". I appreciate there is a whole PIE industry on the web that somehow has to justify its theories, however it should not be a panacea. For words such as this it should be sufficient to refer to an ancient Greek origin without feeling the need to ascribe a hypothetical proto-origin when this may equally have been in the Near East, the Steppe, Central Asia or why not all the way back to the Rift Valley. If you "must" fit a reconstructed PIE root here then at least find something plausible. I am sure you are familiar with the scientific debate regarding the supposed PIE homeland - I imagine it is of great significance into how word forms such as these evolved. There may not be a common origin in all cases.

There use to be a written disclaimer about these reconstructed forms. Does that still exist? It should. Heorotlives (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue of PIE labiovelars in Greek (as elsewhere) is complicated and not all that tidy, but there are definite patterns: a labio-velar followed by e or i usually becomes a dental ([[τε],τετράς,τί), followed by u (and sometimes i) becomes a plain velar, otherwise becomes a labial. This isn't all speculation, either. In Mycenaean Greek they consistently show up with the same series of syllabic characters which are different from the dental, plain velar and labial series, and there's some dialectal evidence. I wish I had time to go into it in detail, but it would require some research and I have to get ready for work. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, not tidy at all, a supposedly original form that could be anything. Interesting your allusion to the methodology used depending on reconstructing "τι" through its Mycenaean form? Is it attested in any of the tablets? If so, then it should be included in the entry. To define as "ultimately from PIE" is odd. I must say having browsed around Wiktionary for a bit now, it is evident that PIE is entrenched in IE language etymologies - so it does now seem a bit pointless debating a minor entry. I think my objections are more fundamental. Your point about Mycenaean is exactly right - the whole project would be enriched immensely by ancient Greek entries referring back to LinearB. PIE has numerous issues that need to be resolved before it is used so extensively as a catch-all for ancient etymologies and gives a somewhat artificial feel to the whole thing.. Heorotlives (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Need typo in lemma title fixed[edit]

Sorry, I entered the name of this lemma incorrectly. It should be "intsityupai" and NOT "insityupai". I try to check carefully every time I create a new page, but I missed this one. Emi-Ireland (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can move pages yourself: there's a menu to the right of "edit" and "history" at the top of the page that includes an option for moving. The only difference between when you do it and I do it is that when you do it, it leaves a redirect at the old spelling, but I can do it without leaving anything there. If you move something and want the redirect deleted, just add the {{delete}} template with an explanation as the only parameter ({{d}} will work, too), and one of the admins will delete it for you. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian аз[edit]

You have reverted the sourced information about the etymology of the word for a second time and replaced it with an unsourced claim. If you do this again, it might be construed as vandalism. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "source" is a website that resolves to a DNS error. I've looked at an archived snapshot of it at the Wayback Macine , and the only relevant part is: "asn - 'I, me' , [IE *eg'hom, Lit. aš 'I, me']." This documents that the Thracian word existed, but it doesn't make any link to the Bulgarian one. Given that we know next to nothing about the Thracian language or its history, and that there's a thousand-year-plus gap between the ancient word lists and the earliest attestation of Bulgarian, the really crucial parts of your etymology aren't sourced at all.
As for whether reverting you "might be construed as vandalism"- construe away! Your threat is the kind of empty bluff typical of someone who knows they have nothing to back them up on substance. I'm an admin here with a degree in linguistics and over 47,000 Wiktionary edits, and you're some anonymous person with all of 30 Wiktionary edits, a quarter of which consist of edit-warring with several contributors over this one etymology.
Let me turn your threat around: if you continue to replace the current plausible etymology with your wildly implausible, inadequately-sourced etymology, I won't construe it as vandalism, but I will definitely block you. If you want to make an issue of it, take it up at the Etymology scriptorium, but I doubt you'll get much better of a response there. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nike dispute[edit]

The Apple definition contains Apple Inc. you know. Why cannot Nike have the same thing? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

chuck how do you get people to be on your talk page? Playfulkitten238 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Playfulkitten238


I have made a statement there that I think is almost always true about taxonomic names. Please express your thoughts. It would be very handy if what I said was always true, as it would focus etymology effort on simply finding the date when a genus was named. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize that the phenomenon I thought I saw was much more an exception than I thought. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

your revert[edit]

Hi Chuck, you reverted me 9 months ago. I didnt get the automated revert message, because I didnt have a talk page on wiktionary. you could have welcomed me and created one, but for some reason you chose not to. I just started the wiktionary talk page and got the revert message!

I dont know if you used some automated instrument it doesnt show. But its clear that you didnt look at my edit, before you reverted, because you wouldnt have reverted it. I am a veteran editor on wikipedia (if you care to check). I am no vandal.

Would you be so kind to CORRECT the edit with me, so I can learn ? This was my edit:

From the Indogermanic root mo- = to be strong willed, to strive intensely for something > Germanic. moda-, mōþa-, mōþaz, mōda-, mōdaz = Sense, courage, anger > Old High German (althochdeutsch) muot = power of thought, feeling, will, soul, spirit, mind.[1][2]

There appears to be a different referencing system on wictionary. Clearly, my edit wants to be constructive /helpful. I am reaching out to you to be helpful too. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The revert wasn't because I thought the edit was vandalism or in bad faith- there were just too many things wrong with it and I didn't have time to explain. You need to realize that we have far fewer admins here, so we can't provide anywhere near the same level of warnings, procedural notes and other messages that you're used to at Wikipedia. We're lucky if we can deal with all the vandalism on a given day, let alone provide helpful information on the talk pages of everyone who makes a bad edit
We have a very specific format for etymologies, using our own templates, and most of the templates we have in common work differently here. If you had looked at other entries you would have seen that we always start from the present and work back, using the {{etyl}} template to display the language names. This standardizes our language names (what you called Indogermanic we call Proto-Indo-European, which has a language code of "ine-pro") and automatically categorizes the entry (see mood for an example).
There was also the matter of giving an etymology for the German word Gemüt in the entry for the English borrowing of the derived term Gemütlichkeit, when we don't even have an etymology at Gemüt.
More critically, the {{cite web}} template doesn't work here the way you thought it did, so there were error messages (as there are here), which should have tipped you off that something was wrong. It would seem, though, that you just clicked Save and didn't bother to look at the result. I will add our standard welcome template to your talk page- please read through the links and familiarize yourself with how we do things here. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Could you please explain why you have reverted my edit? Given that the etymology, meaning, and quotations I gave are based on the entry for the word given in the complete Oxford English Dictionary (second edition, 1989). Coolmoon9 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"the action of the verb..." doesn't belong in an etymology, and we don't use line numbers there, either. Also, anything from 1400 is Middle English, which we treat as a separate language, unlike the OED. The same goes for Scots. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, understood, and thanks for taking the time to reply. I may go back and re-do my contribution in line with what you wrote. Coolmoon9 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Arawakan languages all have zero entries[edit]

It appears that Arawakan languages listed on this page: have no entries, when actually some of them do (Wauja does, for instance). Am I misreading this page? Thanks. Emi-Ireland (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The entries are in the subcategories (or their subcategories etc). Only entries and categories that are in Category:Arawakan_languages itself appear in the listings. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
See, for example, Category:Chamicuro lemmas. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How should I handle bound morphemes?[edit]

The Wauja language has a category of nouns that MUST have possessive prefixes. In the etymology for the noun otukaka, I treated the bound morpheme as a suffix, -tukaka) (It's on this page: I wanted to prefix the bound morpheme with a hyphen to show that this morpheme requires a prefix.

I now realize that's no good. Such bound morphemes normally occur in only one lemma (that is inflected into several non-lemma forms). Example, "my brother," "your brother," "our brother," etc. Each of these examples is one word in Wauja. In Wauja, the morpheme for "brother" never appears as a standalone word. It's a bound morpheme. Should I simply remove the bound morpheme otukaka from the affix template in the Etymology section, and add -otukaka using the gloss template? Thanks for your advice. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specifiedKöbler, Gerhard (2014), , URL accessed on 2-7-2014.
  2. ^ Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specifiedHjalmar Falk, Alf Torp (1979), , Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. URL accessed on 2-7-2014.