User talk:Chuck Entz

Archives:

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Note

Please add new messages at the bottom.

Welcome

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)

---

Mass-protecting pages

Hello. I've seen that you've spent quite some time protecting a big batch of pages. I just wanted to tell you that I could in the future write a script for that (once I have the necessary rights) so that you don't need to do all that tedious work manually. The protection API is documented here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Protect Just reach out to me! Fytcha (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It turned out it was worthwhile, because I moved one. BTW, sorry about that, I was a bit drunk last night. I was this close to going on a vandalism spree, but managed to control myself. Br00pVain (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A question regarding the admin tools

I've noticed that some of the preset reasons overlap to some degree:

• Page deletions have both "No usable content given" as well as "Vandalism" (say someone creates a page with "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa")
• Revision deletions have both "Inappropriate personal information" as well as "Potentially libelous" (say someone writes something bad about "Chuck Entz")
• Blocks have both "Adding nonsense/gibberish" as well as "Vandalism"

I take it it doesn't matter much which ones I use in these cases, right? Fytcha (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: The preset reasons can't possibly cover everything, so just try for the best fit. I personally don't like to block people for "Vandalism", because I believe interactions with vandals should be as boring as possible. Such people like to think of themselves as evil geniuses like a James Bond supervillain, or clever tricksters outsmarting the normals, like Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd. Calling them "vandals" gives them too much of an antihero mystique. Anything I can do to drain the fun and excitement out of vandalism is worth it in my book. I hide edits a lot more than anyone else, because I would prefer not to leave souvenirs in the edit histories for the vandals.

I'm not saying you should do things my way. Find what's right for you. We all have our own strengths and interests. The main thing is to keep a level head and be as calm and as even-handed as possible. Not only does it help to be fair to sincere contributors, it also frustrates those who push your buttons to make you react for the feeling of power it gives them. You also need to be philosophical about your limits: no matter how good you are, there's always a certain amount that gets by you. It's not at all unheard of for things that should have been reverted or deleted 18 years ago to turn up with nothing but bots in the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's some good advice; I will keep it in mind, especially the part about making vandalism as boring as possible. Fytcha (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

About Botero surname

Hi Chuck. I noticed that I got blocked from editing botero in Wiktionary in English. I know I made a mistake when trying to edit this page a few days ago, as I was still new in Wikipedia.

Now, I have learned how to use the editing tools better. How can I get unblocked? I already edited some Wikipedia articles on surname Botero, which is of Italian origin, in English, Spanish and Italian languages (same spelling but different meaning in Spanish, which doesn't correspond to the actual surname). Could I add/ edit some information to Wiktionary regarding this surname too?

I appreciate your kind feedback and value your expertise.

Thank you very much. --Diego Botero P. (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Numbers

Hey Chuck. Can I just mass-nuke these tvö hundruð, iki yüz and similar ones? WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals says so but I'm a bit unsure, seeing that they've been here as entries for the better part of a decade (or even longer). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a Dalek

but I have to ask you to explain. I do indeed think that your roleback is in error, because I was effectively arguing your party line. If you think I expressed myself poorly, I would appreciate if you could summarize thebargument in fewerbwords without all the subjective tangents; I can not. ApisAzuli (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't summarize something that I can't understand. As far as I can see it was a string of isolated fragments bearing no relation to what was being discussed or to each other. You even seem to be having trouble hitting the space bar without hitting the letter keys next to it. Are you okay? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I'm Yahya (CentralAuth). I recently found a lot of pages that use the magic word PAGENAME or FULLPAGENAME directly. These should be substituted. Can you please grant the flood flag to my alternative account User:YahyaBot so that I can substitute all of those magic words without flooding RC? This account has bot flag on bpywiki. Regards, Yahya (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yahya: You really should discuss this at the Grease pit. These range from simple things like [pagename].ogg to improperly substituted declension templates. I'm afraid that mass substitution of everything will just cure the symptom and leave the disease untreated. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit removed

Hi Chuck, I see you reverted my edit on quotations for Maskhole. I have to clearly state that this reversion is incorrect. But the problem arises that as the inventor of the term to show any prior reference is impossible. I had hoped that you would understand from the secondary pun explanation (btw, a pun is 'a play upon words' and not necessarily funny, although most puns are designed to be amusing) how I came to invent the term and its multiple intended meanings. --10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)~~

You don't understand. We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage. It doesn't matter who invented it, the question is: is it in use? Quotes should give an idea of how the term is being used. Except yours wasn't really a quote. It was more just you explaining how clever you were.

As for whether you indeed invented the term: I'm sure you did, but you may not be the only one, or even the first. I con't tell you how many times I've seen people post on entry talk pages to explain how they and their buddies came up with a given term back when they were in high school. At least half the time, it was easy to find usage on Google from years before that. In this case there's a very tight time window, so that may not be possible. Still, when you have hundreds of millions of speakers, the odds of multiple people independently coming up with the same word or phrase is actually fairly high. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the basis for your argument, but since I sent it to several late show writers after inventing it, I know I was first. But here we see the difference between Wiktionary and a real dictionary, which usually attempts to determine the roots and origin of a word. The example you give of high school buddies is specious (see definition 2 in wiktionary). But I also know it is fruitless when an editor makes up their mind. have a nice day. 13:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)~ Zyzzy1 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit ya! Equinox ◑ 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, a cursory look through the results at google books:"maskhole" finds instances earlier than 2020. Most of these appear to be of a sense like "hole in a mask", presumably for a stencil or similar application, but I did also find this BBC publication from 1993 mentioning the 1986 song "Catcheel Maskhole" by The Nose Flutes, where the meaning is likely related to asshole. Album info here, which (for me at least) also includes an embedded YouTube player with "Catcheel Maskhole" as one of the videos to play.

(Incidentally, most of the returned books don't appear to actually include the search term "maskhole". If anyone knows how to get Google to stop returning such non-hits, I'm all ears.)

A quick-and-dirty search of the wider internet for hits finds this submission to the Collins Dictionary from January 5, 2020, so it's clear that this word, even with this specific pandemic-related sense, was coined before February 2020. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(I am not the same person as above.) There's no way that is from January 5. It's from May 1. Most people in the West did not even know about the novel coronavirus on January 5, 2020. Compare Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_January_2020#5_January. The very first confirmed case in the US was January 20, 2020. Masks certainly weren't widely used or recommended by the CDC until months later.

Also, if you look at other suggestion pages on the Collins site, the first number in the date format can go up to 30, which implies they're using DD/MM/YYYY. 70.175.192.217 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@70.175.192.217: Thanks for the check! I really flipping hate non-ISO date formats, precisely because of the very ambiguity I stumbled upon here. Wherever I've encountered XX/YY/ZZZZ date formats recently, these usually have the XX as the day, and YY as the month. For smaller values of XX and YY, it's impossible to tell with any certainty which is which. I vastly prefer the ISO standard YYYY-MM-DD -- no ambiguity, and dates even collate correctly.

The timeline of the pandemic is interesting, but by no means conclusive with regard to the appearance of the relevant sense of maskhole -- there are English speakers in places that have been wearing masks for various reasons for quite some time, such as the various countries of East Asia, and it is not impossible that someone may have coined the term pre-COVID. Without confirmable textual evidence, we can't say -- same as for Zyzzy1 above.

At any rate, that still leaves us with the 1986 song title instance of uncertain meaning, and the older instances pertaining to holes in stencils and other masks. The previous existence of the term maskhole, the behavior of various people with regard to masks, and the obvious rhyming overlap with asshole, all combine to make the pandemic-related sense a near inevitability. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with the point about it being an inevitable development and likely independently invented multiple times. I just enjoying going down random tangents of research like this.

On that note, it's possible to find people on Twitter who used "maskhole" to refer to "an asshole in a mask" before 2020: [1]. Zooming forward, if you look at tweets prior to May 1, you can already see both pandemic-specific senses developing. I do think it would be really hard to find a quotation for anyone using "maskhole" to refer to a person who does not wear a mask prior to 2020, but I can't really prove a negative. Maybe in a surgical context or something. Other than that there was never really a social norm in favor of wearing masks in Anglophone countries, AFAIK. (It won't let me post Twitter links, so I used Nitter.) Btw, there's a Usenet use combining "mask" and "asshole" from 2001: [2] (but not really in either of the modern senses). 70.175.192.217 06:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for help

Hey, if you will, can you help me with this module?--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@BandiniRaffaele2 I'm afraid I'm not able to help you. I've spent a lot of time over the years patrolling CAT:E, so I have a general feel for how things can go wrong, and I use my knowledge of basic troubleshooting techniques and general programming background to figure out where the problem is. Once I find it, though, I give the information I've found to someone who knows Lua, because I've never written anything in the language. I don't know enough about the details of how Lua does things to work with the code. I make a point of never editing modules unless the fix is so obvious I already know it will work, and then only when things are bad enough that anything is better than the current state.

In this case, there were 143 module errors, 19 of which I had been looking at the day before, so there more than 120 new ones. Spot-checking showed that they all had the same error in the same module, which had just been created, and the code to invoke it had just been added to the template. I looked at the module and could see that it still had @Benwing2's documentation for another module in the comments, so it was obvious that you hadn't gone through the code in any systematic way.

When the module errors from your module cleared, I discovered a new and unrelated error that no one had spotted because of all of your errors. That's why it's so important to fix these things right away. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

To summarize, the problem is that BR2 copied the module for Italian pronunciation, and then removed several variable and function definitions. The interpreter therefore complains that the missing variables are not defined. You can't expect stuff to still work after removing large chunks, without removing references thereto.

IMO, starting from such a complicated foundation (1000+ lines!) may not be the best idea anyway. Then again, if Romagnol's orthography/pronunciation is similar to that of standard Italian, then I can see the appeal of code reuse. You have to familiarize yourself to some extent with the existing codebase if you do that, though. 70.175.192.217 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In any way, thanks. Yes, I've chosen the it-pronunciation Module because Romagnol pronunciation is very close to Italian, despite some differences.--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:BandiniRaffaele2

I think you didn't intend to delete everything else there, right? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Right. I have a 4-day work schedule, so I tend to be a bit thick-headed on Fridays until I catch up on my sleep. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

diff needs to be hidden

This diff contains personal information that needs to be hidden from view. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Again here: diff, some NSFW stuff. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2603:7081:802:7F4B:A11D:81FD:D019:6306 —Svārtava (t/u) • 08:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudos from Taxacom

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail on Taxacom e-mail list:

"As such, I would never recommend this resource [Tropicos] to a zoological taxonomist who was interested in gender agreement.

"Honestly, a taxonomist needing guidance can do better looking things up in Wiktionary, which - despite a distinct small percentage of errors and omissions - is *generally* pretty reliable in giving exactly the sorts of details needed to adhere to the Code."

The author is Rafaël Govaerts. I don't know which Wiktionary(ies) he is talking about (English, French, German, etc), but it is encouraging that such an authority would recommend Wiktionary for any taxonomic purpose. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest putting " […] *generally* pretty reliable" […] as our new slogan. Probably the only positive review we've had since this guy from Nigeria. Br00pVain (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Br00pVain: "Nigeria"? Who knows? They're now blocked globally as an open proxy. That means anyone can take over the internet connection remotely and no one will be able to tell where the edits are really coming from. How do we know that it's not you doing your usual smoke and mirrors? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, Chuck, we admit it was Wonderfool. All the dumb comments on this site are from her. Br00pVain (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

IMPNFHU

This user is back with their nonsensical and unsourced edits, promoting Punjabi as an etymon. They never do source their additions and when asked, provide unconvincing claims and assertions. Recently, it has been done at Special:History/ਪਿਓ and they've obviously violated the rule to not revert beyond 3 edits in an edit war, despite the RFV-etym discussion Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/December#पिउ (which they didn't even take part in despite being pinged, let alone providing sources). They have also done it a lot of times before also, starting all the way since their early edits. As you are a previously involved admin, I request a mainspace-wide block for the (numerous) offences committed (removing sourced etymologies, promoting Punjabi as etymon, edit warring, removing Old Punjabi valid sourced content, etc.) till now. Thanks. —Svārtava ^[t•u•r] 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello. Can you please check RecentChanges and block the vandal? Thanks. 70.172.194.25 02:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for not mentioning their user name. This particular person likes to show off their alleged cleverness at making up offensive user names as well a their vandalism. I find it's better to remove all trace of their actions, edit summaries and user name so they have nothing to show for their efforts.

Then there's someone who creates a user name impersonating me or someone they believe is associated with me based on online research they've done. Then they revert one of my edits to get my attention and do some kind of low-grade vandalism using the impersonation account. They just did the revert, so I'm sure they'll do the rest in the next day or so.

They don't realize how that makes them look: like someone reduced to following someone else around and feeding off of their reactions like a leech. I wonder: if nobody noticed, would they shrivel up and die? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I also think vandalism-only accounts especially those impersonating should be hidden. There is one more account name which needs hiding IMO. —Svārtava ^[t•u•r] 16:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. They showed up with the a trivial variation on the expected impersonation and did the expected vandalism, right on schedule. Not very creative. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Are all these imposters (like the recent one) accounts of the same user? If so, wouldn't it be best to block their IP range by your check user tools so that they can not edit with any sockpuppet? —Svārtava (t/u) • 08:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for addition to Template:inflection of

Hi - I wanted to request the addition of the term "sigmatic" to Template:inflection of. This relates to two archaic senses found in Old Latin: the sigmatic future and sigmatic aorist. It's also in use in Ancient Greek, though that isn't my area. This would go under the "sound changes" category in the documentation, as it involves the addition of an "s" sound just before the ending (e.g. adempsit, faxo, turbassitur).

My suggestion would be to add the shortcuts sigm and sig. Many thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrator User:Vininn126's rollbacks don't patrol

Hello Chuck. As above, reverted diffs such as this one appear in my patrol queue, I also have the button to patrol it: https://imgur.com/ULZvmnG. Any idea why that is? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, someone's gotta keep me in line. Vininn126 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: That's because he used the "undo" tool to revert it rather than "rollback". The latter marks the reverted edit as patrolled while the former does not. That's why. —Svārtava (t/u) • 01:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: Right. No idea how I missed that. Thanks! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 07:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Samuel

Samuel as is šamu + el has the etymology outlined on Wikipedia proper with šamu meaning god as in heaven or the (upper) sky and el meaning high (the word el for god also meant high, similar to how sometime is your highness in English). 137.205.1.99 14:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ozokha

The above user made the same edits on two pages as Sarawon, which I reverted following your previous reverts. If this is indeed sock-puppetry, a block might be warranted. —Svārtava (t/u) • 15:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No surprise there. Blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove edit on 也

I do think there's an error when you removed the edit. Like I said in the summary, I looked at multiple sources that basically confirmed my changes. I actually wonder if there's not a confusion between Chinese and Japanese. Indeed, in Chinese, 也 can mean "also" and "too" (like it is shown in the article) but I saw no sources mentioning it in Japanese. If you have some sources that contradict it, could you please link them? 176.149.105.74 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not "sources". The proper thing to do would have been to tag the sense with {{rfv-sense|ja}} and post it on Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English so that others can look for evidence of usage. If there isn't usage that meets our Criteria for inclusion, it will be deleted. While you obviously are concerned about the accuracy of the dictionary and you certainly know the language far better than I do, you shouldn't be unilaterally removing content (other than obvious vandalism, of course) without consulting the community of people who work with the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic articles

Hi there Chuck Entz, I was just wondering if there was a possibility to mass add "Request for translation" on a mass load of articles so I can then go and add an Assyrian translation. I am trying to add as many Assyrian articles for as many words as possible and it would really help me.

Regards, Antonklroberts (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Antonklroberts I'm not sure I understand. Why do you need a request added? You can find all the entries with translation boxes by searching for "insource:Translations". There are 125,546 of them. Mass-adding requests would result in a request category with the same 125,546 entries.

At any rate, I don't have a bot, so I can't help you. You might ask at the WT:Grease pit, but I don't think anyone would want to use a bot for that. Perhaps you need some sort of a list, which someone could generate from the dumps. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, don’t know how to message u sorry

Hey I’m actually Native American and Hispanic and study biotechnology and dna, some history as well and just wanted to add to it. Seemed like a lot of people didn’t know where the word came from or meant and the context of where it originated. I’m new here sorry if this isn’t the right way to message u Historical.Intellect (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Historical.Intellect: Except you're wrong. The usage by bigots is simply based on applying the n-word to anyone they don't like (pretty much everybody that's not them). There's no historical background to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 61

Can you show me Abuse Filter 61: Prevent new entries for numerals>100. I want to apply it on thwikt too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 I started out with a crude version that does math on the titles of new pages in mainspace to see if they evaluate to a number > 100, but I never developed it beyond that. I left it so it only tags edits to see how it works on real edits, and forgot about it. Before making a real filter out of it I would need to think through how I would want it to respond to the user, and what policy page(s) to link to. Looking through the logs just now I noticed a case where the entry title is made up only of digits, but the POS and definition are not those for a number- something that should definitely be allowed. I changed the description of the filter so it won't give the impression that it actually does anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind.--Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Rollbacking rights

Hello. Could you make me a rollbacker? Since I edit using mobile, reverting edits is sort of a nightmare for me: I need to switch to desktop mode to be able to compare selected revisions. Sometimes I even bungle at the job. As a rollbacker, I guess I have to report every single vandalistic edit at WT:VIP? If that’s required of me, then I’ll do so. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support, satisfied with the reverts; but I don't want to go through all of them, so consider getting back your autopatroller right -- just get over the fact that a vote of mine which you opposed passed. —Svārtava (t/u) • 05:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If that’s the case, then I cancel my self-nomination in the interest of patrollers’ wellbeing. Editors being able to edit locked pages should belong to a separate group: I’m not against that proposal itself, but bestowing that privilege on autopatrollers (which is a different group) is wrongheaded. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to discourage you, but the list of rollbackers says that all rollbackers are autopatrollers. I have really no idea how it bothers you so badly that you don't want it back (most autopatrollers just don't even care about this, not they need to). —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Userpage abuse filter

Currently if a new user or anon creates their userpage, the edit is tagged as "new-user-page" but I'm seriously thinking it should be made a bit more strict (e.g. allowing only autoconfirmed users to create them, disallow such creations otherwise of the creator is not autoconfirmed) so as to reduce creations of meaningless/trash pages; and becoming autoconfirmed is no big deal anyway, so this would no way stop real contributors from having their page. As someone who has done plenty of work with abuse filters, what do you think? —Svārtava (t/u) • 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A resignation

Please revoke my administrator privileges. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

While you're at it, you can revoke my privileges too. Notusbutthem (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Romanophile:  Done. Sorry to see you go, but we're all volunteers here. I left you the way you were before you became an admin, as an autopatroller and a rollbacker. You may not plan to use the rollbacker tool, but it doesn't hurt to leave you with it on the off chance you might stumble across the odd bit of vandalism. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation. It’s still far below the compensation that I need for the damage that this community has caused me over the years—memories that trigger rumination and mood swings almost daily—but we all know that I’ll never get what I want if I ask for more.

As for my future participation… perhaps you can predict my involvement by analysing my activity this year. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 11:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fumiko

Hello Chuck, pursuant to the email discussion thread, I've noticed Fumiko continuing to edit prolifically, even modules, as with this edit (since reverted).

I think I just changed the permissions at Module:ja-pron to prevent Fumiko from editing this anonymously.

I'd appreciate it greatly if you could implement some way of at least preventing them from mucking about with the template and module infrastructure, as a whole.

(Pinging @Fish bowl for visibility.)

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:etyl cleanup/en/LANG

Would it be possible to have an exhaustive list for all languages instead of a selected few? And I see that creating Category:etyl cleanup/en/de, for instance, doesn’t bring forth the required list of entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: the language-specific categories are controlled by lists hard-coded into the {{etyl}} template itself, which I'd rather not mess with. You can, however, get the same list by using insource:"etyl\|de\|en\|" in the search box. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the searching tip, it will suffice for the time being— but I still prefer to get all language-specific categories. So do you know anyone who could attempt to achieve that? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I, too, used to believe that male cattle exist. But unlike you, I eventually realized it isn’t true. It turns out these things are nothing more than cartoon tropes done out of ignorance. The truth is, the chances of a male cow being born are the same as the chances of a male calico cat being born. Every time you refer to a cow as ‘he’, the only reason it isn’t saying “Excuse me, I’m a ‘she’” is because it doesn’t have the vocal chords required to do so. Male cows don’t exist in the same way male calico cats don’t exist — they are a biological impossibility. The “AnimalGenderBender” page on TV Tropes even mentions that male cows are unrealistic: “ You might not know it from the way they're portrayed in fiction, but farm cows and bulls are the same species, just different sexes. How about only female mosquitoes drinking blood? Or that female lions lack manes? Or only male cardinals are red? Or that it's male peafowl, not females, which are vividly colored and have trains? Animal Gender Bender is when all members of an animal species are shown to have a well-known attribute of that species, but in Real Life, only the male or female normally has it. So you end up with male cows, male blood-drinking mosquitoes, female lions with manes, red female cardinals, and female peacocks, as well as male goats with udders, male bees with stingers, female moose with antlers, spotless female snowy owls, female roosters, male kangaroos with pouches, female rams, colorful female betta fish with long fins, and so on. Prehistoric and extinct animals aren't immune either; many times you'll see a "female" Pteranodon with a long crest. Barring the theory that perhaps these characters are meant to be transgender, intersex, or otherwise an anomaly of some sort, it's best to assume that this is pure artistic license.”

I guess you and I both watched too much Back at the Barnyard growing up, huh? --172.58.27.160 01:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem a little confused about terminology: "cattle" is used refer to both males and females, bulls and cows. At any rate, there's a difference between the word "cow" and the animal of the species Bos taurus. The word in its strictest sense refers only to the female of Bos taurus, but is also often used to refer to an individual of Bos taurus whose gender isn't specified. That's because there's no obvious alternative: "cattle" is a plural, so "a cattle" sounds wrong, and other words like beef are rare or regional, while "bovine" sounds more technical. There's a long history of words for animals changing their meanings over time: "pig" and "chicken" used to refer strictly to the young of those species. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As for the animal, I've never had any illusion about their genders. I read a lot about animals as a kid, back in the 60's, and I knew the difference between cows and bulls.

And as for "Back at the Barnyard": I saw the commercials for the original movie and thought that showing a bull with udders was a really stupid idea. As a single, middle-aged adult I had no reason to see a children's cartoon, so I ignored it and forgot about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Simple request

Could you please blank the page Wiktionary:Todo/Incorrect derivation templates so I can replace it with a regenerated list? It won't let me remove that much content at once, and I don't want to just lazily comment out the previous content, because the page size is already large and after adding the updated list it would be about twice as big. 70.172.194.25 19:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 70.172.194.25 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you do it again? Again, much appreciated. 70.172.194.25 02:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I wrote the filter that's blocking you from doing it yourself, so it's only fair. We used to have a problem with random IPs coming in and blanking forums and various policy pages. You can't completely prevent such things, but it's not as much fun if they have to do it just the right way to avoid tripping the filter- and draining all the fun out it is half the battle. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

While I was at it, I added a check for your current /24 range, so you should be exempt from the filter from now on. No one has ever done logged-out vandalism from that range, and I put the check last so the processor-time use should be negligible. It's the least I can do. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I cant edit my user page or talk page

It says I'm doing that thing with the v in it but I. Not doing it can I be fixed Peyton pppppp (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Warning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful.

Unconstructive edits will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked. If you believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it.

A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: probably vandalism. If you believe your edit was flagged in error, you may report it on the Wiktionary:Grease pit.

But I'm not typing like that

@Peyton pppppp: your user name looks to the filter like vandalism (all those repeated letters). I've implemented a workaround, though I'm not 100% sure it will work. Try again. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a new account and it works

Reverted edit on word 'caveat'

Hi. Okkult here, who removed the 'Spanish' section on the word 'caveat'. I'm curious to see whether you found an example of its use in Spanish. There's no dictionary entry for 'caveat' in Spanish nor could I find an example brought up in online context dictionaries. I personally agree that, should it be adopted in Spanish, it would likely be a loan from English since it's the lingua franca. Nonetheless, the English term bears no additional meaning that it's Spanish equivalents 'advertencia' and 'salvedad' don't already do. Perhaps that's the reason why the word hasn't been borrowed yet. Is there a citation or an inclusion criteria that requires a Spanish entry for this word?

Cheers, Okkult (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Okkult See our Criteria for inclusion. We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not on other dictionaries. It may be rare, but it can be found in running Spanish text on Google Books. Even if there wasn't any usage, the proper way to get it removed is to tag the entry with {{rfv|es}} ("es" is the language code for Spanish), and (preferably) post an explanation on Requesrs for verification/Non-English. People would look for usage and remove it if they don't find any. I always cringe when I see someone removing an entry because something "doesn't exist"- we cover all historical periods of all languages everywhere that we have evidence for, and no one knows everything about even their own language. By the way, caveat is originally a Latin word, so it could just as easily be borrowed directly from there rather than from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for changing the "Rhinos" category to "Rhinoceroses" in entries, and sorry I had to leave it midway after finishing the English ones since it was late night. —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: after all the stuff I've done with categories over the years, I have a system all worked out, with tabbed browsing, copypasting and keyboard shortcuts, so it didn't take long at all. I figured it would be easier for me than for anyone else. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The plural of macuahuitl

The plural of macuahuitl is macuahuimeh. Macuahuitl is a Nahuatl word and follows that language's pluralization rules. Words that end in -tl get the suffix -meh when pluralized, e.g. axolotl --> axolomeh. "Macuahuitls" is a misapplication of English pluralization rules onto a non-English word. I concede that in the case of axolotl, the word is a loanword that has been adopted into English and therefore axolotls is an acceptable construction. This is absolutely not the case for macuahuitl, which is not at all assimilated into modern English. I hope you can agree that the use of the template {{en-noun}} is not proper and my change to {{nci-noun}} should be reinstated. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: {{nci-noun}} can only be used in Classical Nahuatl entries because it adds the categories Category:Classical Nahuatl nouns and Category:Classical Nahuatl lemmas instead of Category:English nouns and Category:English lemmas. In addition, anything it links to is linked with "#Classical Nahuatl" appended, so it goes to the Classical Nahuatl section rather than English.

I also have my doubts about which plural is actually used in English, but I haven't had time to look in Google for "macahuitls" vs. "macuahuimeh", and there is also the matter of whether "macuahuimeh" (or "macahuitl" for that matter) is English or code-switching. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, so my mistake was to use it in the #English section of that page, rather than the Nahuatl section? (I am clearly not a regular here.) If that's the case, then would it not be appropriate to use {{nci-noun}} in the latter section (which it currently does not)? The page in question is already a member of Category:Classical Nahuatl nouns and Category:Classical Nahuatl lemmas. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: {{nci-noun}} is fine for the Classical Nahuatl section as long as you use it correctly (though I probably wouldn't be able to tell either way- my knowledge of Uto-Aztecan grammar pretty much stops at the US/Mexico border). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks for the pointers. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Tawellemmet tamajeq Language code

On the page ؽ, why is Tawellemmet tamajeq language code (ttq) not working? Can you please try to ask someone to fix it? --ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@ImprovetheArabicUnicode: It looks like we only recognize Tuareg with the language code tmh, but I'm not that familiar with the Berber languages. You need to ask about this at the Beer parlour. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible socks?

Both Dryvun and Gornorps were created minutes ago, and seem like the same user (?). —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That's one possibility, but it's not enough to act on- yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

filter 7 - New L2

Hello. I hope you can help.

When I add a new language section (Ukrainian) to an existing page, with the inflection of a Verb/Noun etc linked to an existing table on another page, fiter 7/ new L2 shows up on the abuse log.

This happens even when I can see no mistake anywhere. Could you please explain in simple terms what I am doing wrong?

Here is the latest, as an example...

10:29, 22 May 2022: DaveyLiverpool (talk | contribs) triggered filter 7, performing the action "edit" on принесла. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: new L2 (examine | diff)

(I am creating these individual entries to make searching/navigation more obvious for users of a language-learning site which uses those words.) DaveyLiverpool (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

DaveyLiverpool (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@DaveyLiverpool: You're not doing anything wrong. The filter is just tagging the edit as one by a relatively new account that is probably adding a new language section to an entry. It gives patrollers more information for deciding whether to examine the edit in more detail. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. Thank you very much for the reply. DaveyLiverpool (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Sneed

Stay away from that article, Chuck. It's Sneed's Feed & Sneed now. Your Fuck & Suck is gone. 212.230.119.110 23:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the article is for sneed, not Sneed. Second, your "Sneed's Feed & Seed" (if it really exists) has nothing to do with the places or people named "Sneed". This is a dictionary, not a collection of references to some joke you saw somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Sun porch image

I think a image of a sun porch is helpful for the Wiktionary entry. I think the edit reverting my image addition is in error.ScientistBuilder (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your work, as long as you don't end up doing things like this. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, I didn't want to draw attention to this but can you please take care of the user who edited reception? Requires edit history suppression. Thanks. 70.172.194.25 04:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The recent vandal edit at (history) coworker also needs hiding (and if it's a sock of the previous vandal, could you IP-block them?). —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava When I blocked all their IPs recently, I was expecting something like this. Anyone who's determined enough and has even a moderate technical background can figure out ways to get around IP range blocks. This is someone whose sole motivation is ego gratification from showing they can do things people don't want them to do- it's sort of like a competition for them. Putting a lot of effort into shutting them down just motivates them more. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Daha ( دحي)

There is a verse in Quran, regarding دحا الأرض.

Chuck entz edited that it means " to make earth like an egg " from Almaany dictionary.

I want to know why Almaany dictionary has stated this explaination?? In Egyptian Arabic دحی means an egg , not in Modern fusha. The original Arabic and the Egyptian Arabic is different. And what is the root word for دحي in Egyptian Arabic?? I want to know about this. Pls help me.

None of the classical interpreters of Quran said that earth is egg shaped. From where Almaany found this explanation!!!???

I want to ask chuck entz that " Do you agree with the explanation of " Egg shaped earth " shown in Almaany??? 58.145.186.241 06:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to link to a specific page so I know what you're talking about. I don't add things like that, so you must be talking about my reverting some edit of yours that removed something. I generally do that when the edit in question is poorly formatted or otherwise wrecks the page- not because I agree with everything on the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding daha( دحا)

Thanks chuck ! For replying. I am sorry for my poor English. I asked you because you are an knowledgeable person on Comparative language study. I want to know these things: 1. Can you inform me about the origin of Egyptian Arabic word " دحي " ( egg ) . Like, I want to know whether this word is influenced by the Coptic language or not. 2. Can we use the Egyptian word " دحي " to mean that earth is eggshaped according to Quran . In Quran, it is stated that " و الأرض بعد ذلك دحاها

Translate: and the earth, after that, he he spread it.

But, some people are translating it as : " and god made the earth eggshaped " .

You know Quranic Arabic and Egyptian Arabic is not the same.so, what is your opinion about their translation. 58.145.187.240 18:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Old templates with lang

I find that, in old templates which historically used |lang= instead of |1= for the language code, there is {{check deprecated lang param usage}} but |lang= is still supported, as far as I know, for the purpose of revision histories. Bits of code like {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{lang|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}, {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}, {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{x|}}}|{{{x+1|}}}}}, etc. are pretty redundant and unneeded now. In this aspect, |lang= seems to be an exceptions which remained: there are lots of templates updates and deletions (as opposed to deprecations), which make previous revisions less readable or sometimes leave even module errors. I would propose that these be cleaned up, what do you think of that? I could make a fresh GP/BP post after the previous (somewhat related) discussion if needed. Thanks, —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dim Blob

Just a FYI; I only now recognized who Special:Contributions/Dim Blob is, and they're someone you've had to deal with before (through both blocks and an even more drastic measure which has now stopped working). I doubt their quality of edits has improved much, but I also cannot find anything immediately blockworthy (although I suspect it won't take too long). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Their IP isn't a geographic fit for any of the targets of my abuse filters. They've made lots of IP edits, sometimes going out onto thin ice with languages they don't know, but they're not someone I would call a serious problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about #117. The behavioral (and circumstantial, albeit possibly inaccurate, geographical) similarity is very striking. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit Protection for Peking

I would like to request edit protection for Peking in anticipation of potential edit warring from Atitarev diff, diff, diff, and diff, diff cf. Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/June#Translations_of_Alternative_Forms. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Please look into this when you get a chance, thanks for all help. It seems like a non-trival, non-frivolous possibility that "Peking" should have a translation box that doesn't reference you back to Beijing (given all the other languages that have used Peking- see Peking). Thanks for any guidance. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

He's an admin- he has access to everything. The only way I could make edit protection work against him would be to desysop him, and there's no way I would do that over something like this. To start with, can you give me one example of a term that's a translation for Peking but not for Beijing, or vice versa? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That discussion is raging wildly on without me since I reached my "four comment limit". It's better this way, trust me! But again, thanks anyway. I have adopted the philosophy that I can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I just can't allow myself to participate in any discussion beyond four comments, or there will be a danger of causing too many problems for myself and others. Again, @Atitarev, I am not against you personally and it's good to get push back from people that don't agree with you. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

ids

I loled. Thanks for fixing the families I never had. "The excessive instinctual demand can threaten the dynamic relationship between the id and the ego and change the ego back into being a portion of the id." Equinox ◑ 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Fumiko redux

They've apparently gone on a kick related to typesetting, as I noticed this morning at Special:Contributions/14.243.207.112. Unfortunately, and as per usual, quite a bit of time-consuming double-checking and cleanup has been required. I've just spent a couple hours on cleanup and only gotten through about a half-dozen of the entries there.

Given this person's persistent lexicographic sloppiness, apparent and self-stated incompetence with Japanese, insistence on ignoring various Wiktionary community standards, and belligerence, I'd like to ask for your assistance in finding some way of range-blocking them -- at least, range-blocking them from editing JA entries and templates. They appear to be alternating through a set of IPv4 addresses starting with 14. This inconsistency of source makes it even more difficult to stay on top of their edits, let alone the sheer volume.

Pinging @Fish bowl for visibility. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Help Request

Hey Chuck Entz. I was accused of making a personal attack, and I would appreciate it if you could give me advice about how to respond/what to do. I am pinging the person in question so they know I'm asking this question: @Meters. Thanks for your time. If there is a more appropriate forum or person to contact, please let me know. I trust you more than anybody, so I'd appreciate any guidance you could provide. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You can retract the false accusation, as I requested. I said I didn't want to be pinged to your talk page, and that I would not reply further, but that does not give you carte blanche to make crap up about my actions. How about this... do not ping me, and do not mention me in your threads, anywhere. You are not doing your chances of ever being unblocked on English Wikipedia any good. Meters (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I need any guidance you can give me Chuck Entz. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

enjoyful

Dear Chuck Entz. I made an edit to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enjoyful#:~:text=enjoyful%20(comparative%20more%20enjoyful%2C%20superlative,%2C%20nonstandard)%20Full%20of%20enjoyment. to make it clear that this is a disputed word since a Japanese teacher of English believes it is a real word based on this page. Would it be possible to include the clarification "Please note: This is a disputed word. It is not in the Oxford, Cambridge or Mirriam-Webster dictionaries." I thought this might help make it clear for people who are unfamiliar with the wiktionary layout that shows this is in the category of nonstandard and proscribed English. If the term "enjoyful" is googled, this page comes up top and I think it is causing confusion for unfamiliar users who do not understand the explanation "1. (proscribed, nonstandard) Full of enjoyment." If my original clarification is not acceptable then is there another more acceptable way to highlight the fact that this is not standard English? I am worried that students learning it and thinking it is a real word will lose points in their High School entrance examinations if they are learning this in Junior High School Grade 2 (as my colleague is now teaching it based on this page which is cited by https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/enjoyful which is accepted by my Japanese colleague as a standard English dictionary.). Since enjoyful is not a common mistake, this page appears top of google searches for it. This could be a great opportunity to introduce more clearly to people that some words in English are disputed and while the fact it does not appear in major dictionaries does not mean it is not a "real word" (since it does clearly exist through mistaken use in the past that my become mainstream in the future), but could it be stated more clearly on the page that this is not in standard English dictionaries so that students and teachers of English as a second language do not make mistake of believing their google search of "enjoyful" means it is a standard English word that is in standard English dictionaries. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I appreciate any suggestions of an acceptable clarification that might be put on this page. — This unsigned comment was added by Harboe2019 (talk • contribs) at 02:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC).

@Harboe2019: The article in question qualifies the definition with (proscribed, nonstandard) though. This makes it clear that this term is disputed and not standard English, as you phrased it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted it not just because it was unnecessary, as @Fytcha says, but also because it was poorly worded and misspelled. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I will leave the page as it is. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your decision to me. Harboe2019 (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

PaM?

I wonder if 2A01:CB01:2053:C960:E07B:E4CD:8E54:B27 is PaM... Equinox ◑ 13:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: PaM edited from the northeast London area, but this IP geolocates to Paris. It's close enough to be our "Missing informations!" editor, but this IP's edits so far haven't strayed from what would expect of a Middle Eastern expat or second-generation wannabe. They certainly bear watching, but I don't have the expertise to judge the quality of their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

or bust revert

Hi Chuck Entz, you recently reverted an edit I made on the or bust page. This was my first edit on Wiktionary, and I admit that I didn't check the style guide before changing the section title "etymology" to "definition". The fact remains that what is provided under that section for this expression is not an etymology but rather a definition. How can this be remedied? Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku it's borderline as an etymology, but it's not a definition. Really it's an explanation of why bust is used in the phrase. Feel free to discuss it at the Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not even a borderline etymology. Etymology is the history of a word, not its meaning: [3] What we are discussing is a definition of the term, how can you deny that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

firm

Hi, I would like to ask what is the rationale on your revert on firm? As a native speaker I can confirm that the word is used as such in Hong Kong Cantonese, and so I believe that the revert was an error. Wpi31 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wpi31 The content was probably fine, but the formatting was a mess. I don't really edit Chinese, so I couldn't fix it myself, but the entry was in Category:head tracking/unrecognized pos, not to mention oddities like Category:Chinese an, Category:Cantonese:va and Category:Chinese vs.

The Chinese entries use a very complex and sophisticated system of templates and modules as well as a quite different overall format, which you can find more information about at WT:AZH. Another good source of information is User:Justinrleung, who knows a great deal about how our Chinese entries are formatted, but also about Chinese in general and Cantonese specifically. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The formatting issue is simply me forgetting to add commas in the |cat=va line which should be |cat=v,a. I've noticed that some of my past edits also have this issue, will have them fixed as well. --Wpi31 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Over “name“.

Hello, I am Akuma Homura, the user who edited the english section of the “name“ article.

I still do not understand why did you edit my contribution out of the article. That is not to say I am angry but, rather, confused.

If you could give me the reason why did you do it, I will appreciate it.— This unsigned comment was added by 2806:105e:1b:5b9a:cdc2:a4e2:95fd:3cf7 (talk) at 17:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC).

@Akuma Homura: it wasn't because I thought it was vandalism or anything like that. It was just useless almost to the point of being silly. Very simply, the likelihood of anyone thinking the Japanese word is related to the English one is pretty much zero. Besides: a substantial number of our English entries have the same spelling as terms in other languages. On the just that page are a Lithuanian inflected form meaning "at (a/the) house", a Northern Kurdish term meaning "letter", and a Dutch word meaning "taking". Judging by your IP, you probably are familiar with Spanish homographs of English words such as "come, "fin", "mar", "pan", "real", "sea", "van", etc. If we put a note in the etymology section about all of them, it would be an absolute mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Move protection

I was wondering why you are mass protecting lots of pages from moves without any history of moving vandalism or move-warring. Not that they have any chance to be moved, but such a list of pages can be endless, right? —Svārtava (talk) • 04:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while since we've had a page-move vandal, but they're harder for non-admins to clean up, and they mess up the revision histories. There's no real downside to move-protecting pages that will never be moved, so I do that when I have time to kill. I have no illusions about getting all the likely targets protected, but if it makes it harder and more tedious for vandals, it's worth it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well-attested Words

Hey, I saw some of your recent work disabling the ability to move certain well-attested words, and I was wondering what the criteria were to determine if a word is well-attested for that purpose. I would like to use whatever criteria there are to generate a list of words in my area of interest that I could propose to get the only-admins-can-move treatment. Because of the decades-long contentions over various Mandarin romanizations and similar, stabilizing a core zone of unmovable words may be useful for preventing someone in 2035 from doing various untoward shifts of well-attested terms. If there are no criteria for what a well-attested term is, then let's make some criteria up and I will see if any of words in my area of interest could ever meet the threshold. Thanks for any guidance and keep up the great admin work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Admin vandalism

Hey. Very recently, a whole bunch of derogatory articles have been speedily deleted, ignoring that some had a reference leading to a search result page that contains more than enough durably archived quotations ([4]), while others already came with some cites (though not 3) ([5] which is extremely easy to cite even just in published works, let alone Usenet) and some even had 3 valid citations but were deleted nonetheless ([6]). None of these were run through RFV. Is there anything we can do against this vandalic incompetence? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Further, I stand by calling it vandalism: this act not only actively makes the dictionary worse and less descriptive, it is also done against the community consensus of including all words that can be cited 3 independent times in durably archived media. Deleting articles that can trivially be cited (and already contain quotations or at least a link to a place where quotations can be found) cannot be anything other than bad faith, even if (big if) it is technically within the bounds of the permissible if one sticks to the strict letter of the law. It's also worth noting that only articles not listed on WT:RFVE were speedied which leads me to suspect this is some kind of underhanded ploy to get rid of them because it is obvious that they would survive RFV. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Niggeria at the very least should be undeleted. When I was going through n-word derivatives looking for ones to tag for RfV, I noticed that one, but when I edited the source I saw the citations (they were commented out, probably because they were grossly offensive). There were at least three, satisfying CFI. 98.170.164.88 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I warned people against heated controversy based on the new guidelines but they didn’t listen. Now they are pointing fingers at each other exactly because the scope of application is uncertain more than predicted, splendid. Fay Freak (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, Fytcha I'm in absolute agreement here that this is harmful to the dictionary. I have brought up such concerns at the Decision section of the vote on this. I don't think AG202 or Sgconlaw's actions are in bad faith or are a conspiracy, but nonetheless I strongly disagree with what is being done here. I don't think that Wiktionary should have any political biases in its processes, and that's only one of many reasons I could list out that I'm against this. This policy only encourages these reckless mass deletions. We should start a new vote or at least community discussion about this as immediately as possible. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My 2p FWIW: in going through and looking at recent deletions, a few are trivially citable (and were deleted without being listed at RFV AFAICT) and I'm restoring those with lazily unordered and unformatted/unbolded lists of citations I spent six seconds copying from QQ, but many of the rest are the exact kind of ultrarare crap the vote was all about deleting. (Homocrat, BTW, may or may not exist in the sense that had been given, since many of the Books hits are actually a different sense which is now at homocrat, where its definition could probably use improvement.) - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m just now seeing this. Please see my response to PseudoSkull at the vote itself. I can’t see the logs, but from my memory, other than N*ggeria which was erroneously added, some of those straight up had links to groups that were invalid or showed similar users or otherwise. I agree with sche, and I wish that you had at least discussed this with folks first before taking a direct antagonistic response and calling it “vandalic incompetence” because that does not aid towards finding an actual solution. I would’ve been more fine with folks saying that we should send terms to RFV first as a compromise with some discussion, but when you come out the gate like this, I’m less likely to actually be open to talking about it, especially when the main folks are the ones who voted against the proposal to begin with. AG202 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: I can't help but interpret the deletion of trivially citable entries as an action done in bad faith. It should be common sense to not delete entries that presently don't contain 3 citations but for which 3 citations can easily be found. Moreover, you don't see the people who delete these entries go out of their way to actually try and cite them themselves; they just delete them with no regard for attestability and offload the actual work onto others (which is why I suspect, as I've written on the vote's page, that this vote is being abused to get rid of some derogatory terms irrespective of attestability). It's not fun for me to spend hours citing wrongly deleted, patently attested discriminatory terms because I'd rather work on other entries, but it's not fun either that we're deleting presently uncited but clearly attested words just because nobody else is willing to put in the work. Further, the fact that the majority of entries that were deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY have already been undeleted and cited also speaks volumes. Lastly, no hard feelings against you personally of course, tagging and deleting are different; my complaint is against the people who actually press the delete button with no regard for attestability. Please tell me where you disagree with what I've said. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha Thank you for the response. I appreciate that it's not targeted towards me, because I have received negative comments, primarily from IPs with things like "stop being offended all the time", "what are you even doing on this project" for merely adding the tag, so it's hard to not see things like that being directed towards me. See my reply to sche at Template talk:derogatory first for the other parts of my reply that I'd put here. Otherwise, while I do see your point, I disagree with the interpretation that folks should have to send entries to RFV first as that's part of why the vote was created. I also personally do not feel comfortable with most of the terms in question, as I've stated before, and thus, feel more comfortable solely tagging them rather than creating an RFV forum for them (I don't even type them out as I'm sure has been noticed), and I'm surely not going to dig for cites for them when I'm the target of the vast majority of these entries being cited. Part of the rationale for the vote was to place the onus on the folks who create the entries in the first place, and as such, I think it's fair that folks who focus on creating/citing offensive terms should face the brunt of that. When it comes to the fact that the majority of the entries deleted have been undeleted, it does speak volumes to me, but not in the same way that it does to you. It shows why I voted abstain on option 1 in the first place: little fundamentally changes because the majority of those terms will be cited in the end if we continue to give free rein to Usenet. I do think that more care could be given when it comes to the deletion of entries nonetheless. CC: @Sgconlaw, @PseudoSkull. AG202 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also seeing this discussion for the first time. I agree with @AG202 that the whole point of the policy is to put the onus for providing contestable and contested entries with qualifying quotations on editors who create the entries (or those who wish to retain them). It is most emphatically not the job of admins or other editors to supply these quotations, nor do I agree that an entry should be retained just because there are apparently some qualifying quotations "out there somewhere" but not actually placed on the entry page or associated citations page. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@AG202 I am completely fine with the fact that you're uncomfortable associating yourself with these entries. Well so why are you associating with them so much then? Tagging them for deletion en masse requires clicking on them from somewhere at least if not searching for them in the search bar, and it requires looking at the word on the page, etc. If we delete entries just because we're offended by the words they represent, we are doing a huge disservice to lexicology and I will stick by the notion that this is effectively being used for censorship. We should document concepts we hate just the same as concepts we love or are apathetic to. @Sgconlaw The contention is not that the citations are "just out there somewhere"; it's that they are in clear view with simple search queries. We're all active editors here, and for sure I know you can tell the difference between an entry that is easily citable and one that is not. Many entries have been pointed out that are clearly and easily citable and they were tagged and deleted anyway. In other words, for many of the ones you've deleted, it's not even like they were entries that had say, 2 iffy Books results and 1 Usenet result you had to dig for among lots of Google Groups stuff. I've seen you delete things that had pages of clear Google Books results specifically for that phrase. You can keep saying as you have been that "it's pursuant to the policy, so whatever," but that's not even my argument—my argument is that this policy and the way it's being used is inherently destructive, and its application here has nothing but proved that. It is effectively being used to mow down a bunch of entries, that do contain factual and provable information about real words mind you, that the Wiktionary community decided it doesn't like. We should probably stop doing that. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

sirena = gay?

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ay&oldid=prev&diff=68503636#English I saw you reverted my revert on ay. "Sirena" doesn't mean "gay" and this is likely to cause confusion for various people. Chininazu12 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

flood flag

Thanks for move-protecting so many pages! Do you suppose you could give yourself the flood flag when you're making lots of such protections, so they don't flood recent-changes / watchlists? - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. I hadn't even thought about that aspect. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Eiskrahablo is back *sigh*

Special:Contributions/Berbasantara looks like a reincarnation of Eiskrahablo, Indigenouswikicom etc. They target the same templates Template:jv-variant and produce the same kind of nonsense etymologies[7]. –Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: yes, Confirmed. I blocked them and every other unblocked sock I could find, though I got carried away with my research and they made more edits before I blocked them- sorry! I reverted some of the more obvious things like setting up the Sundanese script as the native script, but most of their edits require more knowledge to separate the POV from the correct. They did a number of edits in Appendix:Austronesian Swadesh lists that I couldn't undo en masse due to intervening edits by others, and probably a good number of the added terms are okay- but I don't know which ones. Anything they did to restructure the table is suspect, though. At least, anytime I see "Fix misinformation". in an edit summary, there's usually some kind of POV pickiness involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Like in other WM projects (enWP and idWP), this turns into a tiring whack-a-mole exercise. I will try to fix all the POV/CIR they have left on their trail (the misapplication "learned borrowing" is another trademark).

Btw, there is a bias among a group of editors (not just this one maverick) for considering historical scripts as basic for lemmatization (even if they have largely fallen out of use in daily life except in certain context) and treating the Roman script as "Romanization" even when 99,9% of the speakers of the language are only proficient in writing their language using the Roman script. I have seen this with regional languages of Indonesia (Javanese, Balinese etc.), but it might be wider problem. I have addressed it before without response (User_talk:Xbypass#Balinese), and I will bring it some other time to the beer parlour. –Austronesier (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Cam Stur (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)