Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Rua
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not a dude, firstly. Secondly, while I said that {{lr}} is preferred to writing the word "bare" preceded by *, I never said that {{lr}} is preferred to {{l}}! {{lr}} is used for reconstructed terms, while {{l}} is used for attested terms. I have reverted your edits when the words were attested, but you erroneously marked them as reconstructed.

18:22, 25 April 2013

Old Dutch is a highly unattested language. If you're going to call them attested, you need to back that up, dude.

18:25, 25 April 2013

...if you want something done from me, being rude won't help your case.

I am using the Dutch etymological dictionary, which is available online at http://www.etymologiebank.nl/ . It shows various attested forms of words and cognates in the history of the Germanic languages, Dutch included. In addition, there is the Old Dutch dictionary available at http://gtb.inl.nl/ , and the Old Low Franconian dictionary compiled by Gerhard Koebler at http://www.koeblergerhard.de/publikat.html .

18:29, 25 April 2013

Being rude is undoing someone's revisions on mass without bothering to talk to them first, something you have a very bad habit of doing.

I'm aware of those sites. In fact, I believe I directed you to the second. What I'm saying is you should cite terms you believe to be attested. Barring that, the default should be that they are unattested.

18:36, 25 April 2013

Citations aren't required for links. Rather, the links are created based on whether we expect those entries to have an entry, meaning whether they are citable, not cited. Since these terms are included in other dictionaries, they are citable, and should not be marked as reconstructed.

In addition, your argument could apply to any language. Are you going to insist on treating all of the words in those entries as reconstructed until they are cited?

18:40, 25 April 2013

We're not just talking about any language here. I know you're well versed on the subject, so you know we really only have three sources of Old Dutch, the Leiden Willeram, the Wachtendonck Psalms and the Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible, and all of them are intertwined with OHG. That being the case, it's only wise to err on the side of caution when calling any Old Dutch term attested, just as it is to reconstruct a term.

18:55, 25 April 2013

Why do you have such a problem with linking to attested terms? Rather than erring on the side of caution, why not err on the side of what's actually correct? Saying something is reconstructed when it's not is no better than the opposite.

18:57, 25 April 2013

I disagree, but honestly, it's not such an issue for me -- I can let it be. What I had issue with is what I wrote to you about, which is undoing my revisions on mass without even bothering to message me. You've done this on several occasions now, and I find it very aggravating, and believe an administrator should demonstrate more tact.

19:11, 25 April 2013

It's pretty standard practice on Wiktionary to undo edits that you think are bad. You can ask User:SemperBlotto about that. On the other hand, it's common courtesy to discuss and form a consensus, before re-applying your changes after they were undone.

19:14, 25 April 2013

At some point, you need to take responsibility for your actions, instead of denying them.

19:20, 25 April 2013

I am taking responsibility for my actions, I'm following standard practice. You're the one who's trying to go against that.

19:21, 25 April 2013

It's a shame you feel that way.

19:23, 25 April 2013

Well, if you had apologised for being so rude earlier, I might have been a little more forthcoming. But I guess that's the way things go, miss.

19:24, 25 April 2013