User talk:

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


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary! We notice that you're making changes anonymously. Although this is perfectly all right, we'd like to encourage you to take the time to create an account and sign in to it when editing – it's free and easy. A number of good reasons to do so are listed at Wiktionary:Why create an account?.

Please note that we are not Wikipedia. If you have edited there, it won't be very difficult for you to find your way here, but there are a number of differences. For example, Wiktionary is case-sensitive: Kind (German) is not the same as kind (English, Danish, Dutch etc.) Also note that Wiktionary never uses parenthetic disambiguation, so where Wikipedia might have separate articles on Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology), Wiktionary will only have one entry on Mercury which addresses proper noun uses, and an entry on mercury which addresses regular noun uses.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Questionable entries will be listed for verification, and, if they fail that process, will be deleted. Also, keep in mind our copyright policies: don't copy material from copyrighted sources here. Such additions will be deleted on sight. Submissions from IP addresses unfortunately are looked at more closely, so please take a minute to create an account.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question in the appropriate discussion room or ask me on my talk page.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Conrad.Irwin 02:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are unsure....[edit]

Hi there. If you are unsure about a translation or a language in general, it would be best if you asked a native speaker for help first before adding it, or not add it at all, because it demonstrates that you don't have good knowledge of the language, and we like our entries to be error free :) Razorflame 08:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese templates[edit]

Please use standard Chinese templates when creating Chinese/Mandarin entries - see WT:AZH for more information. JamesjiaoT C 05:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


I suggest you to create an account. Editing with an IP address means the administrators will have to keep track of every one of your edits creating unnecessary work for us. Is there a reason why you choose not to create an account? Thanks JamesjiaoT C 05:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I had an account at one time, and was treated with extreme, unnecessary, and consistent rudeness by a number of regular editors, with all input or suggestions I made always dismissed out of hand or ignored. This situation got so bad that I chose to edit anonymously, as it was clear these editors were not interested in sincere collaboration with others. 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

流苏 etymology[edit] --—This comment was unsigned.

I am not sure what sort of etymology you are looking for. This link explains it perfectly well: 流 = to flow, 苏 = a string-like object that suspends vertically or in other words - a soft flowing string-like object that suspends vertically which is exact what a tassel is. --—This comment was unsigned.

Thank you; where at the entry does it say "a string-like object that suspends vertically"? 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

须状下垂的饰物 (it even tells you it's an object for decoration) JamesjiaoT C 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I misread your sentence. I will add it there. Sorry, I am not a regular mandarin editor, so things like that get left out. JamesjiaoT C 06:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --—This comment was unsigned.

Thanks, should it go at as well? Strange that Unihan does not include this definition. 06:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


I cannot find this in any reliable Latin source for Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin. The only place I find it is in etymological dictionaries that claim it is the source word for prosciutto, but the meaning they give is wrong. The word in Latin for "completely dry up" is perexsicco, not *perexsugo (which would be the base verb for the hypothetical *perexsuctum) and which would mean "completely suck up". I think perexsuctum is an error that was copied from dictionary to dictionary. --EncycloPetey 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting! I got it from the en:WP about the very dried pork product you mention. 05:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

insulting editors[edit]

You might want to look up what AWB means before you complain about people "not doing it by hand". --EncycloPetey 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


{{rfp}} and {{rfe}} go under the headers ===Pronunciation=== and ===Etymology===. Or at least, I prefer them that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I make an error somewhere? I certainly do make a point to only add the rfe template under the "Etymology" header (I never knew about nor used "rfp" before). 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Now I see what you're saying. If an entry has no etymology, looking at an entry just now it seems misleading to have a header saying "Etymology," then just having a template saying it needs an etymology. 20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


The etymology section should not include pronunciation information. That is placed in a Pronunciation section for the entry itself. --EncycloPetey 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much; it would help if you would indicate exactly where I made a mistake, so that I will be able to correct it. 04:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem was here. I have already corrected the problem, but thought you might like to add the information in the proper location. --EncycloPetey 04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's still a problem, however: the word is not "Chaozhou" nor pronounced "Chaozhou" in Min Nan, which is a separate Chinese language/dialect. I have fixed this problem by removing the misleading reading. 05:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We do permit transcriptions, but I am not familiar enough with Pinyin systems to make such corrections. To see examples of transcription, you may look at the Etymology of nasus, which includes mention of cognates in Sanskrit and Old Church Slavonic, each with transcriptions. This is done in a {{term}} template using tr=. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gotten it as good as I can. Those templates seem to work very well and elegantly, but as with much here they seem a bit complex. Perhaps I will just use nasus to cut and paste etymology templates in the future. 05:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in creating an account here (you do not have to), then it is possible to customize your edit tools. I have an option that allows me to add many of the complex templates I use often, and I have only to click once to add all the code. Then I fill in the parts. So with one click of my mouse, I can add {{term||tr=|sc=Grek|lang=grc}}, which is code for Ancient Greek that I use often. --EncycloPetey 05:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work![edit]

Keep up the good work that you've done here on the English Wiktionary! I really enjoy reading your contributions :) Razorflame 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I am so glad to hear this. 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese characters[edit]

You should add a category with these. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's problematic, because for most of the 20th century Vietnamese people have used a Latin writing system called quốc ngữ. The characters are today only generally used for decorative purposes or research. Complicating things is that there are two separate systems: actual Chinese characters (Hán tự), which were used for official recordkeeping, as well as for reading Chinese books, documents, religious texts, etc.; and chữ Nôm, a separate system including thousands of newly concocted characters not used in China, which was used for writing poetry and less official purposes. So the main concerns are: all of the characters used in Vietnam are solely historical, and there were two separate systems of characters used, with the added confusion that the chữ Nôm's inventory of characters contains many of the same characters as the Hán tự. 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Obsolete words when attestable, in any script, are permitted. If you know what the categories should be, add them! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I see that there are already lots of Vietnamese character categories here:
Category:Han characters
Category:Vietnamese Han tu 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Now you're not adding categories or definitions, basically empty headers. Please go back and fix as many of these as you can such as these ones or I'll revert. No category is one thing, no category or definition is another. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your helpful comment on my page! Vietnamese is something of a special case, as Hán tự are no longer used in Vietnamese, and the definitions would be the same as those in Chinese, since these characters were formerly used in Vietnam to write official records in Classical Chinese for hundreds of years. Thus, in the case of Hán tự the translingual definition at the top of the entry provides the meaning of the character in Vietnamese, since the characters were actually used to write in Classical Chinese. There are actually no proper categories for these characters as regards the Vietnamese language other than the category "Han characters," which includes all East and Southeast Asian usages. 14:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why add them then? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize until you pointed it out that, as you say, it would be beneficial to have a category to encompass all Hán tự entries, in addition to the pre-existing "Han characters" entry, since not all Han characters were used in Vietnam (some, for example, may have been invented in the last 100 years, after Vietnam abandoned their use). So, independently of the Vietnamese-invented chữ Nôm characters, and those Hán tự that overlap with the chữ Nôm system, I agree with you that we should create a category to use for all Vietnamese Hán tự entries, equivalent to "Category:Japanese kanji" and "Category:Korean hanja." The main problem at this point is that the category someone created a few months ago, "Category:Vietnamese Han tu," is incorrect, because as far as I know there is no English word "Han tu" (without diacritics), as there is for "kanji" and "hanja." So the current category is misspelled. Should I create a new one with the correct spelling and begin to add it? Or would having a category title with diacritics in it make it impossible for people to type in? Once we get these things ironed out I can begin adding the category to every Han character entry that has a Vietnamese header, or that can be done by bot (which will just need to avoid adding the cat to entries for chữ Nôm-only (Vietnamese-invented) characters. Thank you again for your input and I'm sure we'll get this ironed out shortly. I don't believe you need to ask why I've been adding thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese readings to the Han character entries as the reason should be apparent; it's the reason any of us do what we do here. 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just categories; I think that users who looks these characters up may want to know what they mean. Hence the usefulness of definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but so far, due to lack of knowledgeable contributors with good sources (which are rarest for Vietnamese among all the CJKV languages), right now most of the Han character entries make do with the "Translingual" definition, which in many cases provides a definition that is used in all of the other languages. The problem is that without good sources it's not always known what differences in usage might exist (or have existed for Vietnamese, when the characters were used) between the original Chinese and the other languages. The only source I know of that gives definitions for the Vietnamese characters is the Nom Foundation database, which we can draw on as the entries are expanded. We should make sure the meaning we add was actually used in Vietnamese before adding it to any of our entries. I do believe that, at least in the context of Hán tự, when the characters were used to write classical Chinese (in Vietnam), the meanings should usually be the same ones as in Chinese, with the only thing to note that some characters have multiple definitions, and often also multiple readings depending on definition and context. All of this will be added over time. What we really need are more interested, knowledgeable editors. 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


I assume that for each of the many entries you're currently RFVing, you did some sort of search to see whether it will be possible to cite them? Please don't RFV things that you can attested yourself easily.​—msh210 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

New entries for very rare/largely unknown English words should have at least one source provided. 07:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if they did, I agree. I nonetheless maintain that you shouldn't request verification — i.e., request that others do work verifying — if you haven't even tried to do so yourself.​—msh210 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I did some of your work for you. I've removed your tags from a bunch of the entries, as they're very easily cited (and anyway it didn't look you were actually going to request verification of them at RFV). The rest I kept. Severnside (as an adjective, anyway) and jinky I can't seem to attest, so I'll add them to RFV myself now. The rest from which I did not remove the tag were a little bit of a pain to search for, and it's late here, so I'm not doing it, or not now.​—msh210 (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

re Mon-Khmer roots[edit]

Well I'm sorry, I don't know any Mon-Khmer languages firsthand. I took the etymologies from this Mon-Khmer dictionary. For full etymology of a Mon-Khmer word in Vietnamese or Khmer: under "Return" select "full entry", enter the Vietnamese or Khmer word (in the original script) into the "Orth" form and click the "Exact" button. You can also search by the IPA pronunciation of the word. If you want to search for the English meaning type it into "Text". (You might not find an etymology for all the words, and I'm not completely sure for other Mon-Khmer languages as I know absolutely nothing about them.) 15:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


I am confused by the references you added, as they do not seem to have been used in writing the definition. I have removed one of them since it only described the smell of chlorella, which is not mentioned at all in our entry. "References" on Wiktionary are sources from which the definitions were taken, or sources which provide direct support for a definition. They are usually dictionaries whose copyright has expired, or sources which back up an etymology. --EncycloPetey 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was clear that the usage of "chlorella" with a lower-case "C" is generally restricted to descriptions of a health supplement product made from the algae. All other usages use the upper-case "C," to refer to the genus. All three references did verify the former, and as one would expect, as, for example, with slang terms of recent vintage which show up in print sources such as newspapers and magazines, but not in dictionaries, the references do come from health food-oriented magazines and books. If you wish to move those Google Books examples to a section entitled "Examples of usage" or something similar (I feel it is extremely important to document the earliest appearances of terms in our encyclopedia), you are of course welcome to do so. 02:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah... you listed those as "References", but what you were adding were "Quotations". These are not at all the same thing on Wiktionary. References are only links to other resources, and are never used that way. Please compare the References section of abdicatio with what you've done. You meant to add quotations, such as found on the entry for parrot. A supporting quotation should be listed under the definition with full text of the supporting quotation. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; I didn't know that. I will look at the examples you provided and see how it is done. 20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)



Sorry but I have deleted this entry. Fixing them takes the same amount of time as creating new one (which will be done). Please refrain from creating Mandarin entries if they don't follow the accepted format.

This (simplified only):



# [[trigger]]


or this (trad. and simpl.):


# [[bride]]

the rs parameter is of particular difficulty if you don't have the tools handy.

Thanks for understanding and thank you for your Vietnamese contributions. Perhaps it's time to register and add a Babel table? --Anatoli 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfulness and interest in improving and enhancing our encyclopedia. I look forward very much to the new entry, with the proper templates. We all work hard at building up our encyclopedia, bit by bit, each step adding more and more valuable information. Thank you also for your helpful suggestions, and for understanding that we all have the same aim: making this the best, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the universe! :) 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if editors with Mandarin expertise would actually pitch in at Wiktionary:Requested_entries:Chinese, where I place many requests for Mandarin entries. Some of them have lain there for 4+ years, as it is like a ghost town there. We all can build upon one another's expertise, so a teamwork effort in the realm of Mandarin would be very helpful to our project. If I place prospective new entries there, it would be great to know that entries will be made by knowledgeable editors, and not ignored for 4+ years. 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The way Wiktionary works is everyone is doing their bit but not necessarily pushing others to do more or do what they want. The users may do something else, which they consider more interesting or more important. If requested entries are not creating, they are either unimportant, not interesting, or too hard to translate and maybe were simply skipped. There are many basic words that have not been created before an entry like ghost town gets attention. If you wish to refer to Chinese in Vietnamese entries (e.g. etymology), you can still do so, it's OK to have many red links, they will be filled some day. I am currently working on translations into a few languages including Mandarin, which I consider a good basis for entries, they are faster to create and that way I manage a larger amount of words (translations are searchable). User Tooironic is more prolific in creating Chinese entries and has more experience. He also follows some lists and have some agenda for what should be created next. To stay a motivated editor for a long time you have to follow both the structure (so you don't get told off) and do something you enjoy or good at. I appreciate your enthusiasm but please consider that different editors have different views on what they should do. I don't think Chinese contents is currently neglected or doesn't have enough attention, anyway. Also, don't ignore the standard requirements - be patient. Happy editing! --Anatoli 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:thị thực[edit]

You have a message here Talk:thị thực. --Anatoli 02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


If you're going to add extra stuff to a Mandarin entry make sure the other script form (e.g. traditional/simplified) gets the same treatment. ---> Tooironic 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I was making it clear that it was not "customs" as in "traditions," which I thought at first without the gloss. 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page requests[edit]

Hi 71,

Thanks for your many contributions! (I mean, how many editors do we have who know about Sino-Vietnamese, much less can actually contribute on it?)

Regarding your (many) requests on talk pages for

“Needs graphical significance/etymology.”
“Can it be added in which contexts the two different Mandarin readings are used?”

please consider using these rarely, if at all – they come across as whining, though I really doubt that’s your intention.

Coverage of Chinese characters is currently admittedly weak, but as a community we prefer having incomplete pages, rather than scaffolds with many “please fill in” sections. (Again, thanks for including these on the talk pages rather than on the main pages – it’s less distracting, but it’s still distracting to editors. See e.g. Template talk:rfe#Template use for another editor warning against overuse of requests.)

If you wish to put such a request, consider adding why the entry requires special attention. For instance, why should have particular attention?

Also, please be careful with requests – on Talk:々 you’ve listed a request for Mandarin pronunciation, but the character 々 (noma) is listed as “Japanese only”, and as far as I know is, in fact, Japanese-only.

Alternatively, it may be helpful to have a page which lists coverage of Chinese characters (e.g., a table with “Etymology, Readings (Mandarin, Min Nan, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.,), context for readings, etc.”) so work can be coordinated, rather than scattered requests on talk pages. Don’t know if any such exists; perhaps can ask A-cai?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese character etymology[edit]

Hi 71,

On another note, as you’re interested in Chinese character etymology, for many, you can find good etymologies at Chinese Etymology by Richard Sears.

The templates {{Han compound}}, {{liushu}}, and {{Han etyl}} are v. useful is this regard – just saying “phonosemantic compound, phonetic 冫 + semantic 馬” (via {{Han compound|冫|馬|c1=p|c2=s|ls=psc}}, after checking that this is actually the case) is very useful, and a great start!

{{zh-forms}}, {{ja-forms}}, and {{Han simp}} for simplified/shinjitai are also v. helpful, in case a character is or has simplifications. (While we’re at it, {{stroke order}} is also useful.)

Selfishly, I’m also v. interested in Chinese character etymologies, having written many of them here, and I’d appreciate all the help we can get on them! Looking forward to when all of these are done!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


See Category:Navajo terms needing attention. We changed all the category names to "terms" instead of "words" some time ago. --EncycloPetey 04:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the response above, which still answers your question. I don't understand why you haven't followed the link. "Category:Navajo words needing attention" does not exist, and will not exist, because that is not how the categories are named. --EncycloPetey 02:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly; that category is still extremely difficult to find because the category seems to be hidden. 02:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
All the "needing attention" categories are hidden by community decision. I would like to see them (as you do), but the community chose to hide them. --EncycloPetey 02:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

response @ Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Bot_request[edit]

Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Bot_request - [The]DaveRoss 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth – Derived characters[edit]

You have new messages Hello, You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.
You have new messages Hello, You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.
A follow-up post. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New list[edit]

A new dump of Wiktionary completed so I refreshed the results of the "Han characters" without "Vietnamese" sections page list. Looks like about 800 shorter than before. Click here to see the new list, it should be current as of yesterday. - [The]DaveRoss 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful; thank you--it has been very helpful and I am getting there...slowly. Of course, a lot of the characters are simplified, and don't have Vietnamese readings (unless the simplified forms already existed as traditional characters, which is sometimes the case). 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything in the entry or any aspect of the character technically which could distinguish simplified from non-simplified? If that is the case I could filter further. - [The]DaveRoss 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The entries are inconsistently done, and, although some are noted as simplified characters that already existed in traditional form (there is actually a category for this), it has only been added to perhaps less than 10% of the entries that need it. There just seems to be little interest in systematically fixing individual character entries, and years go by with not much done, by editors numbering fewer than a half dozen. Your efforts to assist us have been extremely helpful, however. 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth – ⺮[edit]

You have new messages Hello, You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.
You have new messages Hello, You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.


You keep adding this word to Wiktionary:Requested entries (Russian). It is not Russian. It is not any language. The Russian word that you are thinking of is потеха. Your "потехa" is a misspelling and does not exist. Please don’t add it anymore. —Stephen (Talk) 08:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

¶ I was quite sure the problem would have been solved by now. It would not have to take up extra space. ¶ Have you ever tried clearing your chache? --Pilcrow 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


You don't need seealso if it's already listed as an alt form. JamesjiaoTC 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead, do this [1]. JamesjiaoTC 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do it. 04:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


I improved the entry. JamesjiaoTC 02:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

desperate times call for desperate measures[edit]

Note my changes here. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. ---> Tooironic 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This massive blanking of important entry text without any prior discussion is the worst kind of editing found at our project. 08:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No discussion was needed. The massive amount of text you added went totally against the basic format of Wiktionary entries. ---> Tooironic 11:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)



Note my changes to these entries. I added the "rs" value. The value for "rs" can be taken from or from any Mandarin entry starting with it. The value is 老00, meaning radical 老 + 0 strokes. Without the value, the entry will be added to the hidden category Category:Mandarin terms needing attention. --Anatoli 06:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I found those codes and numbers very complicated. Perhaps, in enhancing our user-friendliness gradually, we could replace these codes with intelligible words. It's very difficult to determine what things like "rs00," etc. means but with just a little tweaking I think they could be made very clear to everyone. 18:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)



We now have too many requests for etymology and no-one seems to be interested in. Being an active editor, please try adding it yourself, as with 膠袋/胶袋 the etymology is obvious - rubber (also glue, plastic) + bag.

Finding the simplified or traditional version of a character is easy, even if you just use Wiktionary, just look up and you'll find 胶袋. So please complete the entry before leaving it. --Anatoli 23:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I was indeed completing the entry by looking up the simplified version, but my computer is slow, and it took me three or four minutes, by which time you had apparently decided I wasn't doing it, and did it. "Plastic bag" doesn't make sense in Chinese because doesn't mean plastic. It seems to mean something more like "film bag." 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


Just noticed you deleted 123abc's bible passage. I have no problem with you deleting it, but I don't agree with your reasoning. firmament = sky as far as I am concerned. JamesjiaoTC 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but in that case the English definition should have included more than "sky." The way the entry stood, from its creator, shows carelessness, lack of knowledge of the Chinese language, and apparent prostelytizing. 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed: (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I'm sorry, I don't understand why I was blocked. Can you please unblock me? I have been a very productive contributor here for nearly a decade, in languages few contribute in, and such a summary blocking seems quite problematic. I always edit only in good faith and with our project's highest ideals in mind. 22:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked SemperBlotto about your block. --Anatoli 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is very kind of you! None of us is perfect in our editing, but in my experience at Wiktionary, it is best if an editor (especially one who has edited here for many years) is actually communicated with rather than summarily blocked and left to guess the reason why. Perhaps you could ask this editor to do that in the future, as it would show more consideration for others. 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have been around for a while, you should register a user name and edit under that. People don’t remember anonymous numeric IP names like 716697388, and as far as anyone is concerned, yesterday was your first time here. Since virtually all of the vandalism and nonsense entries are done by anonymous IPs, most of the admins consider you all to be likely suspects. I think SemperBlotto has unblocked you now, but you should take this opportunity to register a name that people can recognize and remember. —Stephen (Talk) 10:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that I have edited here for many years, sometimes hundreds of edits per day (this was even noticed by one editor who spoke in my defense, nearly immediately--why would my many years of valuable contributions be invisible to one editor but clearly noticed and valued by another?). And, even worse, there was no prior warning, and still to this moment no mention of which edit it was that led to the summary block. 16:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We have only a handful of admins here, as opposed to the almost 2000 admins on English Wikipedia. We have to block a large number of anonymous IPs every day that we catch vandalizing pages or writing gibberish, and there simply is not enough time for our few admins to give these anons the personal touch the way they can do it on Wikipedia. The hundreds of anons that get blocked every day are lucky if they get so much as a 3-word comment about the block. No anonymous account is treated to warnings or detailed explanations here because we are too short-handed.
If one editor noticed your anonymous contributions, it was because he was a very unusual editor, and because he was not busy doing all the stuff that all the other admins have their hands full with. If that editor notices your contributions, he will probably be the only editor to do that in the future. Normally, anonymous accounts not only get no warning, but have no recourse or appeal process, so they normally just have to wait until the block expires automatically. You may have edited here for many years, but since you have an anon, nobody remembers you or recognizes your numeric address. It’s as though you have never been here.
I’ve given you my advice on registering a user name. It’s entirely up to you whether you do it or not. If you don’t, no one will remember your number, and the next time there still will be no warning and little or no explanation, because we have to block so many anons every day. —Stephen (Talk) 20:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite your extended commentary, the continued lack of response on the part of the blocking editor as to what was the edit that I was blocked for is simply intolerable. It creates the impression of a culture of arbitrariness and impunity on the part of those with the power of blocking. At the very least, a brief note or warning prior to such blocking was warranted. In this case, I believe I had probably added a "delete" tag to a nonsense/vandalism entry, for which I was apparently mistakenly, summarily blocked without comment, and continued lack of response. That is very wrong. 20:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed: (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Hello, is someone there? I am requesting to be unblocked; I am a long-time editor and only edit in good faith. A block seems to have been made without any prior warning or explanation. This is wrong. Please undo this block and explain. Thank you. 08:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted categories[edit]

Please stop adding all these talk pages. Just ask a single question in the Beer parlour. SemperBlotto 07:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful message. It's interesting that you respond on this issue, yet never responded when asked about your arbitrary and unexplained block just above. I've asked for some time now, and no one answers, ever, or rectifies this very serious situation of the deletion/redlinking of very many of our Mandarin categories. It was thus necessary to keep asking, until the editor who deleted the categories chimes in and, we hope, rectifies this problematic situation. 07:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Further, you could very easily have answered who it was who deleted all the now-redlinked Mandarin categories, but you instead chose to issue an ultimatum of "Please stop." That's not helpful at all (in the same way your refusal to answer my questions above, though I am an editor here of many years' time) sends a signal of "I just don't care." Our project is simply too important to edit in such an uncaring and unthoughtful manner. 07:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

曲艺 and 说唱[edit]

Note my changes to these entries. You should know that {{also|说唱}} is only used for words which are very similar in terms of typography only, not meaning. ---> Tooironic 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Kanji boxes on Japanese entries[edit]

Hello IP user --

Thanks for spotting my omission over at 盛ん, I just fixed that. In future, feel free to go right ahead and add the kanji boxes directly. You can do that by adding the following just under the ==Japanese== header:

{{ja-kanjitab|[first kanji]|[second kanji]|...|[last kanji]}}

So for 盛ん, the kanji box code is just {{ja-kanjitab|盛}}, on its own line just under ==Japanese==. If you can't input kanji yourself, you can easily copy-paste the kanji from the headword displayed at the top of the page, and then just add | between kanji. -- HTH, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


Maternal uncle's wife IS wife of mother's brother.. lol; English aunt is VERY broad. In Mandarin, it's only limited to maternal uncle's wife/wife of mother's brother. JamesjiaoTC 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I just took the definitions from an online dictionary. By the way, I think the pinyin for 多多 needs to be fixed. I'll make the hanzi entry. 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah.. = the wife's family.. so it can never be just aunt, it needs to be a lot more specific. Just like there are a dozen words for desert in Arabic, so you can't just define them as just desert. JamesjiaoTC 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Chinese and English are different in that regard. By the way, don't forget to add "zh:__" (zh:Wiktionary wikilinks) for new Mandarin word entries. 23:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the interwiki links. They are created by bots, so no need to worry about them when you create new entries. And I will take a look at 多多. Without having seen the entry, I'd say it's used mostly adverbially. JamesjiaoTC 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed: (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Hello, I am a long-time and productive editor who edits only in good faith. I seem to have been blocked for an extended period without any prior warning or even a note to my "Discussion" page. This seems wrong. Which was the edit that warranted this blocking? Please, in the future, please send a brief note prior to blocking, and, when blocking, inform the blocked editor what s/he has done to warrant possible blocking. Thank you for prompt unblocking! 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: from this block log it appears that I have been mistakenly blocked several times, always by the same editor, for the reason that I patrol nonsense pages and often post "delete" notices at such pages. Since I am thus the last editor to edit these pages (adding a "delete" template, this editor seems to have hastily and carelessly blocked *me* rather than the anonymous editors who created these pages. This is very poor editing and shows little to no respect to long-time, good-faith, productive editors such as myself who have been working here tirelessly for nearly a decade. Please, stop blocking editors mistakenly and hurriedly in this way, and unblock promptly. 19:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Second unblock request, four days after first one was ignored[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed: (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Thank you for prompt unblock, and explanation of the edit(s) that led to the block, as well as reason for not communicating with me before, during, or after the block. Kind thanks. 13:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello 71 --
A word of advice, kindly intended:
I know it's frustrating waiting for a resolution, and I sympathize. When you're writing notes here to try to get the process rolling, it would be more to your advantage if you kept that frustration from coming through too pointedly. Case in point, I don't know if "ignored" is the best choice of words in the header here -- this carries a value judgement, and implies that the admins here are actively doing something wrong, whereas I suspect the reality is simply that we are all busy and things fall through the cracks.
That said, I'll drop a line to the blocking admin in question and see what's up.
Cheers, -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ei--, are you unable to remember 4 small numbers? If so, perhaps you should find out to copy&paste in your browser. -- 13:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories and where to post questions about them[edit]

Hello 71 --

I talked with SemperBlotto, and the crux of the issue was apparently your creation of new Talk pages for non-existent categories. I don't think I would have blocked you myself for your doing so, but it is admittedly a bit of a problem -- if the category in question is non-existent for community-approved reasons, then the Talk page you just created needs to be deleted, which is a bother in terms of time, site searchability (folks might think the cat exists because the Talk page does), and server resources.

Poking around, I think the better place to raise questions about categories would be the Wiktionary:Beer parlor, or possibly the Wiktionary:Grease pit. Those pages get a lot more traffic anyway, and posting there, more people will see your question and possibly reply to it. Not only are you more likely to get an answer there, but posts on the Beer parlor and Grease pit pages are minimal overhead -- no need to remove any dead pages if the discussion concludes that the cat should stay non-existent, and less resources required in terms of both humans and servers.

-- HTH, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; the editor who deleted dozens of Mandarin categories, then moved on to other editing tasks rather than take the few moments it would have taken to recreate them, does not answer here. It seems to be a horribly dysfunctional system. Mandarin is the most widely spoken language in the world, yet a single editor can come in, delete all the Mandarin subject categories, then fail to recreate them? The discussion pages I posted at were all for well populated categories, all of which are redlinked due to this editor. I know it's redlinked, but click through to Category:cmn:Musical instruments in traditional script and you'll see what I'm talking about--it is well populated yet the editor who redlinked it refuses to either create the category or answer discussion posts about why this is the case; s/he just prefers doing numerous other tasks that are presumably less tedious and more enjoyable. This is a big problem, and the reason I left a note at the discussion page of that category! (And I was ignored by the editor who created this situation.) 19:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, 71, I looked at that linked page you provided and I must admit I'm a bit confused. Looking at a couple of the older categories that you linked to there, such as Category:zh-cn:Insects and Category:zh-tw:Musical_instruments, the categories are indeed empty, so there would be absolutely no utility in creating category pages for these. All the entries were moved over to the new category naming system, and these new cat names do indeed seem to contain all of the previously categorized Mandarin entries.
Technical note -- You might already know this, but just in case: categories auto-populate based on how individual entries are tagged. Even if the category page itself is redlinked, the category exists based on how entries are tagged. So we can look at Category:cmn:Insects_in_simplified_script, which is redlinked, and in fact find all of the entries tagged as "Category:Insects in simplified script". The red link here just means that the category page doesn't have any content other than the index to categorized entries -- it's missing the header, if you will, but that's all.
As -sche, Mglovesfun, and Gauss tried to explain, the tags in individual entries are being changed over from the old language codes and conventions to the new ones. So all of the entries that were previously tagged as "Category:zh-cn:Insects" can now be found at Category:cmn:Insects_in_simplified_script, and all the entries that were previously tagged as "Category:zh-tw:Musical_instruments" can now be found at Category:cmn:Musical_instruments_in_traditional_script. Basically, take the old "zh-cn" namespace prefix and replace with "cmn" and add "_in_simplified_script", or take the old "zh-tw" namespace prefix and replace with "cmn" and add "_in_traditional_script". All the entries are there, still categorized -- it's just that the category names have changed. That's all.
-- HTH, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 21:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The categories existed for years, were deleted, then not recreated. That is very wrong! Look again; every category talk page I commented on was populated, but redlinked. Let's fix this situation promptly! 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And the editor who deleted all the categories still refuses to answer, or fix the situation, preferring instead to do other tasks that s/he presumably finds more interesting and less tedious. This is very wrong and must be corrected! 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And if you say this: "Even if the category page itself is redlinked, the category exists based on how entries are tagged. So we can look at Category:cmn:Insects_in_simplified_script, which is redlinked, and in fact find all of the entries tagged as "Category:Insects in simplified script". The red link here just means that the category page doesn't have any content other than the index to categorized entries -- it's missing the header, if you will, but that's all." then why was I blocked (without any communication before, during, or after from the blocking editor, despite my asking for such multiple times) for discussing on the "Discussion" pages of categories that you say exist? That is very wrong!!! 08:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello 71 --
Hmm, let me respond to your points separately.
  • The categories existed for years, were deleted, then not recreated.
As best I can tell, no categories were deleted -- they were renamed. So naturally nothing is filed under the old category names. If you look under any of the new category names, you will find the entries properly listed. For example, Category:cmn:Grammar_in_simplified_script does seem to properly list Chinese entries in simplified script that are tagged as grammatical terms. Despite this category being redlinked, clicking it will indeed show the listed entries.
  • And the editor who deleted all the categories still refuses to answer...
Editors -sche, Gauss, and Mglovesfun did attempt to explain the situation over at Category_talk:cmn:Insects_in_simplified_script. -sche's comment here seems the most relevant:
Mglovesfun is using a robot to change the old categories to the new categories, like this. So the categories have just been "moved", but due to the nature of categories, that means this is a new category that has not ever been created yet. (The old category, which has been deleted, was Category:zh-cn:Insects.) We'll create it, and create all of the others, once all of the entries are in them. Then, all of the categories will have standard names using "in simplified script" and "in traditional script". - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • or fix the situation
As best I can tell, there's nothing to fix -- the old categories were moved. All the previously listed entries are still listed, only under the new category names.
  • then why was I blocked ... for discussing on the "Discussion" pages of categories that you say exist?
I think Gauss's comment at Category_talk:cmn:Insects_in_simplified_script gives the answer to this:
Stop creating talk pages asking the same rebuking question over and over again. -- Gauss 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is related to my previous comment about frustration and how much of that comes through in your writing. Generally speaking, no one enjoys being told that they are doing something wrong, and thus telling someone that they are doing something wrong, especially in strong language, is much more likely to make them angry and recalcitrant, rather than to make them change what they are doing the way you want them to.
I hope this helps clarify things. Please note that this is only what I see of the situation; the other editors involved may have different opinions and views. -- Kind regards, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 05:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed: (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Hello, I have edited here for nearly a decade, always in good faith. I seem to have been blocked without any communication from the blocking editor explaining what, if any, the problem was. Thank you for prompt unblock. 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello 71 --
I suspect that these two edits prompted the latest block. As I tried to explain before, tone can be a very important factor in how other people react to you. Angry exclamation points will generally not produce desirable results. Your current block is one such example. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with SemperBlotto, I'm just giving you my view on the whys and wherefores.)
Was my previous attempt at explaining the category situation difficult to understand? You demand that the Wiktionary community fix a problem with Chinese categories, but that problem does not seem to exist.
Do you have a list of Chinese categories that were deleted outright without being moved? So far, I only know of four categories that you are upset about:
Is something else the problem? As it is, I cannot help even if I wanted to, because I do not understand what it is that you see as the problem. Please help me understand, and then perhaps I can help. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Eirikr, there are many dozens more categories like this that have been redlinked, ruining category functionality for the most widely spoken language in the world. You can see the entire sordid history here and here. It seems clear that the person who did this simply doesn't care about cleaning up after him- or herself; it would simply be too tedious to properly recreate the categories, and it's more fun to simply move on to other projects and leave other editors to clean up his or her mess (then refuse to answer for weeks at a time when asked about it). That's very unacceptable, but not a blocking offense, yet asking on regular discussion pages that this ridiculously unacceptable situation be fixed is a blocking offense? I care so much about our project that I get blocked (always without prior warning or communication from the hyperaggressive blocking editor), after I have invested tens of thousands of hours into this project for nearly a decade, for "tone," while the editor who redlinks dozens of categories, then refuses to fix the situation isn't censured in any way? This time, I simply asked why the categories were broken at several Mandarin-language entries, the discussion was immediately blanked by the hyperaggressive editor, and I was blocked for a month--one of the most productive and caring editors at our project. Something is very, very wrong here and everyone is so afraid of this hyperaggressive editor (even longtime editors and fellow admins) that they are afraid to say, or do anything about it. And the problem remains that an editor redlinked dozens of Mandarin-language categories, then left them that way for nearly a month. What is being done to fix that, and why does the editor who did that not respond, or fix this problem? 19:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The exclamation points became necessary only after weeks and weeks of being ignored (including by the editor who redlinked all the categories in the first place). 19:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello again 71 --
Thank you for those links to the deletion histories. I looked into a random sampling of the categories listed, and so far I find that they were all moved, with no content destroyed. The entries are still categorized, so there's no need to repopulate them -- they're just under the new category names. So old category Category:zh-cn:Logic is now new category Category:cmn:Logic_in_simplified_script, and old category Category:zh-tw:Jewelry is now new category Category:cmn:Jewelry_in_traditional_script. This seems to hold true for all of the deleted categories that I have checked:
  • For zh-tw categories, replace the zh-tw with cmn, then add _in_traditional_script on the end.
  • For zh-cn categories, replace the zh-cn with cmn, then add _in_simplified_script on the end.
Since all the categories still exist, I confess confusion about what needs fixing, as I can find nothing broken. Have I misunderstood your primary concern about categories?
Regarding your block, I must say that I am ignorant of much of the context of when things occurred and what was communicated (and perhaps more importantly, what was understood from that communication). I can only guess based on what little I have read so far. From my limited understanding, it appears that both you and the other editors may have been talking past each other at various points, and amidst the frustration that arose from this misunderstanding, it looks like your posts may have become more strident, and the other editors may have become less patient. One of the stock tools for admins to deal with editors that they find problematic (for whatever reason) is the block. Personally, I would much prefer it if an editor at least writes a one-line explanation for a block on a blocked user's Talk page, but it appears that not all editors share this opinion.
It seems as though SemperBlotto blocks anonymous IP users relatively freely; the only logged-in users that he's blocked in his past 150 blocks have been a handful of obvious spammers or vandals, and one user (Rockpilot) who explicitly asked both SemperBlotto and Equinox that he himself (Rockpilot) be blocked. I recall that you've had a logged-in account in the past; I do not recall why you don't anymore, but creating a new logged-in account might be preferable to remaining as an anonymous IP user. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Mulling this over for a few days, it occurs to me to ask if your concern might instead be that the categories are redlinked (i.e. that they are missing their headers on the category pages)? That's not too hard to fix, and might be automatable. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
How would one go at it? I've tried Category:cmn:Countries in simplified script, but I'm not satisfied with the result. -- Liliana 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


I removed the etymology section. It's pointless. 1) This is what Hani-forms and zh-hanzi templates are for; they allow you to review individual character. 2) Compounds are an intrinsic part of Mandarin, without which it cannot function. So it's kinda pointless to mark each compound as a compound when 99% of the semantic units in the language are compounds (the other 1% being the characters themselves). Etymology is only ever needed if the meaning of the compound deviates wildly from the base meanings of its individual components; when it comes to that, it might be more useful to explain the idea behind the deviation than, let's say, simply giving the individual chars in the compound, which again goes back to the reasonings in the beginning of this topic. JamesjiaoTC 22:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for references you added to neither fish nor fowl[edit]

Hello -- Thank you for the links you added to neither fish nor fowl back in 2010. At that time they were deleted by an admin (since they were not suitably formatted) and you moved them to the Discussion page. However, they are solid, helpful links to quotations which clearly support the information you added about the early usage of this expression. Anyhow, two of the links have now been resurrected and reformatted as quotations in the Usage notes section of the main entry. Again, thanks providing them. This was nice work. -- · (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; you are correct in that some who have admin powers at the various Wiki projects choose to use them in a way that seems more aimed at teaching others a lesson or simply the enjoyment of the exercising of power rather than the sharing of good information with the world (and not the destruction of such information) which I thought was supposed to be the aim of all of us working at this project. 04:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

RIR WHOIS lookup: America Europe Africa Asia-Pacific Latin America/Caribbean