User talk:BAICAN XXX

Definitions

Your definitions don't make much sense. You need to know the difference between a noun and a verb. Definitions for nouns don't start with "to ...". SemperBlotto 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• You still don't get it - definitions of verbs start with "to . . .", not definitions of nouns. I have formatted you latest one properly. Please learn to do the same. SemperBlotto 10:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• celebra (“to celebrate”)
• celebrare (“celebration”) - get it now? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• -Barbarism-
• You inserted your entry between the English word and its translations. Removed. SemperBlotto 13:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Please look at these changes to see how we format basic entries:

• catastrofic
• explozibil

For nouns like exportator, we add gender and plural.

{{ro-noun|m|exportatori}}

In place of m you can use f and n - that's where the gender goes, and then the plural. Ask me if you need help with any other formatting issues. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Traduceri recente

Bună seara d-ule Baican,

Vă implor din nou să nu mai adaugaţi traduceri incorecte!

Cea mai recentă fiind: comparative linguistics < lingvistică comparată (??). Este o absurditate inexplicabilă!

Aţi demonstrat de mai multe ori că nu aveţi cunoştiinţele necesare pentru a contribui cu traduceri din limba engleză în limba română.

--Robbie SWE 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See WT:CFI#Attestation, all these terms have to be attestable at an absolute minimum. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Romanian orthographic norm

You could be interested in this vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms. --Dan Polansky 12:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

sunteți alergic la vreun medicament

Nu includem "?" in titluri de pagini. Nu stiu de ce, dar asa se face. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just noticed that you are contributing many translations, that is very needed, so thanks a lot for your tireless work! Nicolas1981 02:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Translations

Please don't put brackets in translations. Unless the brackets are part of the written form, they should not be included. —CodeCat 03:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The same applies to other things that don't go in page names, like commas. At flatten, you added one giant translation that contains three words separated by commas, as a single page. —CodeCat 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

sinonimi

https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/da#Interjecci.C3.B3n

Sinonimii sunt corecți? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning

You are creating entries for terms that are not citable by WT:ATTEST or are sum of parts per WT:SOP. Additionally, you are adding translations that break these rules and are not the idiomatic Romanian translations, but instead are explanations. If you continue to do this, you will be blocked. Please read the WT:CFI and be much more careful in the future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this happening again? preșcoală removed; translations at transitionality and reconstructibility reverted. Equinox ◑ 11:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Equinox, Robbie SWE: Thank you for reminding me of this warning. Would you agree that a block is in order? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:17, 12 December /2015 (UTC)

An all-time total of 8 deleted entries out of about 500 created is not so bad. Deleted entries are migrenă abdominală, cel mai abstract, cel mai amărât, cel mai mare, cel mai mic, posesive, telefon cu răspuns automat, and preșcoală. Source: [1]. I don't know the count of bad translations added. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether we've missed any; those were just obvious ones that got caught. I don't think that's a good way to measure the problem. The fact that he is incommunicative and a repeat offender after being warned many times my different editors over the span of years and never listening is why a block might be in order. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The deletions are from the report I have linked to. I see no reason to think the report is incomplete. The report is generated by https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages tool, and I see no reason to think the tool creates incomplete reports. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that we didn't necessarily catch them all, and there are undeleted Romanian SOP's and protologisms that may still be out there. Plus, there are the bad translations. Overall, it is likely that your summary is underestimating the problem. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that he keeps reverting my edits. I don't track his edits cause I think it's fun – it's because he has a track record of making up words, something I have once more confirmed. This is one of the main reasons why the Romanian Wikipedia blocked him indefinitely. I gave up long ago discussing issues with him, because he always turns to personal attacks mostly involving racial remarks referring to my nationality. So, just because he has added correct translations – which I've checked and verified – doesn't make him automatically an appropriate user to have on Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "a track record of making up words": Where is that track record? We can't run on speculation and evidence-free accusations. Above, I have posted a link to new pages he created. Can you find anything fishy in that list? For ease of reference, here again: [2]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

His track record is found in his contributions to Romanian Wikipedia (unfortunately in Romanian, see his discussion page [3]) and also his contributions to the Romanian Wiktionary project (see his discussion page [4]). --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

On this page, you can see a message Robbie left him 4 years ago (in Romanian) about only creating attestable terms and translations. It's clear that this has been a continuous issue. He has also engaged in sockpuppetry (although I don't know if he has ever done so in a manner to evade a block or similar) and made personal attacks. There are ample reasons for blocking that I can see, but the only one that concerns me is the ongoing creation of bad entries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Bună ziua tuturorǃ Îmi pare rău că nu pot contribui în engleză la dezbaterea de aici, eu nu cunosc atâta engleză ca să mă pot eprima clar și fără dubii într-o astfel de discuție. Să avem clar, eu nu sunt un rasist. Eu sunt un autodidact în vârstă de 67 ani - de profesie electronist, cu excelente conoștințe de gramatică, plecat cu familia din România în anul 1986. Cunosc bine germana și polona, mai puțin bine engleza, ceva franceză, rusă. Principiul care m-a mobilizat, dar și ghidat de la început în traducerile cuvintelor și expresiilor de engleză a fost că, limba română este, păstrând desigur proporțiile, "limba engleză" din Balcani. Gramatica și morfologia cuvintelor ne oferă clare dovezi în acest sens și fondul de cuvinte de comună origine latină ajută de asemenea, mult la ideea presupusei similitudini lingvistice. BAICAN XXX (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(For those who want to know what he has responded, please use Google translate) Considering that you claim to have a level 2 understanding of the English language, why do you insist on communicating exclusively in Romanian on an English-speaking site? It doesn't make sense to me – how should administrators communicate with you if you don't act accordingly? PS: it's cunoștințe, not conoștințe. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I could actually understand a lot of it on my own, with some help from Wiktionary entries. Romance languages, after all. In any case, Baican, you are completely ignoring the point of what we have said. Your motivations are unrelated; the issue we have is your edits, which have continuously broken local policy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch

Von was du oben geschrieben hast habe ich mit Hilfe von Google Translate soviel verstanden, dass du nicht so ganz richtig auf Englisch kommunizieren kannst. Stimmt das? Und kannst du auf Deutch kommunizieren? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Übersätzung in Deutsch:

• Hallo für alle! Leider ich kann kein flüssige Englisch zu sprechen, um die Debatte hier ohne mißverständnissen zu leisten, ...ich weiß nicht so viel Englisch, so das ich klar und eindeutig in eine solche Diskussion sich zu äußern. Um es deutlich zu sein, Ich bin kein Rassist. Ich bin ein Autodidakt, im Alter von 67 Jahre, - von Beruf Elektronikfachmann mit hervorragenden Kenntnissen in der Grammatik, ging ich mit meiner Familie von Rumänien im Jahr 1986 aus. Deutsch und Polnisch kann ich gut, weniger gut Englisch, etwas Französisch, Russisch. Das Prinzip, dass mich mobilisiert und geleitet hat von Anfang in Übersetzungen englischer Wörter und Sätze ist das, dass rumänische Sprache ist, natürlich unter Beibehaltung der Proportionen, "Englishe Sprache" auf dem Balkan. Grammatik und Morphologie der Worte gibt uns klare Beweise dieser Idee, und der Fond gemeinen Wörter lateinischen Ursprungs, es hilft auch viel die Idee der angebliche sprachliche Ähnlichkeiten zu deuten. BAICAN XXX (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Toll. Dann kann ich versuchen, eine Sache zu erklären. Das Englische Wiktionary fordert an, dass die Einträge belegbar werden. Vor kurzem hast du das folgende eingetragen:

  • preșcoală - google:"preșcoală"
  • anexaționism - diff - google:"anexaționism"
  • depachetizare - diff - google:"depachetizare"
  • Und weitere.

  Die Google Suche findet sie nicht. Es folgt dass diese nicht belegt (nicht attestiert) sind, und per WT:ATTEST nicht in das Englische Wiktionary eingetragen dürfen.

  Bitte, trage nur belegbare Wörte ein. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Danke, Dan, ich wuste das schon.BAICAN XXX (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Dann solltest du das auch beachten. Die nicht belegbare (nicht verifizierbare) Einträge werden sowieso gelöscht. Und zumindest ein Admin verliert jetzt langsam sein Geduld. Er überlegt, dich zu blockieren. Das wäre doch Schade. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, aber darf ich in mein Sandbox (BAICAN XXX/Sandbox) solche Worten eintragen, unter z.B. Titel "ro.Neologisms"? Was denkst Du?BAICAN XXX (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ich sehe kein Problem mit User:BAICAN XXX/Sandbox, User:BAICAN XXX/Romanian protologisms oder so. Eine Bemerkung: das Wort Neologism wird üblicherweise für existierende Wörte verwendet. Das Englische Wiktionary verwendet üblicherweise das Wort "protologism" für Wörte, die nicht mal belegt sind. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, I'm just wondering what creating a list of – according to Baican – "neologisms" is going to accomplish? I took a look at his list:

• expozabilitate, expozanță, exprimabilitate, ferestrare = unattested, made up words – 0 to just a few hits on Google, sometimes even belonging to Baican himself
• fereastră = an inherited word from Latin meaning "window", not even remotely considered a neologism
• internetic = actually the name of a company, not used as an adjective in Romanian

Can anyone create a sandbox page with made up words? Take a look at his Romanian Wikibooks contributions – all his "neologisms" have been deleted or are proposed for deletion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Die Seite User:BAICAN XXX/Neologisms (Romanian) scheint harmlos zu sein. Das Englische Wiktionary hat sogar eine Community Seite: WT:LOP - Appendix:List of protologisms, dass noch nicht gelöscht wurde. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, then I suggest a name change – as you advised, but Baican chose to ignore. I don't want anyone taking these words for neologisms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:List of protologisms

(even if your English isn't proficient, we're still in the English-speaking Wiktionary and for the sake of the users who don't speak Romanian or German, I'll communicate in English)

You added your Romanian protologisms to the abovementioned list with definitions exclusively in Romanian. Since this is the English Wiktionary, and no other language included in the list has definitions in any other language but English, don't you believe it is an indicator that the correct way to contribute is to provide correct English definitions? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

rudă etimologică unbelegt

Per google:"rudă etimologică", dies scheint nicht belegt zu sein. Trotzdem hast du das in diff hinzugefügt. Bitte nochmal, nur belegbare Eintrage machen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Please stop reverting edits until the issues with the entries have been discussed by the community. All the changes I made, I have explained and referenced, so there is no need for an edit war. Unless we can come to an understanding, I will contact an administrator to mediate. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tu ai o obsesie, sau o misiune trasată ție (de către cine, Robbie SWE?) să mă corectezi pe mine, chiar și când aceasta nu este necesarǃ ////You have an obsession or a mission is traced you (by whom, Robbie SWE?) to correct myself, even when it is not necesar! ///BAICAN XXX (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please abstain from speculating – comments such as "You have an obsession or a mission is traced you (by whom, Robbie SWE?)" are insulting. All users are free to contribute to this project however they see fit and it is obvious to the entire community that not all your contributions have been correct. Considering that you, yourself, have said that your English isn't that good, do you honestly believe that it's unnecessary for someone to monitor your contributions? Considering the history you and I have, I'll get an administrator (@Chuck Entz) to mediate because I'm really tired of having the same discussion a second year in a row. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links to DEX

Mein Verbesserungsvorschlag: wäre es für dich möglich, External links in deine Einträge hinzufügen, so wie ich's in diff gemacht habe? Das macht die Plausibilitätsprüfung der Beiträge einfacher. Ist nicht nötig, aber wäre besser. Eine Randbemerkung: die Externe links sind keine Evidenz im WT:ATTEST Sinne; dennoch erhöhen sie die Plausibilität. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

victorie a la Pirrhus

Dies scheint nicht zu existieren. Bitte mehr Sorgfalt. Und bitte nicht mehr Robbie SWE revertieren; er scheint viel besser zu wissen was er tut. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mein Beweis: https://www.google.de/search?q=victorie+a+la+pyrrhus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=LKuSVsPAGcmvsAHUyISQAw BAICAN XXX (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Baican. See the second result? The main article on Wikipedia is not in the form you added. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Man muss mit Anführungszeichen suchen: google:"victorie a la Pirrhus". Wichtiger jedoch: WT:ATTEST fordert an, dass die Belege in "permanently recorded media" zu finden sind. Als "permanently recorded media" wird üblicherweise gedruckte Bücher and Usenet akzeptiert. Für gedruckte Bücher haben wird {{b.g.c}}, und die Suche ist google books:"victorie a la Pirrhus", was kein einziges Buch findet. Das heisst, das z.B. http://www.amosnews.ro/punctul-pe-y-o-victorie-la-pirrhus-2014-12-09 nicht als Beleg gezählt wird.

Ein bisschen vereinfacht: wenn eine Form nicht mit {{b.g.c}} (Google books) zu finden ist, dann ist es schon suspekt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

iubitul

Hi,

Does the word iubitul exist in Romanian and is it a valid translation for "boyfriend", "beau"? I want to redirect translations from beau to boyfriend but this looks a bit suspicious. It sounds a bit like Russian любитель--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• iubit = lover, most often (iubitul = the lover)

̈*prieten = boyfriend, most often (with and without sexual relations)

̈*iubit = lover, de cele mai multe ori

• ̈prieten = boyfriend, de cele mai multe ori (cu și fără relație sexuală)

BAICAN XXX (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Mulțumesc! I can now redirect translations from beau (sense #2) to boyfriend. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unattested: nanofluidică

nanofluidică scheint unbelegt zu sein (seems unattested). google books:"nanofluidică". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unattested: tastă spațiu-înapoi

Hinzugefügt in diff. Unbelegt. google:"tastă spațiu-înapoi", google books:"tastă spațiu-înapoi". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation at -ship‎

The entries at -eață and -ețe don't give -ship as an equivalent. Unless you provide concrete proof for your supposition, I'll keep reverting your changes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit at placenta

Please abstain from editing English entries (taking into consideration your English level) if you don't have sources to back you up, as you did here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding inappropriate articles

Considering that you have become unresponsive when I try to discuss issues with your contributions, I'm making a final attempt to grab your attention. In light of your contributions last night – a new article called Romanianest, which thankfully has been deleted, and your latest (re)contribution cel mai mare, which has been deleted before and still has a discussion page explaining why we shouldn't have entries like these – I'm starting to lose my patience.

Please stop adding entries that aren't appropriate for Wiktionary, do not revert my edits to articles if you don't provide trustworthy sources to support your stance and if you do not possess a considerable understanding for the English language, don't make changes to English articles unless you are 100% sure and have sources to back you up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Locuțiuni

Te rog nu include etimologie în paginile locuțiunilor. Etimologiile sunt clare. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate

The rhymes category you're currently adding words to, in incorrect. See the discussion here. Please stop adding new words to the category until we figure this out. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Translation: openable

I reverted your translation, because deschidibil is one of your protologisms. Please stop adding these as translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

-abilitate

The format {{suffixsee}} is here to make things easier, so that we don't have to constantly update articles with new words. Please stop adding terms manually, especially since their etymologies don't support your classification. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Baican, please stop redoing your edits. I have explained why I revert your edits. I will be forced to contact administrators unless you desist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Suffix" doesn't just mean "ends with". There has to be a morphological meaning. So "eatable" uses -able, but "table" does not. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Once again, instead of discussing a rollback, you insist on an edit war. Please cease this counter-productive behaviour and let us be civil and discuss it here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you insist on behaving this way, you leave me no choice but to contact an administrator (@SemperBlotto, @‎Metaknowledge). --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please Baican, can we discuss this subject civilly instead of having this edit war? I haven't contradicted adding this category to Romanian terms, I just don't believe it's appropriate in this case after comparing with equivalents in other languages (French, Italian, Portuguese etc.). --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Offensive comment

Do you mind explaining your comment ([5]) to the erroneous (re)edit you made to navă? Thankfully, you discovered your mistake (incorrect use of IPA), however, I would really appreciate an explanation to this comment: "robbie, acolo nu este ptr. că admin este Robbie SWE". --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Romanian Rhymes

Please be careful when adding to Romanian rhymes – you have done mistakes repeatedly, because you don't follow IPA and rhymes rules. Unless you inform yourself how rhymes work on Wiktionary, I advise you not to make any more additions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering that you are unresponsive and that you insist on redoing edits, which I have explained are incorrect, I have been forced to contact an administrator (@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV). --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE, can you give an example of some incorrect rhymes that he added? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It’s not just rhymes, he’s also not responding to important enquiries, repeating edits that must be undone, adding sum‐of‐parts entries, adding apparent protologisms, unnecessarily offending somebody… I’m sorry to say that I now advocate obstructing him. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Obstruct" is not a synonym for "block" in the sense of blocking a user from a computing system. Apart from that, I agree with you. This user seems to make a lot of mistakes and refuses to talk about them. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV for example românească, sclavă and navă. In addition to these, he has also created several rhymes categories which now have been deleted (e.g. Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate, Rhymes:Romanian/ase). A fellow user (@Redboywild) has taken a look at Baican's contributions to Romanian rhymes and the list of incorrect edits is long – for instance, incorrect rhymes were added to nechibzuință, țestoasă, vază, cină, pază, paragină, grindină, etc. the list just goes on and on. For a more comprehensive list of reverts, please view Redboywild's recent contributions which are all connected to Baican's contributions ([6]). I asked for help a while back in Request for cleanup to go through Romanian rhymes, because it is a mess – incorrect use of IPA, incorrect categorisation and questionable rhymes categories. For instance, Rhymes:Romanian/esku which only comprises surnames. It rattles my brain, imagining how a similar category would look like for English surnames ending in "-son". --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All right... @BAICAN XXX, I know that you won’t answer this, but at least read. Rhymes start at the stressed vowel; this means that the rhyme suffix for navă is -avă, not -ă, and the one for abilitate is -ate.

Also, please be more careful with the IPA characters. Take the time to read through IPA if you’re confused.

You really need to step up your game. Start paying more attention to attestation and correctness, or we’ll start reverting any questionable contributions without making requests for cleanup or verification. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Although @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV courteously asked you Baican to be careful with your contributions to Romanian rhymes, you have in less than 24 hours continued to do mistakes ([7], [8], [9], [10]). --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think [11], [12] and [13] were actually right. For example, fuel is in Rhymes:English/ʊəl, not Rhymes:English/jʊəl. Redboywild (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Redboywild But they are diphtongs - Baican added a rhymes category for the diphtong o̯a (Rhymes:Romanian/oasə), but no category for e̯a. It just doesn't make sense to me. I was also unsure if piață truely was incorrect, but my gut feeling tells me that something isn't right. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since a is actually the stressed vowel in those diphthongs, maybe the rhyme page should be Rhymes:Romanian/asə instead of Rhymes:Romanian/oasə. I don't know which is the better option, though. I searched for a policy about diphthongs in rhymes, but I couldn't find anything. Redboywild (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't found a policy about it either. It all boils down to the Romanian Rhymes category being messy – filled with correct and incorrect categories, not knowing which is which. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

a da jos

Stop redoing your edit to this entry – the reason why I reverted your edit is that the meaning "to shoot down", is not a da jos. The Romanian phrase means "to take down, to climb down from, to dismount, to alight", but not, and I repeat, NOT, to shoot down. Again Baican, I can't help but wonder where you get your translations from, considering that you've admitted to having poor English skills? Even more so, why do you insist on changing other fellow users' edits in a language you don't master? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

nu-s

Just to make things clear Baican concerning the alleged "ambiguity": Romanian – just like Italian – doesn't require the pronoun, unless you want to underline who is talking and/or want to add a specific stylistic touch. This feature is a fundamental characteristic of the language which distinguishes it from languages such as Swedish, German and English. So please, cease this edit war which doesn't do you any favours. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak Romanian, but I would note that pretty much all the Romance languages except for French are considered w:pro-drop languages when it comes to pronouns, and there are only three hits on Google Books and Google Groups combined for "eu nu-s acasă" (and one of those is "...eu. Nu-s acasă..."). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

worldview

FYI weltanschauung.

Please stop adding terms that are not idiomatic for the language. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent contributions

I urge you, if you intend on adding participles, please go that extra mile and add those additional translations which are just as important (see parcurs, concentrat, etc.). --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

admin CodeCatǃ

Eu nu mai știu care termin de blocare a lui BAICAN XXX este valabil, mie îmi apare inițial ora 21ː28 , după care apare și ora 23ː28/26 august 2016; deci eu vă rog deci să corectați ora de rigoare, și pe viitor să evitați să stabiliți date de blocare eronate. Numai bine, BAICAN XXX .--/#Ionel Bănescu#/ 21:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect translations

I've asked you before and I'm going to ask you again to stop adding translations you're unsure of. Several of your recent "translations" have been misspelled, incorrect and at times definitions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

bârfă de la robbie swe

eu n-am timp de bârfă, robbie swe dacă vezi atâtea greșeli așa cum mă bârfești tu aici, de ce nu le evidențiezi și nu le și corectezi colegial tuǃ? ----/#Ionel Bănescu#/ 20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're in the English Wiktionary Baican – please stop communicating in a language foreign to the greater community. I'm going to disregard your personal attack. I am sick and tired of having to clean up your contributions – so whatever collegiality I might have had in the beginning it's definitely gone now. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Time for another block maybe? —CodeCat 21:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat I see no other way. Practically all of his recent contributions have to some extent been unsatisfactory and he keeps reverting my changes, although I can provide sources to back them up. I believe this issue has gone on long enough and I see no improvement whatsoever – neither here nor on any other project for that matter. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You should bring it up on WT:BP then. —CodeCat 11:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Provided that Wikitiki89 has already blocked Baican, should I still bring it up on WT:BP? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, though it may help if you want to ask what to do if this starts again. —CodeCat 17:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me note that hyperbole is not a good way of presenting information in relation to blocks, and therefore, statements like "Practically all of his recent contributions have to some extent been unsatisfactory" probably should not be made. In Baican's last changes, I see multiple translations that seem unproblematic, and that does not match the quoted statement. Actually, I find it quite hard to find these alegged "unsatisfactory" contributions, anway. If there are so many of them, it should be real easy to drop in some 3 diffs as examples. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm really trying to understand @Dan Polansky why you are forgiving to some users, yet punitive to others. Speaking of hyperbole, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones – we all know that you make such statements yourself (referring to some of your comments made to among others AtalinaDove and Wyang).

Now back to the issue – you asked for examples, well here are a couple: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

On another note, double-spacing in some of BAICAN's entries seems to indicate residual formatting which lingers after copying definitions from a third-party source. I have my suspicions that he has copied translations from online dictionaries although I could never figure out which ones. I guess it will remain a hunch. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these diffs; by the way, {{diff}} is nice for this. Diffs are the proper sort of material to supply, not hyperbole. Hyperbole is inappropriate even if it turned out I used hyperbole myself (diffs?); that would only show that I am fallible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I've never used {{diff}} before, but I'll make sure to use it from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

vernal equinox

Hi. Please don’t insert double spaces in translations. It makes the potential entries harder to access and it’s simply not recommended in any modern language (as far as I know). It’s come to my attention that you have been repeating this mistake for a while, and whilst it’s not a major problem, it’s still kind of annoying to keep fixing since it continually appears from time to time. Exercise caution. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 10:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Although pointed out by Romanophile, you continue to add superfluous spacing in some of your translations. Please be cautious and I also urge you to be more careful when you translate terms you don't know. Finally, I would also advise you not to create discussion pages for entries without specifying why – I will from now on delete those pages if they do not contribute to a healthy discussion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted contribution

Your article instalator sanitar was deleted. First and foremost, the reference did not support its creation – DEX does not have an entry named instalator sanitar. Please do not add it again because instalator is a sufficient translation, anything added to it such as sanitar, de apă, de gaz, etc., are SOPs. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent contributions

I have (again) corrected your latest translations. Please make sure that your translations are correct before you add them. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent contributions 2

Some of your latest translations have again been incorrect. Unless you act with caution, you will be blocked again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Just block them for good. It's clear that they aren't interested in fixing their issues. —CodeCat 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Baican, you have again chosen not to follow Wiktionary guidelines. By posting Google links on citation pages for English entries, you not only disregard their purpose you also show a gross disrespect towards this community. Your unwillingness to discuss even basic issues has led to this permanent block. Believe me, I've been putting off having to take this decision, but I find no other way. Taking into consideration your latest stunt it has become abundantly clear that you have no intention of participating in a collaborative spirit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)