User talk:Dan Polansky/2007

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



Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Translations to be checked (Czech)[edit]

If you have a moment, we have this cleanup category that could really use your help! --Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for telling me. I will have a look it when I find time. --Daniel Polansky 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation of flag[edit]

Hello Daniel, the French Wiktionary only mentions prapor as Czech translation for flag. Reta Vortaro only mentions flajka. And mentions both. What do you think? 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello anonymous, flajka is definitely wrong; the correct spelling is vlajka. Regarding prapor, it can be used as an expression for flag; still I would translate prapor mainly as banner. --Daniel Polansky 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, flajka should be vlakja. My apologies! 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation Templates[edit]

I noticed you removed the collapsible translation templates from your templates on your user page.  You commented, "(I don't think I like the folded translations, so remove them from my template)."  I don't like them either, but people like us have been outvoted at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/"Change style standard to use new trans-top style templates", so it would be helpful to use them.  Supposedly, you can set your preferences to have them always open (like the old ones), but implementation of that seems to be somewhat spotty still. — V-ball 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So I will stick to the recommended new translation templates too. Thank you for referring me to the results of the vote. --Daniel Polansky 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


P.S.  It was sad to see you don't have time for declensions because they are so critically important in all Slavic languages.  It's great to have someone else working on Czech stuff, though.  :-)

Can I help you with the declensions template for Czech because I really need it to not have to add every case for noun, verb and adjective ? By the way, I am French but I need to learn Czech and want to help to make at least one real translation Czech dictionary on the web as it actually doesn't exist apart from the very simple Seznam. Thanks. - Thomas
Thomas, Wiktionary can be edited by anyone, including you. Please see also Wiktionary:Welcome,_newcomers. --Daniel Polansky 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I mixed up with the previous section so I thought you had already done some templates then delete them and I wanted to see them. I didn't need the page Wiktionary:Welcome,_newcomers but the page Help:Template. I have done a first template for word like pán. Do you find it accurate and useful ? Should I continue ? Prepositional singular of pán seems false according to this model of declension. --Thomas 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thomas, I am unsure whether I understand what you are saying, and what I can do for you. I am not planning to add any declensions myself. I do not know whether the template is useful; I am not going to use it. --Daniel Polansky 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes to cs-noun-prep template[edit]

Daniel, I saw the cs-noun templeate was changed to cs-noun-decl.  I have no problem with the name change.  However, I do not understand your changes to the template itself.  There is no reason it should be hidden.  No other language on English Wiktionary that I can find hides their declension or conjugation tables.  I do not see why the Czech entries should be different.  The declensions and conjugations are very important parts of entries.  Also, why the change in the look?  The other (colored) look was much more standard with other entries across Wiktionary.  Also, why remove the numbers on the declension table?  Since most Czechs refer to the cases by their numbers and not by their grammatical names, having the number there is very helpful for non-native speakers when they want to discuss a word with a native Czech.

Awaiting your reply. — V-ball 23:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi V-ball, I understand that you preferred the template the way it originally was, as that was the way you have designed it. Still, I have found the declension table too conspicuous, which is why I have performed all the changes. IMHO declensions are no more important than the other information, like synonyms, antonyms and related terms, yet they had an appearance that made them look like the most important information at the page. Put differently, the declension table was the most remarkable visual element of the page.
Right now, declensions are rendered as that important as synonyms, antonyms and related terms; that is to say, they are treated equally.
Regarding folding: that other languages too have too conspicuous declension tables is true enough. I have not dared to change their templates, as I do not contribute to these languages significantly. I still think that at some point, their declension templates should be made less conspicuous or foldable too. Case in point: Bosnian and Croatian.
Regarding the numbering of the cases, some other languages have declension templates without numbering, like Bosnian and Croatian. I find the numbering superflous, despite being a Czech native who has never learned the latin-based names of the cases, only the numbers. I assume people can number the rows in their mind and see that the fifth row in the table is the fifth, without seeing the number. But maybe you are right; I have no experience with discussing the Czech language with foreigners.
Regarding the colors, I would not say that the original pink and light cyan were much more standard. I am unaware that pink would be used in any English entries in Wikipedia. What would really be standard is the table styled using style="prettytable", as you can see in the conjugation table of, say, psát, and in the inflection table of to be. If the declension table for Czech nouns would be (a) foldable, and (b) looking like the inflection table in to be, that would be perfectly all right with me.
I do not insist on the exact changes that I have done. I hope we will be able to arrive to an agreement, perhaps a compromise. For instance, once the tables are foldable, how they are visually designed within the folds becomes irrelevant to the overall appearance of the page before the reader has unfolded anything. --Daniel Polansky 08:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying my colors were better, but just that I'd seen colors used more often than not.  The colors are probably the least important part, though.
As for the numbers, probably the part of medium importance, I still would keep them.  Some other languages don't have them because native speakers of those languages don't use them (e.g., Russian; if I asked a native Russian speaker about a word in the 4th case, he'd look at me with a weird look and wonder what the heck I was talking about).  Czechs use the numbers and that information, I think, is important for us non-natives as we learn and discuss matters with natives.
Lastly, the most important issue.  The declensions, I think, cannot be foldable.  Since the declension is actually part of a word, it is more important than synonyms, etc., which are not part of the actual word.  When a native English speaker looks up a word in a foreign language (we must always remember we're working on the English Wiktionary here, different principles will apply on the Wiktionaries in other languages), he expects to see a translation first and information on things like plurals, declensions, and conjugations second.  Since declension tables contain plurals as well as declensions, they are vitally important to an entry page and cannot be foldable.
I would say that we need to keep the declension tables on the entry page and not have them foldable.  If not having colors helps keep the declension out of a fold, then let's not have colors. — V-ball 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I admit that I am an English non-native, so my ability to see the point of view of an English native speaker is lower. Still, for me, making the declension table foldable is quite important. If it need be, the plural of the word can be listed at the headword, like it is in dítě. If your requirement of having the table non-foldable is shared by other English native speakers, then so be it. But until then, I am unsure whether you are not pushing your personal preference, as I for sure am doing to an extent myself ;).
I can live with the numbers in the table, especially if it is foldable.
The trouble that I see is that tables by and large are conspicious. When people quickly skim over printed material, they sometimes only look at tables, figures and boxes. It is difficult to design a table in such a way that it does not stand out too much. That is why I think these declesion tables should better be foldable. --Daniel Polansky 09:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
After a few weeks away from time to look at Wiktionary, I'm back to thinking about this, and I'm all for a smaller, less-conspicuous declension table (e.g., no bold fonts, not so many colors).  However, I think it cannot be foldable.  Since the Wiktionary is more-or-less standard with definitions/translations at the top of the entry, users see that first and then scroll down if they want more information.  They know that stuff below the definitions is additional.  Just because there's a table, they won't skip the definitions if they're looking for a definition.  Having to make the user click for more information for so many parts of Wiktionary is just not helpful (but that's another debate).
I'm willing to take this to a larger forum (beer parlor or something) if we think that someone besides us two cares about this.  It's just that since the declensions are integral parts of the entry for words in a declined language, I think they've got to be there, esp. for learners of the language in question. — V-ball 20:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Foldability of declesion tables[edit]

I prefer foldable declension tables, hoping I am not alone. Elements of reasoning:

  1. The declension tables are conspicuous. Tables in general are difficult to be made inconspicuous.
  2. The declension tables are possibly wide and high, though the one for Czech currently is not all that bad; some languages have larger tables.
    • Because of that, when the declension tables are unfolded, user has to scroll down to see the other information below, unlike when they are folded. This is my personal experience.
  3. The declension tables are something additional. They would not be found in a printed dictionary; there, probably only declension pattern would be stated.
  4. Synonyms are IMHO more useful for most Wiktionary users than declension tables. At least, I do not see that declension table is substantially more important than synonyms, antonyms, derived terms and related terms.

--Daniel Polansky 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the declension tables to not be foldable. 

  1. I don't find them conspicuous at all, even when they were brightly colored.
  2. I don't find scrolling to be a problem.  In fact, I am much more likely to look up a non-English word (I'm a native speaker of English, not of any other languages I know or study) and want to know information that is directly about that word such as the definition/translation and its declined or conjugated forms than what the words synonyms, etc., are.
  3. I recognize the tables as additional, as Daniel pointed out, but that's the beauty of Wiktionary — it doesn't have to conform to what we might expect in a paper dictionary.  That's why it could even be argued to be better.  Paper dictionaries rely on tables in an appendix and can never account for the many exceptions in any given language.  A declension or conjugation table on each page takes care of that very smoothly.
  4. I think the argument about what is more useful is a personal one (probably like how they look).  My personal experience says I need to know how words in Czech, Russian, Slovak, and Armenian decline much more often than I am looking up a synonym for one of those words.

V-ball 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Czech translation help[edit]

Could you please verify the Czech translation for Central Europe and also add the Czech translations for the words listen and round? Thanks. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the translation for Central Europe by downcasing the first letter, resulting in střední Evropa; as strage as this may seem to be, that is correct[1]. I have added translations to the other two guys at those meaning where I was confident about them. --Daniel Polansky 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all the work you have done. I am very glad to see someone working on Czech language entries. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is my pleasure :). --Daniel Polansky 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of TTBC sections[edit]

Please remember to add a =====Translations to be checked===== section heading before each {{checktrans}} when you add it. Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

All right; I'll do it. --Daniel Polansky 11:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, bad timing, I guess. Now it is {{checktrans-top}}, instead of heading+{{checktrans}}. Please be more careful not to create TTBC sections when they are not needed. Splitting up sub-senses is not always a good approach, unless you are positive the word is used that way in English. Right now, phlegm is a mess (no pun intended) and it is not immediately apparent how to recombine the definitions. --Connel MacKenzie 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll use the new template. --Daniel Polansky 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary TTBC sections[edit]

(The topic is continued from above.)

For example, centrifuge is directly translated; the secondary sense is not distinct (actually doesn't belong there at all; perhaps merely as an example sentence.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So what would you recommend me in the case of centrifuge? Should I have moved the French translation into the translation table? Or should I have used different heading in the translation table, instead of "device for separatiton of substances"? Or should I have avoided using the folding translation table at all? I am confused. --Daniel Polansky 08:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
One problem is that I am a non-native, unable to form such judgments as you are able, like that the secondary sense of centrifuge is not distinct. Ever since you have pointed out to me that I am entering too many TTBC sections, I have tried to refrain from entering them at least in some cases. --Daniel Polansky 08:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Czech help[edit]

Hi Daniel. Would you mind having a look at the articles at Transwiki:Rada, Transwiki:Cuda, and Transwiki:Bojan and cleaning them up and moving them into the main namespace if warranted? They're not all exclusively Czech, but I figure you might have a good idea what to do with them. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as regards rada, I have created a Czech entry, with some meanings missing though. I do not know the other two expressions. The three mentioned articles have little to do with Czech. --Daniel Polansky 09:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Official languages of the European Union matrix[edit]

Could you please verify the Czech translations in this table? And could you add the Czech word for Romanian? Thanks, --EncycloPetey 06:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Verified. The Czech translation for Romanian added. The Czech translation for Dutch replaced with a more frequent one. --Daniel Polansky 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reflexive verbs[edit]

It appears to me that the common practice is not to include the reflexive pronoun's accusative singular (< сѧ (), common Slavic) in the article's name, like you've done with mračit se, chlubit se etc., but to indicate reflexiveness with context label {{reflexive}} in the list of meanings. That way users can look up both reflexive and nonreflexive meanings of a verb at one place.

BTW, you could save yourself some typing by using {{infl}} + get categorization for free. Also check out the missing Czech entries in Appendix:Swadesh lists for Slavic languages :P --Ivan Štambuk 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ivan; I was just wrestling with how to handle these reflexive verbs. Can you please refer me to some entries with both reflexive and nonreflexive uses in other Slavic languages? Also, was there any discussion or policy regarding reflexive verbs?
In Russian, the "se" (sja) is even a part of suffix, so the reflexive verbs have their own entry per infinitive form. Examples: издаваться, изъясняться, использоваться; for more, see Category:Russian_verbs.
The following categories show dedicated entries for reflexive verbs: Category:Serbian_verbs, Category:Bosnian_verbs, Category:Russian_verbs, Category:Polish_verbs.
The argument of the advantage of looking up both reflexive and nonreflexive meanings would have to hold for look for, look at, look after, look forward too, isn't it? Although, I admit that there are many phrasal verbs for look whereas there is at most one reflexive addition to a verb like těšit. --Daniel Polansky 15:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is how I've done it for Croatian: držati.
Apparently the policy is to have reflexive forms on the same entry page as non-reflexive, even if they're formed by cliticizing reflexive particle to the verb, so lavarse points back to lavare. East Slavic verbs formed by suffixation of -ся should probably abide by the same rule. As far as I can see, both издаваться and издавать have the same list of meanings, so it could make sense replacing the list of meanings of издаваться with {{reflexive of|издавать|lang=ru}}.
Phrasal verbs are usually separated even in paperback dictionaries.. The problem with Slavic reflexive verbs is that they in most cases in reflexive form slightly modify the original meaning, while among English phrasal verbs there's often very little semantic correspondence. --Ivan Štambuk 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, so
  1. I do not think I will change my personal policy based on one example created by you; maybe you should better list entries that you have not created yourself and are not in your mother tongue ;).
  2. When asking for a policy, I was not asking what is apparent to you; I was asking whether there actually is any written policy to which other contributors have expressly agreed.
  3. I think that the difference of meaning between těšit (to please) and těšit se (to look forward) is considerable; another instance coming to mind is představit (to introduce) and představit si (to imagine). As you can read in my user page, my policy is to enter only those reflexive verbs separately for which the meaning differs; for instance, I have no plan to create dedicated entry for holit se.
--Daniel Polansky 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See discussions:

Specific policies vary from language to language, depending on whether

  • reflexive particle is separate or cliticized onto the verb
  • reflexive meaning of verb is exactly that of the unreflexive one
  • reflexive version does not have unreflexive match

In Croatian predstaviti and predstaviti si also mean introduce and imagine respectively, but I don't plan to create a separate entry with precisely the same inflections with si appended. In most cases of reflexive/unreflexive pairs, the meanings are precisely the same and duplicating them (like in the Russian entry mentioned above) is just a waste of space. --Ivan Štambuk 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have convinced me, although the discussions you have referred me to seem inconclusive to me, showing there is no common agreement accross languages. --Daniel Polansky 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just do whatever you think it's best..I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything, I was just making a comment that most reflexive verbs I saw on en.wikt don't in fact include reflexive pronoun in article's name, even when they exclusively used as reflexive verbs (like german sich freuen). Since you're probably the only user regularily adding Czech entries, I don't think anyone will question yor good intentions. Eventually, common agreement should make it's way to Wiktionary:About Czech.. Best regards, --Ivan Štambuk 17:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
An aside: freuen is not used exclusively in reflexive form, as in Das wird ihn nicht freuen. --Daniel Polansky 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I could swear that I've read on at least one place that freuen never comes without corresponding sich. But I don't claim to know German that well anyway, so thanks for the correction ;) --Ivan Štambuk 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

se vs si[edit]

I wonder how to distinguish the following reflexive cases:

  1. představit se, představit si,
  2. prát se, prát si

The meanings differ completely. Also, the spelling is unobvious, if I only write


  1. (transitive) to introduce yourself
  2. (transitive) to imagine

An explanation: se is in accusative whereas si is in dative. --Daniel Polansky 10:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only that - in South Slavic (probably in West Slavic too) dative and accusative singular of reflexive particle could almost always be expanded into sebi and sebe respectively. So if one should distinguish between predstaviti and predstaviti se, there should also be an entry on predstaviti sebe.. Both forms are regular and used, although the ordinary dictionaries usually list just the shortened (se) form.
Also there's the issue of passive voice ("reflexive impersonal"), where se can be used on almost all intrasitive verbs that have a human nomina agentis, and can be translated roughly as "feek like", "would like to" or "be willing to". I don't think I've seen anywhere on wiktionary separate articles for inflected compound tenses of verbs, so I don't think it would be appropriate to do se for Slavic languages even whey they're semantically basically passive voice.
Regarding si, a question: Can in Czech all verbs that bind si (i.e. dative) also bind dative case of other personal pronouns (or other nouns?)? I suspect that (most of them) they can.. If that's true, than the reflexive forms that use si should also be marked with a note that they're usally followed by a dative. In what format? I don't have a clue, and Category:Grammar templates doesn't appear to have something useful inside. As far as I can see from a few examples like Latin servire, format is usually arbitrary.
In Croatian for rare cases such as umisliti, I plan to format the list of meanings as follow:
  1. (transitive) to imagine
  2. (intransitive) to be conceited
  3. (reflexive, with dative) to be conceited
  4. (reflexive, with accusative) to be conceited (or combine the last two in one line..)
Reflexive verbs can be considered a form of transitive verbs, in which object is the reflexive pronouns se, usually in accusative form like any other direct object of any other transitive verb. So for any verb that takes an object not in accusative, I would explicitely make a note of such a fact - same for reflexive verbs. --Ivan Štambuk 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I will put the thing about the dative and the accusative differently:
  • představit si (imagine) means to představit to whom? Answer: si, meaning to yourself. What? Answer: The object of imagination.
  • představit se (introduce) means to představit what? Answer: se, meaning yourself. To whom? Answer: to whomever stands as the indirect object.
Regarding your question, I have to admit that I do not understand it.
--Daniel Polansky 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now used {{reflexive|indirect object}} in představit, and it looks okay. --Daniel Polansky 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks great ;) Anyway, the question about prát si and similar was: If the reflexive pronoun is the only valid pronoun (or noun?) here; i.e. can you prát mi/ti/němu/ní... If that's the case, than the "reflexive" meaning is just the special case of a verb that usually takes an (indirect) object in dative.
Or maybe the dative (or instrumental, sometimes) case of indirect object should be explicitely marked as such? When I think about it, for a verb like umisliti indirect object is optional.. Anyway, do whatever you think it's best :) --Ivan Štambuk 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So now I understand your question :). In prát si, another person could take the place of si, so prát jí (to wash for her) is a valid term. But that does not work with představit si. --Daniel Polansky 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

střední Evropa[edit]

Hello Daniel. Would you be kind to leave a comment on the talk page, regarding the capitalization of střední? Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My reply, also posted to the talk page: Reference:, search for "jižní Evropa". Also, googling shows the spelling "střední Evropa" too, to be found on notable pages like, but of course only in the middle of the sentence. Admittedly, the Czech Internet contains "Střední Evropa" in the middle of sentences too. Hope this is convincing enough. ;). --Daniel Polansky 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it cannot be found in non-capitalized form, it's just that that refers to central Europe (general sense), not Central Europe (proper noun). Czech wikipedia article uses in text Střední Evropa on lot of places.
The article you cite claims that it's not capitalized if used attributively, and this is not attributive meaning of adjective central/střední. Like in Střední Asie, which is listed just above.
Also, translations Východní Evropa on Eastern Europe, Severní Evropa on Northern Europe, Jižní Evropa on Southern Europe either prove otherwise, or their first letter should be lowercased as well (which I really doubt is proper).
Lots of languages write it that way, and I would really be surprised that the Czech is the exception.. --Ivan Štambuk 13:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am a non-expert on these grammatical issues. I do not understand what the semantic difference between střední Evropa and Střední Evropa is supposed to be. The Czech Wikipedia has a inconsistent capitalization of střední Evropa, so it is a non-reference. If you happen to have a source for your proposals, you are welcome. But if you only provide speculations, which I, a non-expert, cannot be supposed to refute in case they contain errors, I would propose that we stick to the only sourced variant, which is střední Evropa. --Daniel Polansky 14:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
But it shouldn't be used "consistently", because those two mean different things. You can say, for example, that "most countries in central Europe belong to Central Europe".
The jižní Evropa form you sourced is refering to attributive[2] usage of an adjective, which is not the case here. It even writes Střední Asie in the same sentance, which is basically the same way of geopolitical categorization.
If the proper noun is to be written střední Evropa, than you also must correct Czech translations on Eastern Europe, Northern Europe and Southern Europe. --Ivan Štambuk 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ivan, if you have a source for the claim that there is a geographical object Střední Evropa, which happens to lie at střední Evropa, and that the term Střední Evropa is indeed used in this way in the Czech language, then I think the dispute is over ;). --Daniel Polansky 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have access to any other Czech orthography other than the one you already mentioned, and even that one cites it supporting my interpretation. I find it rather dubious to write Střední Asie and at the same time střední Evropa. But whatever, it's not my problem to chase improperly capitalized Czech proper nouns. I was just making a benevolent remark regarding the incosistency in translation table. Hope you will support your thesis further by uncapitalizing other translations ;) Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


An IP-anon just added a picture to your user page ... Robert Ullmann 11:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

schránka -> Schrank?[edit]

Do you think that schránka may be derived from German Schrank, which has etymology: Old High German scranc? It seems like it fits to me. Mutante 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, schránka is most probably derived from schraňovat, related to ochraňovat and chránit, not from Schrank. But that I do not know for sure. Do you have a source for your hypothesis that it is derived from Schrank? --Daniel Polansky 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, admittedly I have no other source for the hypothesis besides that it sounds and looks very similar and has a similar meaning. Mutante 13:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, "i" is written "I" in English. Also, "german" is written "German". And "Dont" is written "Don't". As you can check in here in Wiktionary ;). --Daniel Polansky 13:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. ;) Mutante 13:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. So as regards your unverified hypothesis, I also have one, stated above. Until these hypotheses are verified, they should better stay out of Wiktionary, shouldn't they? --Daniel Polansky
Okay. Because i was not sure about it, i never added it to Etymology, but only to Related terms. But agreed, leave it like this then. Mutante 13:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User page edits[edit]

I was going to revert the edits to your user page, but I figured I would drop you a line instead since they seem to be semi-useful (at least the ones that aren't adding the stupid picture). If you leave them, you should know I'm not an admin. ;-) Globish 21:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)