User talk:Engirst

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Answers[edit]

Is there any way to get you to answer people's question, such as mine and Tooironic's? I think if you create a load of invalid entries, then refuse to discuss your contributions, if you get blocked, you deserve everything you get. But there's nothing to stop you participating in future discussions; if you're having trouble understanding the English, that's ok! Just ask us to explain again. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit your own talk page while blocked. But not the Beer Parlour. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked me, deleted my response, closed my mouth, then you said that why didn't me response to your discussions. Are you joking? Toned Pinyin entries are allowed, but you made the rule and then break it. Engirst 13:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Click on your user page; I didn't block you. Also I removed the message you left me when you didn't reply as it is supposed to be a talk page, instead of you leaving me a message and disappearing into the night. Stop evading the question, do you wish to participate in discussion about Mandarin or not? Specifically, not just disappearing into thin air whenever anyone asks you a question that you find difficult. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What question do you want to discuss? Please ask directly. If you wanted to discuss about Mandarin, firstly, I ask you a question. Do you really think that Pinyin entries are useful as you formulated the rule to allow Pinyin entries? Engirst 22:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any Mandarin and I don't plan on learning any, any time soon! I don't oppose them; the point that I think that I, Tooironic and Jamesjiao are making is that they have to be attested. Attested per WT:CFI#Attestation exclude number of Google hits. The 'number' of Google Book hits isn't relevant either; it's purely a matter of if enough of the hits (on Google Books or elsewhere that we consider durable) are valid for Mandarin. My specific example was 香皂 (xiāngzào), which gets 14 600 Google Book hits, while the pinyin xiāngzào. What is your reaction, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone believed that an entry is unattestable, please put it to RfD/RfV such as here (善意第三人), but not just delete it and block the contributor directly such as 志愿者 and xiāngzào. Firstly, about 志愿者, at the beginning Tooironic insist he was right but eventually he admitted having done wrong and restored the entry (please see here). Secondly, about xiāngzào, xiāngzào is attested. Please see references as follows:

The point here is that we need uses, not mentions. Dictionaries such as these include pinyin along with Hanzi spellings, but in some cases the pinyin isn't used by Mandarin speakers. If it is not used by Mandarin speakers, we cannot include it. There is no 'separate rule' for Mandarin. It has the same rules as the other languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits is one of the evidence of uses. Japanese also has "pinyin" entries, please see [here]. Anyway, the rule for allowing Pinyin entries is made by you. We should follow rules. Engirst 23:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above Pinyin dictionaries of references also show that Pinyin entries (included Pinyin example sentences) are useful and have market especially for Mandarin learners. Engirst

Sorry to interject here, but I actually don't think any blocks on Ddpy or his other accounts purely on the grounds of creating "unattestable" Pinyin entires were justified. With no specifications in guidelines regarding the formatting of Pinyin entries, a recognition of Pinyin as an alternative albeit rarely used script can be assumed. This makes Pinyin words as attestable as their Hanzi script words. The fact that this person is copying most of his Pinyin words from a dictionary is also an indication of attestability. This person, despite lacking competences in both Chinese and English, should not be blocked (ignoring antecedents) before the ambiguity in guidelines is removed with either the complete non-acceptance of Pinyin entries or the restriction on Pinyin entries to be definitionless. 60.240.101.246 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total rubbish; WT:CFI#Attestation applies, the fact that there is 'no guideline' means that the whole of WT:CFI applies and nothing else. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would make pinyin words as attestable as their hanzi counterparts is attestation, not rhetoric. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so willing to talk, do it now; this account isn't blocked. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, pure vandal. Only wants to engage in discussion when things are going his way. Otherwise, goes out and vandalises as many pages as he can before he gets blocked. When things aren't going his way, he sulks like a little child. His only interest is harm Mandarin entries. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was the person twice blocked by you. English Wiktionary is absolutely a place filled by complete error-ridden rubbish, both content-wise and people-wise. My purpose is to identify as many counterproductive users as possible, have them unblocked and active so that this place becomes even more rubbish. By the way, if you dare come to the Chinese Wiktionary, I will block you indefinitely. 60.240.101.246 08:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

I will try to explain it you:

WT:CFI says this:

"This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic."

Notice the keyword attested. In order for a term to be included, a term has to be attested. But when is a term attested? That is told here in WT:CFI:

'“Attested” means verified through

  1. Clearly widespread use,
  2. Usage in a well-known work, or
  3. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.'

From the above, the third point is relevant for pinyin entries. A term has to be used in permanently recorded media.

What does it mean that the term has to be "used"? It means that the sentence has to use the term rather than mention it; the sentence has to rely on the reader's understanding of the meaning of the term. Thus, a term's occurrence in a dictionary is a mention of the term rather than use, as the writer does not rely on the reader's knowledge of the meaning of the term. Thus, occurrences of terms in dictionaries do not count for attestation.

What does it mean for a term to be used in permanently recorded media? That is open to discussion, but Google books and Usenet newsgroups have been recognized as such media. What is certain is that world wide web in its entirety does not automatically count as permanently recorded media.

Pinyin entries have no exception from WT:CFI: they have to satisfy the attestation requirements no less than English, Spanish, Italian, German or Czech entries.

For the record, I assume that, by talking to you, I am talking to User:123abc aka User:Ddpy. --Dan Polansky 08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation of the attestation requirements of languages. I agree with you that it should be applied to any languages but not only for Mandarin Pinyin, such as "Min Nan pinyin" also have no exception but it is not, please see here. If someone believed a Pinyin entry is unattestable, he/she should put it to RfD/RfV as here but not to break the rule of Wiktionary as toned Pinyin entries are allowed (please see here). Engirst 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attestation is requested in RFV; it is not requested in RFD. More importantly, an editor who enters entries of which it is obvious that they are unattestable is not acting in good faith. If you repeatedly create entries that are unattestable and you know that the entries are unattestable, you are creating needless work for other people to deal with in RFV. This, again, cannot be considered acting in good faith; your creation of needless work for other people to do takes these people's time and attention. The only honest and fair thing to do that I can see is, when you are planning to create an entry, first make sure that the entry is attestable. Furthermore, there is no "rule that toned pinyin entries are allowed"; all pinyin entries have to meet CFI, and thus have to be attestable. There is no rule that exempts toned pinyin entries from the requirement of attestability. --Dan Polansky 12:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please[edit]

PLEASE stop creating entries which cannot be attested. Do you know how much extra work you are creating for us? ---> Tooironic 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toned Pinyin entries are allowed by Wiktionary rule (with a formal vote) and those I am creating are attested such as tiāndì, but someone is doing something to break the rule (please see here. Engirst 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. You just created douchi, and that's not even toned. ---> Tooironic 01:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
douchi is English as well. English is not rubbish. Engirst 01:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Engirst, are you inventing a new language - pinyin? Words are derived from languages, not transliterations. --Anatoli 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "invented" by me, please see Template:projectlink Engirst 01:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a nuisance you are! I was referring to derivations, which must state the language in its PROPER script. Engirst, you're not wanted for your disruptive edits and behaviour. Your entries will be deleted, even if they are technically acceptable because they are out of sink with proper hanzi entries and attestable. You jeopardise other people's anonymous accounts as well. Wiktionary allows to edit without having an account, as long as their edits are not against the rules. --Anatoli 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
douchi is an English entry, if you believed it must has Hanzi, you may feel free to add. Engirst 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's English, make an English entry. Stop making pinyin as Mandarin entries, they are just going to keep getting deleted. ---> Tooironic 03:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toned Pinyin entries are allowed. Engirst 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only pinyin entries WHICH ABIDE BY WIKTIONARY'S CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION. Are you actually reading any of the messages we have been giving you over the past few months?? ---> Tooironic 08:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow rules.

'“Attested” means verified through

  1. Clearly widespread use,
  2. Usage in a well-known work, or
  3. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.'

Such as shíyóu. Engirst 13:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're just forgetting one very important thing - it has to be in a Mandarin work, not an English one, and it has to be USED not just MENTIONED! ---> Tooironic 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal question[edit]

A personal question Engirst, if you don't mind. You're Chinese, right? Have you yourself ever read a book all in pinyin? Why do you care so much for pinyin?

Actually, I personally think Chinese would benefit from start using pinyin as its main script. It'd be great! Also pinyin entries are especially useful due to the large number of homonyms in Chinese. So, I don't mind having pinyin entries. However, I can't honestly say that I think they are attestable. I'd say you're fighting a losing battle. It'd be wiser to change strategy, and argue that pinyin entries are simply useful, even though they are not (directly) attestable. Vaste 07:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted material[edit]

Please stop adding example sentences from copyrighted material - this includes all your bible quotes. ---> Tooironic 21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bible has no copyright. Engirst 22:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has copyright like any other creative work, if it was written or the author died less than a certain time ago. —CodeCat 22:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bible is different. Engirst 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it isn't... copyright law makes no distinction for bibles. —CodeCat 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here Engirst 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's just one specific work that is released as public domain, so you can use quotes only from that site. There is no rule that bibles in general are not copyrighted. Unless they say they're not. —CodeCat 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter anyway since that work isn't durably archived; everything you are citing, User:123abc, is not attestable. ---> Tooironic 08:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is from this site. It is royalty free and durably archived. Engirst 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it durably archived?? ---> Tooironic 13:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wordproject is an open, royalty free web page, online and on CD, which aims to make the Word of God - the Bible - available to as many people as possible, through a means that is simple, up-to-date and cheap to reproduce and use." CD is durably archived as well. Please see here. Engirst 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't actually publish the CDs - all that is available on the website are some mp3s. This website is not a legitimate publication per WT:CFI. ---> Tooironic 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Bible copyrighted?? All the most common editions of it are on Wikisource under the least restrictive possible license - PD. The copyright status of the website that the content is reproduced on is immaterial. Nobody has a right to impose copyright on PD work. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a translation; the translation is copyrighted, since it is an original work. In this case, though, it is not, because that website has released it to the public domain. However, it's not durably archived, so it can't be cited anyway. Nor does it means any entry this user creates is actually attestable. (Most of the entries he has created cannot be attested and will have to be removed eventually.) ---> Tooironic 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, public domain means that you can take a work and publish it under any kind of restriction you like. Of course, if the work is public domain, there wouldn't be much of a point to that, but it is allowed... you have the 'right' to impose copyright on a PD work. And it's different when you make changes to the work before publishing it. If you have a Greek bible in the PD and want to translate it into English, you can, and you can attach any kind of licence you want to your translation, because it's now your creative work. The same applies if you take an existing English PD bible and make changes to it, no matter how small. Once you publish it in any form, modified or not, you have copyright. —CodeCat 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Have you read and considered WT:REDIR? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. Engirst 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mandarin_Pinyin_words[edit]

"Mandarin Pinyin word" is not a correct Part of Speech header. Please wait until the Beer Parlour discussion finishes until you start editing pinyin entries. Anyway, the whole point of creating soft redirects for pinyin words was that there be NO definition lines, so you're not doing it right anyway. ---> Tooironic 22:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief (concise) English definitions are necessary and very beneficial to users especially for beginners, such as this example. Please see here for your reference. Engirst 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English words derived from...[edit]

These categories are incorrectly named. We use "terms" in the category names, not "words". Also, we generally just list these at the entry from which they are derived in a "Derived terms" section, instead of creating a category for them. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the creator of {{derv}} to amend it. (Please see here.) Engirst 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already commented there. --EncycloPetey 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Pinyin entries[edit]

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin_entries. Please follow the format found in yánlì using the Romanization L3 header and the {{pinyin reading of}} template. Note that only te Romanization heading is allowed. Under no circumstance shoul a part of speech heading be included as an header. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the {{cmn-def}}, as it does not allow both trad and simp characters to be included on the same line, and please do not include a definition. Just a link to the character entries. If you can, please create the character entries as well. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a very brief English definition is warranted and in fact essential in such pinyin entries--otherwise to find the correct word one would have to click through to each and every hanzi version--sometimes up to a half dozen or more. There's no reason for that. 71.66.97.228 04:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reserved the def parameter in {{pinyin reading of}} for this purpose. I still encourage you not to use it. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every time to key in a long wording of "pinyin reading of" is boring. Could you simplify it? Engirst 05:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MG has redirected cmn-def to pinyin reading of, so just keep uisng cmn-def in that case. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your information. Engirst 10:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "def=" parameter seems better because the very brief definition is not italicized. The entry is easier to read and make sense of if the brief definition is not italicized. 71.66.97.228 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The brief definition is italicized, please see here. Engirst 12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But here isn't italicized. Engirst 22:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bug in the template. It has been been fixed. Please continue to use the def parameter instead of putting the def outside the template (which puts the full stop before the definition instead of after, which is ugly). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing. Engirst 22:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least follow the standard, and add both traditional and simplified, if they differ, please? I have fixed your Luómǎhuà entry. --Anatoli 01:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a typing error. Thanks for your fixing. Engirst 01:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a suggestion[edit]

Instead of creating more and more pinyin entries, how about you correct the hundreds of entries you created in the past with incorrect formatting? That would save us all a lot of time to clean up after you. ---> Tooironic 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

释迦牟尼[edit]

I realize that most people pronounce 牟 here as móu, but the dictionary says otherwise here. I was a little unsure to start with as I thought zdic might have gotten it wrong. But based on its Sanskrit pronunciation, it's most likely pronounced mù originally and later changed it to móu as it's the more dominant of the two pronunciations in all its uses. So I think I might go with yours as it's more representative. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CEDICT also uses pronunciation Shìjiāmóuní. --Anatoli 04:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference:
Google hits: shìjiāmùní
Google hits: shìjiāmóuní Engirst 04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning your edits on this. I am comparing how it's used in real life (having heard it being used) and how it's represented in a respectable dictionary. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jamesjiao, if you were talking to me, I just wanted to contribute to the discussion and get more confidence on the exact pronunciation. (I hate making mistakes in pinyin.) Nciku and 教育部重編國語辭典 (use trad. only) also give "Shìjiāmóuní". --Anatoli 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think both pronunciations should be accepted as they exist in real life, and they are beneficial for searching. Engirst 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it's te case of dual pronunciation, like 熟悉 (shúxī, shóuxī) --Anatoli 04:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include pinyin examples[edit]

Please do not include pinyin examples. Do it at the character entry. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the vote is complete and the patrollers have the right to revert/delete your edits. --Anatoli 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

assistance[edit]

Since you are doing the pinyin single character entries, are you able to move everything from the Pinyin heading to the Romanization heading while you are at it? Again, please just link them, don't include examples. See here: Category:Mandarin pinyin with diacritics Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

烤排骨[edit]

Thanks for adding the entry. Now, you mentioned Mandarin entries being complex. Unfortunately, it is a complex language to start with, therefore a little more effort needs to be put in to creating them. You can't expect spending the same amount of time in creating a Mandarin character entry compared to creating a French one for example. At the very least, you should include a hanzi box and a rs= parameter in the headline template. The rs template helps with indexing and looking up the entry. If you really have to, you can omit the tra/sim parameters in the headline template, but that's all you can omit without losing information. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

headings[edit]

Please... no other headings in pinyin entries except for the Romanization heading. Remember it's a pointer. Definition of a pointer is something that points to its destination. Therefore, it does not contain any information other than its destination. It's a simple concept used in many fields in real life. A file shortcut for example in computing; a street name sign that contains a range of street numbers is another; the index of a book; an email address. They are all examples of pointers. Adding additional info to pointers serves no purpose other than bloating the size of the pointer itself. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

header template[edit]

I made a new Mandarin Romanization header template {{cmn-rh}} for you to speed up your entry creation. To use it, you need to use the subst keyword. This keyword puts the content of template onto the page (ie. substitute). Let me demonstrate, for example, you want to make a romanization entry for 枸杞子, you can type the following: 

{{subst:cmn-rh}}
# {{cmn-def|枸杞子|def=[[wolfberry]]}}

This should speed up your entry creation times for pinyin entries. Try it out and let me know if you have questions. Oh one thing to note is this only works if you are creating the header for the first time. If you are modifying an existing entry, this won't work obviously. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Engirst 00:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted reply to your IP account[edit]

User talk:2.25.193.30‎. I am convinced now, but take a look at the link I gave you. I am trying to figure out exactly what it means. Whatever it means, it doesn't mean T单位 in its linguistic sense obviously. Maybe you can help me. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can know more the meaning of T单位 about real estate from this link. Engirst 01:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more link from Google Books Engirst 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thames[edit]

Don't use confusion and disagreements among some users to start your old games. Talk:Ampere定律 was enough to show that Chinglish will not be tolerated. Attestability of English words in a Chinese text doesn't make these words Chinese. --Anatoli 03:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they "Chinglish"? Engirst 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are, same as any other (river + 河), (city + 市), if they are not in hanzi. These discussions don't lead anywhere. Please just don't spread illiteracy here. --Anatoli 03:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not Chinglish books. 2.25.213.239 04:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lànyòng zhíquán, zhōngyāng jíquán, et al[edit]

Please stop creating entries which are sum of parts. Yes, I know these words are included at MDBG but that dictionary allows SoP entries, Wiktionary does not. ---> Tooironic 23:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

你是不是中国人？[edit]

如题。你是来传教和推广拼音的吧？而且好像你不识字的样子阿。你对汉语的理解不是一般的差，编辑里的错误极多，仅这二十天的编辑的错误就已经满天了。你到这里创建这么多滥质的拼音条目，让这里的编辑者头痛至极，封你都封不尽，你不觉得羞惭吗？60.240.101.246 01:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yuānmiàn, hēi'àn, yùnxíng, et al[edit]

Please do not add example sentences to romanised entries. I've had to clean up your mess, yet again. ---> Tooironic 05:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engirst, please tell me what happened to your block? Were you vindicated or something? Did you promise to behave? As far as I am concerned, and many would agree, you are wasting everyone's time. If the community explicitly decided NOT to block you, please give me a link. After a while, I'll assume that you just used your tricks (quickly changing IP addresses) to stay here. --Anatoli 02:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

synch[edit]

Please don't forget to synchronise the entries - traditional/simplified. We don't have a bot to do this. It may be not so good providing the same example in multiple pages but it's just my thought. --Anatoli 03:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gàosù[edit]

We do NOT add quotations to romanised entries. The same goes for Japanese. This is your last warning. ---> Tooironic 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is afraid, though. Hasn't he abused Wiktionary enough? --Anatoli 22:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK[edit]

Are romanising OK? --Anatoli 04:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your account to edit entries[edit]

Engirst, please use your account to edit entries, not your generated IP addresses. --Anatoli 12:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Engirst&oldid=18598912"