User talk:Metaknowledge

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. 2012
  2. 2013
  3. 2014
  4. 2015
  5. 2016
  6. 2017

In God We Trrust[edit]


I got an Edit conflict. I saved my first edit too early. Now I cant save the perfectionized version as you rejected the latter in the meantime. How shall we proceed?

In God We Trrust (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)In_God_We_Trrust

Well, you can use the 'Preview' button to look over what you've done before you save it. I don't know which page you're referring to, but your recent edits have been very messy and of low quality. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the insult. You have to know, creating is much more difficult than destroying. Have you ever heart of the discussion page? It is meant for talking about mistakes... Never mind. It is the "penes" page. Are you willing to undo your delete, so my perfectionized version can be implemented?

In God We Trrust (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)In_God_We_TrrustIn God We Trrust (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by a "perfectionized" version. You can edit that page yourself, but I'm not going to undo my revert of your messy and unhelpful additions. If you want to add something that is useful and looks okay, you're going to have to do that yourself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

the ol' leptas[edit]

Yes yes I know it's ugly and so on but why is it specifically worse than "an agenda" or "two stadiums"? Equinox 01:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Because those are used in standard English, and this isn't. (Also, those are naturalised and this is a more recent loanword.) It's just as bad as phenomenas, which as of writing doesn't even have an entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Singular "phenomena" is pretty common, but I think people realise something is up when they try to put an s on it. Equinox 01:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Azeri conjugation templates[edit]

Hello! Any luck finding someone who could do the job?Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the Persian conjugation templates and their solution was to have a different one for each light verb which is... annoying. The upside is that it's not very complicated, and we could probably do that without too much trouble. A better approach would require asking somebody else for help (probably at the WT:GP, because I don't know anybody in particular with an interest in this). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Good stuff. I made this list that I guess covers 95%+ of all compounded verbs. Whenever you feel for it, could you show me how to do it on the example of changing templates for the first two? And I will do the rest as the entries for terms including them show up. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll try to deal with it soon, but real life might get in the way. If I haven't done anything in a week, it means I forgot and you should bother me again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Real life is good stuff as well. Plus I don't think I'm running a risk of running out of uncompounded terms to create in a week's time anyway. Unfortunately. :) Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi ! I also prefer to use the t= because it's explicit. Sometimes, if a blank argument is not inserted, it connects the link to the gloss... Using t= avoids all of that Leasnam (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As you say, it's not necessary, but I feel it's less confusing Leasnam (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not preferred, and in the case of a user who is not whitelisted, I don't want to waste my time patrolling edits where the only change is to add t=. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What the fuck[edit]

Why the hell did you just block me for a year and undo all my edits? What the hell man? 2600:387:5:80d::95 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You know why. You've been blocked before for this: your edits are crappy, and you refuse to listen when you're told why. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Wikitiki89, if you want to help me block him more effectively... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I refuse to listen? You said the reason was my edits on matzo prove that I'm unrealiable. What you don't realize was my edits to matzo weren't actually incorrect and in fact I've made no crappy edits whatsoever. Crappy would be making up shit or getting shit wrong. What I've done is 100% factual, and verified. You're just too much of stubborn cunts to admit that, so you continuously block me at every turn because you're so fucking convinced that you're wholly correct and I'm just the meager troll who gets kicks out of misidentifying etymologies, apparently. I'm not unreliable, you're just vindictive jerks. Well, block all ya want, protect all ya want, until I get what I want, as I've said, I'm never. Gonna. Stop.
Oh man, you get shit wrong all the time... y'know, the reason I noticed your edits this time around wasn't actually because I could tell it was you. I just saw that some of your Yiddish etymologies were flat-out wrong, and that's when I started reverting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, really? Care to name one?
Sure, אַדורך and דאָקטער were ones I looked at that were terribly wrong. Many others were just somewhat wrong, or extremely messy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Really? The word in the German-Jewish language that sounds like “doctor” and means “doctor” doesn’t ultimately come from the word that the word “doctor” decelnsed from OR the German word for “doctor”, which might I add literally sounds the exact same? How do you figure that?
You see, this is the problem. They do share an origin, but whether that origin is after Latin is unclear to me. Now, you chose to make shit up, to use your way of speaking, namely that the Yiddish comes from Middle English. This seems exceedingly unlikely, and it is obvious why that is so if you bother to read a Wikipedia article or two. Sadly, you are too sure of yourself to recognise how little you know. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That’s why I said “ultimately” comes, because whether or not in came from German, Dutch, or whatever isn’t known, but the fact that it ultimately came from that Middle English word is true
But you're still wrong. You just don't get it; Middle English doesn't enter into the equation here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Look honestly I’ll just cut all my bullshit and leave forever if you just restore my etymologies for matzo and Sodom. They are correct and verified, I promise you. I even cite Strong’s hebrew (in the case of מצה), that’s the only place I got the info from. If you still don’t believe me…please, please just look at the citation. Or better yet, google the etymologies and see if anything different comes up!
Unfortunately, this ISP is very random in their allocation of IPs, so long-term blocks are a bad idea. There are at least two regulars who have edited from the same 65-bit IPv.6 range in the past few months. I've made them IP-block exempt to be on the safe side, and you can prevent collateral damage from IPs by leaving autoblock unchecked, but that won't help random IPs. I can tell them apart from this person (confirmed as who you think they are, by the way), but not if they're blocked from editing in the first place. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I blocked the IP for a year because it was the same one he used in April 2017, displaying remarkable consistency (how does that work, if the ISP is very random?). Anyway, on an unrelated topic, while I was digging around, I saw Special:Contributions/Parsa obsessed with Bahá'i. I feel like we had someone with that obsession before (or am I conflating it with a vague memory of PaM?). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this particular IPv.6 64-bit range (2600:387:5:80D::/64) doesn't seem to overlap, but the results I got when I checked the 2600:387:5:803::/64 range (used by the same person) showed that it's possible.
As for the Bahai edits: Pass a Method edited some of the same entries, as did BedrockPerson and יבריב. Parsa isn't the same as either of those that I can check (BedrockPerson was blocked too long ago for the checkuser tool, but I saved information from יבריב before they got too old). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Metaknowledge: Do you have the authority to delete an entire entry? If so, could you please delete bajoocho, which I incorrectly back-formed from the plural bajocchi. The correct singular is bajocco, where I put the correct definition. I have been unable to figure out how to delete bajoccho, however. Thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. In the future, you can place the {{delete}} template on such an entry, with the first parameter being where you can put an explanation of what went wrong. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello, do you want to be a bureaucrat? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, and we have no need of any more active 'crats anyway. Stop stirring up trouble. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You're the boss, but I'd hardly call that "stirring up trouble." --Rerum scriptor (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


Hey. Wondering why the revert on relish. Comparing our entry with the Webster 1913 one, most of it has been directly lifted. --Gente como tú (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised you actually compared it. Anyway, the solution is to rewrite it a bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, lol. I surprised myself, too. You got the solution right, of course. I'll reinstate the tag, and hopefully someone will come along, see the tag, and rewrite it a bit...--Gente como tú (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, don't put it in the pronunciation section. It can go at the very bottom of the entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Lol, thanks MK. I think this entry is on one of my cleanup lists anyway, so I may get round to cleaning it up before the year 2020 is out. --Gente como tú (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)



Concerning this edit [1], I can't see the relation between malagan and periods/tampon. My english is bad but i understant that malagan is related to death and masks. -- AvatarFR (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Shocking though it may be, multiple languages can have a word that looks the same and means different things. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I caught your vandal again[edit]

A different IP has made similar edits at Abiquiú and on the rest of the site (such as Hebrew entries). Special:Contributions/ IIRC this is a recurring vandal who you know well. Just letting you know in case you want to take care of it. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually run into him just by patrolling RC and noticing his characteristic trail of shittiness. You can feel free to revert him on sight as well, you know. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

FWOTD questions[edit]

I had two questions about foreign word of the day: 1. Are you all right with suggesting word pairs under general nominations and 2. do you think a pseudo-anglicism focus week would work? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I think word pairs should be limited to focus weeks, but I could potentially be convinced otherwise.
2. We have featured pseudo-anglicisms in general "words derived from English" focus weeks before, like Dutch loverboy; I would welcome a week devoted to them alone if you can make it happen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. Okay, I was thinking of nominating the pair aalscholver and schollevaar, which could also go into an anagram focus week.
  2. I'll make a section for it right away. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, I've added a couple, but I can't add pronunciations for them. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Then, Where do I put that true phrase, that every time I put it on any side of the article you delete it--ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition is already in the entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


often rendered as 'WuHan' “WuHan: HYDAC”, in (Please provide the title of the work)[2], HYDAC, accessed 2 February 2018 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate way to show it. You can discuss issues relating to Chinese toponyms with @Justinrleung. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I don't think it's common to use this type of capitalization. One source doesn't make something common... — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Plus it's not even used in the web page itself. It's just used in the title. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You can change the word 'often' if you think in your little corner of the internet that Wuhan is rarely if ever spelled WuHan and Chinese location words only have only one "correct" romanization, but I think this is actually a pretty common rendering of the romanization of WuHan in Wuhan. If you go to the history of the WuHan page on Wikipedia, [3] you'll see there was someone in 2014 who said the same thing- "(Some Chinese writing in Pinyin Capitalize each syllable: "Wuhan" or "WuHan")". I see it all the time. If that page doesn't meet your standards, I'll be on the watch for more examples. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: In English, it's most often written as Wuhan, not as WuHan, because it is quite uncommon to have capitalization for each syllable. Sure, it could be somewhat common in Chinese contexts, but for English, we'll definitely need more solid evidence (see WT:ATTEST). A title on a Chinese web page won't do it. Anyhow, your edit to the entry was out of place. Information about capitalization is not quite related to the etymology. It should be under an "alternative forms" header. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


Check out to see the "archaic" (still used though, especially in AmE) meaning of eventual as contingent/possible/likely/potential. Also see


Hey. Why do you think I'm pretending to be WF? --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I had a communication with him (see my talk page). What did he do to get banned? DonnanZ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See my block summary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I had already read that. Behaviour like WF? It's obviously someone who knows their way round. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it *is* WF. They were making many Spanish stubs very quickly. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think WF is impersonating me: Pas un coiffeur = PUC = Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned he made a genuine request which I was quite happy to comply with, a job that needed doing. DonnanZ (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC).
Seems unlikely to me, as I haven't seen him put that kind of effort into impersonating somebody for years, and I don't see why you would deserve it. But if that were true, it wouldn't change anything, because I block WF now and then for fun. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Reciprocation? Anyway, osef, as we say in French. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So... impersonating WF is more common than I thought... PseudoSkull (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


Could you please try to contain your inner censor until an entry is at least complete. Also, please don't use reversion to attempt to impose your own personal standards on entries. DCDuring (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I cannot determine when you have finished an entry. Perhaps if you use the 'Preview' feature, you can publish the entry when it is ready for others to edit it.
If you want to include encyclopaedic descriptions, I suppose I shouldn't stop you. But I am not happy with your removal of two things I added to the entry: firstly, the common English name of the organisms in that taxon, and secondly, the direct etymon in the etymology. Can you explain why these two things, which are standard in taxonomic entries, do not belong in this one in particular? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the removals. But tabulate is hardly a common name and is a trivial derivative of the entry name. I am getting tired of an endless stream of new entries of the form [xxxx]id "Any member of the family [xxxx]idae", which don't give a clue about the type of organism or why a user might care. As to the etymology, in this particular case it is important that the sense of tabula that leads to tabulate be clear. In this case the definition is not obvious, nor was it present in the entry for tabula.
Using preview woulds be nice were it not for the fact that doing so loses content when I go to chains of links to complete the entry. You might try giving the entry twenty minutes or so, if not longer. DCDuring (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a common name. When someone shows me one, that's the word I use. And it's hardly trivial to expect users to know that members of Tabulata are called tabulates, but members of Rugosa are called rugosans. This is obviously not predictable.
I have no idea what you mean when you're talking about losing content. You do realise that you can use multiple tabs at once, right? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I lose content from the edit window. DCDuring (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose what annoys me about tabulate, [XXXX]id, [XXXX]ine, etc. is that they are often the sole element in the definiens. That just seems lazy or perhaps merely neglectful of readers who would benefit from something more than a translation from one technical vocabulary (scientific Latin) to another (biology/taxonomy/paleontology-speak). A definition is not the same as a translation. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring, that should definitely not be happening. If you preview a page and right-click a link, you should be able to open it in new tab. If that doesn't make sense to you, tell me what type of computer and browser you're using and I can explain in a more detailed way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see. I have so many open tabs (and some windows) that I've been trying to click from the preview window to other websites. THAT's where the problem arises. I'll try it some other way, such as you suggest. DCDuring (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
With most browsers, if you leave the preview page to go to a different website and then go back, what you input will still be there. But there's a limit to how I can help you if you won't tell me your computer and browser. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Lately, I've been using Chrome (previously, recently Firefox) on Windows 10. Within one version of the latest.
The problem arises mostly when I follow a chain of urls. DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem right-clicking every time you go to a new website. You can delete your tabs when you're done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
re:"Any member of the" entries: those are from Equinox's mass creation of substub "-id" entries. As I work on categories, I convert these into stub entries with the appropriate categories and taxlink. As far as I'm concerned, those are really low on the priority list. I've been doing a lot of these lately, and I'm going to be doing a lot more, so it might be a good idea to skip these for a while to preserve your sanity (if, as a hardcore Wiktionary editor, you even have any...) Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Etyl’s on hebrew[edit]

Hope you don’t mind, I tried adding etymologies to סילאן and עדי. I’m not trying to incite anything, I just don’t want to seem double-handed about it. AncientEgypt23 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't do it. Vorziblix has already saved me the trouble of reverting them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Can you please help me in removing transliterations of Urdu, Persian & Arabic languages from Urdu Wiktionary?— Bukhari (Talk!) 06:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No. That's why I pinged Aryaman. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of edit – dumb as a bag of hammers[edit]

(Feel free to retitle this section) It is my earnest belief that while ‘dumb’ has a comparative, ‘dumb as a bag of hammers’ does not. Someone who is dumber than someone who is dumb as a bag of hammers is dumber than a bag of hammers, true, but you can't say someone is more X, where X is the quality of being as dumb as a bag of hammers, without convoluted circumlocutions like the previous phrase, and anyway, ‘he's dumber than a sack of hammers than John Doe’ is completely ungrammatical due to trying to compare to too many things. I think you get the point. (I may have been editing from somewhere else — my IP was then — but the fact remains that it's the same laptop and no-one else has an account on it) 07:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't use this idiom myself, but I'm now unsure of what exactly ought to be done with dumber than a bag of hammers — is an an alternative form, perfectly synonymous? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Either that, or add it to Category:English autological terms... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's nearly synonymous when used alone, but when used together they contrast; someone who is dumber than a sack of hammers is at least a little stupider than someone who is merely as dumb as one. (Former IPs: and 07:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)