User talk:Metaknowledge

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. Jan-Jun 2012
  2. Jul-Dec 2012
  3. Jan-Jun 2013
  4. Jul-Dec 2013
  5. Jan-Jun 2014

Welcome back[edit]

But you came at a bad time. A lot of drama in the BP right now... —CodeCat 00:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think my solution to that will be avoiding the BP, then. Really, all I know of what's happened in the last months is whatever template changes get posted on N4E. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


This is something from Star Trek (so might not meet WT:FICTION): see [1]. The word seems to occur in a very few other sci-fi/fantasy books, for similar devices. Equinox 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A brief survey on BGC left me with the impression that it was more generic in nature than the Star Trek version, but I couldn't tell quite how generic, hence my inability to define it. I'm pretty sure it meets the policy, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Could you please create the Latin entry? --WikiTiki89 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to treat it. L&S only gives a quote from Pliny and decides to assume that it is the past participle of a verb camīnō, but it's so rare that it could just as easily be a one-off adjective, albeit one with an implicit verb that might just as easily exist if anyone else were to use a word this esoteric. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So do you have any ideas for a possible definition it could have had? It has descendants with the meanings "chimney" and "room". --WikiTiki89 12:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen this word before; you can see what L&S say. I suppose that the semantic shift makes some sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


In retrospect I think you were right to suggest that inflected specific epithets may as well be treated as Latin. Requiring the extra steps of creating Translingual inflection-line templates seems silly. I am leaving the uninflected specific epithets and the genitive forms of pseudo-Latin (SB's term) personal surnames as Translingual. If there were a clear consensus for another solution, I would go that way, but the practical advantage for speeding proper Translingual entries with comprehensible specific epithet information, not present in any existing taxonomic databases that I've seen, seems substantial. I think there are databases, some fairly comprehensive, that have specific epithets, but they are not very convenient for casual users. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I remain, like you (as far as I know), deeply sceptical of how we can handle Translingual entries without guidelines and demarcations clearer than those that exist at present. I haven't time to do much work on these matters any longer, nor will I for months, but if you create a vote or discussion and leave me a notification here, I will be happy to (briefly) critique, debate, or vote as the situation demands, if it can help lead us to a clear-cut solution on entries like this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Some features that reduce the risk are the presence of New Latin labels in many of the debatable Latin adjectives, the small number of Translingual adjectives, and the existence of categories marking entries as using or needing Latin or Translingual specific epithets. If necessary we could reverse almost all the choices made so far fairly quickly. Though I have worked on these for a while I don't really have a preference for the ultimate solution. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

re: rollback to "kuri"[edit]

I came across alternative form "goorie" and couldn't find it in wiktionary but a Google search brings up lots of references linking it to kuri and "mongrel dog" Goadeff (talk)

The word goorie is never used in Māori; I do not know how or if it is used in other languages, but a Google search is not sufficient to prove its use for Wiktionary's purposes. Please do not add words in languages you are not comfortable with, and review WT:ATTEST for how we demonstrate that a word is inclusible. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate a little: the spelling "goorie" looks like the way a native English-speaker who doesn't know anything about Maori would try to represent kuri: it's very easy to mistake a "k" without aspiration for a "g", and Maori "u" rhymes with English words that end in "oo". If you don't know Maori well enough to spot that, you're just spreading other people's mistakes. "Goorie" as an alternative spelling for kuri makes about as much sense as Sumisu for an alternative spelling of Smith, because that's how a native Japanese-speaker might spell it in our alphabet. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


A Google search has led me to believe that rebenyu may mean something in Tagalog. Since you have experience in Polynesian languages, I thought I'd ask you about it. --WikiTiki89 11:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's like asking you about a word in Albanian because of your expertise in Slavic languages: Tagalog is only very remotely related to anything Polynesian. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
A quick search leads me to believe it's a loan from English revenue. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
If there were no other Indo-Europen speakers around, the Albanian would be the right person to ask. Plus, I thought he'd appreciate the cross-linguistic pun. Anyway, thanks for the answer, it looks like you're right. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I did take a look at studying Tagalog, and although I did like some parts of the language, overall the orthography and the syntax drove me mad. Tagalog has a lot of English and Spanish borrowings, and this word looks very much not autochthonous. But it seems Chuck already figured all that out. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish dialects[edit]

You and User:Angr may be interested in the Yiddish dialectal vowel table I added to Wiktionary:About Yiddish#Vowels. --WikiTiki89 14:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I like it, although I don't know enough to assess it all. We really ought to add those orange links, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It's based on information given in Neil G. Jacobs (2005) Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction, which I bought for some light reading. I'm thinking we could make a pronunciation generator based on this table, if only we had a reference for determining which group a vowel in a particular word belongs to, since etymology alone is not reliable enough. --WikiTiki89 22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Missing Spanish feminine adjectives[edit]

Hey. You mentioned a year ago about a bot for these Spanish adjectives. You said that your bot ("clunking thing") could process them. Is that option still there? I'm not allowed to run a bot anymore, sadly. At least, only if I run it very slowly. --Enterloppd (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My life being as busy as it is, I can't commit to it for sure, but I'd like to help you out. I'm on holiday this week, but feel free to email me and I'll see if I can get the thing running on this computer. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#Acinetae[edit]

Could you take a look at this and see if you can make sense out of it? The definition as stands now is totally useless due to completely obsolete 19th-century terminology. There are a few Google Books hits for the terms used, but you have to know enough biology to read between the lines and figure out what they're referring to in modern terms- and my high-school biology from 40 years ago doesn't cut it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given my opinion there. I am slightly confused by the fact that Wikipedia claims that flagellated organisms were considered infusoria, whereas the Google Books hits seems to be trying to restrict it to ciliates alone, but that doesn't really change the taxonomic identification of this term. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


You're right. I'll be more careful in my next edits. - Alumnum (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that[edit]

Sorry about the confusion on the vote. I thought it was still open. I didn't look at the date until you just reverted it.Reguyla (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Reguyla That's okay. You can see that it's closed at the bottom, by the way. And as I noted, you can see at WT:V that you need more edits to be eligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that either. Good to know, I'll just have to create a few missing terms then. Reguyla (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yin May Lwin[edit]

Thank you![edit]

Hi! This is my first talk.

Thank you for your edit. Yin May Lwin (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar Language Please[edit]

(1)Myanmar language.

I'm from burma.My nationality is Myanmar.Government says Myanmar is not the name of a nationality.But it isn't true.

There is not a language called Burmese.The word Burma belongs to many nationalities.Those nationalities have their own languages.

A man created a word that belongs to nationalities in my country.That word is Burma. Nay Win,dictator,wanted to erase people's memories about great leaders.That man was a great leader of my country.So,everything about him was deleted.But the word burma can't be deleted.So,Nay Win maked people believed that Burma belongs to only one nationality.

(2) Not etymology It's not real etymology. It's just my thought about that word.I know I shouldn't do like this.But I want to know whether my thought is right or wrong. Everyone can edit wiki.So,if my thought is wrong,someone will edit it.I thought someone will edit it. Bye Bye. Have a good day Yin May Lwin (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary does not follow any political point of view, and the name Burmese is used because it matches what most modern linguists and scholars use. Also, please do not add anything that you think may be wrong. We do not have enough staff to fix everything that is wrong, so only enter it if you know it is correct. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

It's my mistake.I shouldn't write something which is not proved.Thank you for your advice. Yin May Lwin (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again[edit]

Wiktionary does not follow any political point of view

So,you read it.Oh,thank you.

Yin May Lwin (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't. We're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the language as it is, not how it should be. If the speakers of a language use a term in a way that's illogical or factually wrong, we describe it rather than pretending it's something else that might make more sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My father scolded me.[edit]

Well,my father scolded me for telling you about no 1. He told me that it wasn't true.

Well,I have nothing to say but to apologize. I'm sorry. Really. And I wish you not to meet annoying person like me in the future. Have a good day

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of yourself and that you feel you must apologise to me if your father scolds you. I don't know what "no. 1" refers to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Presumably the point in the discussion above that is labelled (1). Equinox 18:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Metaknowledge and I are both from the United States. In our culture we don't have the emphasis on showing humility that many Asian cultures have. If one makes a mistake, it's usually enough to apologize. We also don't have as much of an emphasis on showing respect and obediance to parents and other elders. I think Metaknowledge was forgetting about these differences- I'm sure your response was quite normal and proper for your culture.
Wiktionary is an international dictionary, so it's best, in general, not to focus on governments and their policies, since people have so many different views and there are so many ways to unintentionally antagonize people. While I disagreed with what you stated before, I was not offended by it. I can't speak for Metaknowledge, but I interpret his response to mean that he wasn't offended, either, and was puzzled by the depth of your apology for merely stating an opinion. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you :) For the changes :) Adjutor101 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Please feel free to ask if you ever need help. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

categories over labels[edit]


I’m not so sure that I agree with that. A context label gives the reader a good idea of what to expect sans necessity for long descriptions. Technically, you can use both simultaneously, but I think that just one tactic suffices. Now, I can’t say for sure to what our readers pay the most attention, I don’t have any proof, but I personally doubt that they always look at the categories after reading the definitions. Even so, context labels are tied directly to particular definitions, whereas categories are not.

As for the edit per se, I agree that ‘anthropology’ was an imperfect selection, but in my defence it was the most approximate thing that I could find. Your categorization was good because it was more accurate, but I still feel like the definition could be better. --Romanophile (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't pull up any discussions from memory, but I believe that other editors have agreed that categories are for navigation and labels, although they do categorise, also serve the purpose of disambiguating the context in which a word is used. For example, a word like server#English can mean both a person and a computer, so the context label (computing) is necessary to show that one meaning is particular to a certain field. The word in Mohawk for "boy" is not used solely in the context of anthropology (i.e. by anthropologists or in anthropology textbooks) but instead is the normal, default word. In such cases, the most specific category is helpful for navigating between words in the same lexical field, but it would make inappropriate presumptions on the range of a word's usage to apply a context label. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to de-sysop/de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie[edit]

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of rights[edit]

At least, you should have notified me so that I could respond to your allegations. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been completely inactive since December 2014, and whitelist status is not even something that editors are normally notified about. In fact, it has no direct impact on your editing. As for the allegations, it is clear that you have created many entries without checking whether they would pass WT:CFI, so it seems reasonable to delay whitelisting until it is clear that your entries do not need to be checked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created way more entries than those Pichilemu-related ones... --Diego Grez (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's immaterial. If you don't understand what qualifies as an entry and what does not, it doesn't matter how many entries you've created. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant that much of the material I added has remained uncontested mostly since 2010. Anyway... Diego Grez (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That's because noöne checked and noticed how many uncitable entries you'd been adding. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you !!! Can you make the grammar category. Sorry I am not that tech savy Adjutor101 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101 Yes check.svg Done You can generally copy how existing pages handle it to figure out the format, but I'm happy to help if it's too confusing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay thank you so much. Wish you guys had a course. I am good at languages but but bad at all this techinal stuff. May God bless you :) Adjutor101 (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Μετάknowledge how can I make conjugation for verbs and declension & cases for nouns; in Pashto

Adjutor101 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't reckon I have time to do that, considering I'd have to learn Pashto morphology. Some templates already exist (like {{ps-decl-noun}}), but I'm not sure how to use them. @Dick Laurent, do you still give any shits about Pashto around here, and if so, wanna help out? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I can add the grammar and everything. Just need to learn how to do it. Adjutor101 (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, explaining basic Pashto grammar is easier than explaining how our template system works. I just don't personally have the time right now. I'm not sure if anyone else has interest in Pashto besides Ric... @Atitarev, any ideas of who would be good to help? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe User:Stephen_G._Brown, User:Dijan, users like User:CodeCat or User:Benwing should be able to help with coding
A basic entry structure (noun):


Grammar categories are automatic (parts of speech) and applies to all languages, see Category:Pashto lemmas. If a specific template is missing, {{head}} could be used. Inflections would require more work. Help can be sought in the Grease pit. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Always appreciated. Greek orthography is the one thing that hasn't survived in any digitisation of the old Websters, plus I can't read Greek, so even when I recognise the prefix, I don't know how to write it. Thanks! Equinox 04:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I ought to do more, but my Greek sucks and I haven't any short-term plans to study it, so for now I can only do the obvious ones when they pop up on the RC. Thanks for the encouragement! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm really enjoying the "supplement". It is full of all these cutting-edge high-tech things like "chronophotography" and "aerobuses", and you look them up and realise "oh! that thing turned into 'movies', or slide projection", and "that thing turned into passenger aircraft", and "that health treatment doesn't exist any more because we realised that the radiation was giving everybody cancer". What I wouldn't give to see the dictionary from, say, 2200. Or let's be conservative and say 2400 because I'm terrible at dying, and someone might fix cancer. Equinox 04:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So that's what you're working from, huh. Where will you find words after you've finished with that? It's strange; sometimes I feel that we're running out of places to mine English vocab and sometimes I find myself using a word like retrosynthesis in speech and, after a check on impulse, finding we don't even have an entry for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I did most of W1913 a while ago, but someone recently turned up and pointed out that the "supplement" words were missing; so, yeah. It's pretty small and I've done probably 90% of it by now. Some other word sources are listed on my user page; I also tend to come across things in the newspaper (although I mainly only read stolen papers to pass the time on the train, HI GCHQ! or The Telegraph in the pub because I want to do the cryptic crossword). Paying any attention to computing, linguistics, or social sciences tends to throw up new words here and there. It really is one of those gaseous things that fills all available space (time). And yes, I always carry a notebook (because I do anyway; I might remember a dream or something!) and it tends to end up with the margins full of "WT" notes. WT means that I have written a word down so I can check whether it's in Wiktionary. I refuse to carry a mobile phone (we need a W1913 word for this: wireless telespeakomatic) so I tend to end up with pockets full of paper. Equinox 04:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


There is a fraternity for men in the USA called Elks, so why did you rollback my edit adding that definition?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but if that's indeed true, it would be a proper noun and need its own L3. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Your entries are very poorly formatted. Please stop creating them until you can do so in a way that follows WT:ELE (see my changes to Sovereign Military Order of Malta, for example). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this formatting better, --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@PaulBustion88 The formatting was better, although you made a careless spelling error; more importantly, your definition was simply incorrect. There are other branches of Freemasonry in France besides that one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

etymology רביצין[edit]

you gave an etymology for רביצין, I can believe it being a normal -in, but I'm skeptical of the explanation of how the tsade got there, do you know where you originally found this etymology?

I don't remember, I'm afraid, but I remember coming across the Slavic explanation and being suspicious, hence my noncomittal wording of the etymology. I really don't know where to look for a better answer; the OED merely says that -tsin is a feminine suffix, which seems to me to be an odd statement considering that I cannot think of any other examples, although I'd accept it if there were. That said, it doesn't explain where -tsin would come from either, so it leaves us in the same place. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fun facts are fun[edit]

I had the idea to do that with the yi-noun template a while back and made a note about it on my userpage... But since I'm lazy somebody else made the changes to the template, and that note to myself is still there.

Incidentally, I spent an hour this morning trying to figure out a natural way to say "to grow a beard" in Yiddish. What would you say? — [Ric Laurent] — 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I added that functionality, although Wikitiki89 (and possibly others) have done more and better work on the template than I have.
Strangely enough, Google Translate was right for once. The most natural way is וואַקסן אַ באָרד. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's the one I was leaning most toward, but Google has surprisingly few hits for things like "וואקס(ט) א בארד" or "וואקסן בערד", although that second one does return "מיר לאזן זיך אלע וואקסן בערד" which looks more like the first phrase I saw. YDO lists "farlozn zikh" as meaning "to let grow" (as in a beard or your fingernails) which made me think it might be something like "ikh farloz zikh di bord" but my other primary dictionary only had "farlozn zikh oyf" with an entirely different meaning. I feel like Yiddish looks a lot easier than it really is. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I'd think more would come up too. I think that the incomplete standardisation of various regional lects and insufficient resources addressing it is why Yiddish is so hard sometimes. But with the resources I have, I can't come up with anything else that seems to unambiguously refer to this... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me that probably most Yiddish speakers who grow beards aren't big on the internet, thus limiting the beard-talk. I think I might try to look up farlozn zikh in another dictionary. If I don't forget. Anyway, thanks for this. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
How is it surprising? Minority languages are almost nonexistent in cyberspace. --Romanophile (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but I like deluding myself with the fact that a whole lot of well-off cyberJews still hold Yiddish in some nostalgic place of esteem, even though that doesn't seem to do much it being used in the end. I'm complicit myself; my Yiddish was never especially amazing and it's only atrophying. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been kind of obsessed with Yiddish recently. I dunno how much I'll realistically be able to learn now, but it's fun making up silly example sentences. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
If you don’t mind me asking, do you yourself have some middle eastern heritage? I myself may have a tiny amount of Jewish blood from my mother’s side, but nobody knows for sure. --Romanophile (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
More Yiddish content is always good, although I wish you'd transliterate your usexes so the algorithm doesn't produce shit. Oh, and yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone who cares has figured out I'm a Jew by now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I protest the algorithm by allowing it to function normally :D — [Ric Laurent] — 05:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You saw already how I feel about it. But there aren't too many people here who get Yiddish phases of any kind, punctuated or enduring, and you know full well that one of them, probably me or Wikitiki or Angr, is going to fix them eventually. Yeah, I'm trying to guilt you really transparently, but hell, you know dictionary-makers are the most manipulatable souls around or we wouldn't keep coming back to improve our beloved dictionary. Just give that a thought, anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I've successfully gotten over my love of Wiktionary as an idea, so the guilt will only go as far as to keep me from misbehaving more than usual. But I don't think it will make me less lazy. I only edit here now to reinforce what I'm learning. I feel like Wiktionary is mostly useful to people who edit Wiktionary, you know? People who find it and think it's useful end up getting sucked in. — [Ric Laurent] — 06:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As long as it keeps me off the streets. Equinox 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I’m not really motivated by serving the public (not that that’s wrong), I just edit these projects because it gives me something constructive to do and pass the time if I don’t feel like playing video games. Perhaps nobody will ever use my entries, but that prospect no longer discomforts me. --Romanophile (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I rationalise it with the idea that it's to be useful to other people, but really I don't think I'm so good of a person as to have that motivate me, although it does make me feel less guilty about editing. But my main urge is one of perfectionism, that the idea is sufficiently impossible that a reasonable attempt of it must be made for its own sake. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
In many ways Wiktionary would be better if editing access were more limited. I wonder if it would be possible to limit the number of edits new users can make per day until they're learnnedd. Ugh I hate that I allowed myself to waste another good idea on this place :D — [Ric Laurent] — 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, that sounds like a great way to scare away noobs, but I guess we already have some good ways of doing that, by which I mean people like us. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent This search turns up a number of good results: google books:בארד|בערדל וואקסן|געוואקסן|וואקסט. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Wiki. I should really try using those search modifiers. — [Ric Laurent] — 07:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Also perhaps @Metaknowledge and @Wikitiki89 would like to take a take a second look at איז דאָ (iz do). I'm not sure if "right after I wake up" is the time I'm most likely or least likely to make mistakes, and since I put so much in there... — [Ric Laurent] — 08:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Also do either of you guys accidentally type קמץ all the time like I do? — [Ric Laurent] — 12:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

idle pedantry[edit]

"I can understand, but not communicate, in X language": unless you're talking about "understanding in" a language, shouldn't those commas be moved? Equinox 01:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense I'd never bother rereading my userpage after writing it. Feel free to edit it yourself next time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


According to the article on Latin-script digraphs, the digraph cg is, in Old English, pronounced dʒ. ZFT (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Normally, yes, but it's hard to be sure when the spelling is only attested once and the other form is dogga. You have to realize that Old English was not standardized, so there was a lot of variation in spellings between manuscripts- I would guess even more so during the later period. The texts that have been published are usually edited to even out the random variations, so the orthography seems more uniform than it really was. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And more importantly, you shouldn't edit something unless you are sure that you're right. A cursory check of Old English resources would have shown that scholars who specialise in the subject have come to this conclusion for the pronunciation of docga. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Why did you revert Sigehelmus' edit at 'güey? Tharthan (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An * indicates an unattested term, which shouldn't be hard-wikilinked to: either it will be a redlink to an entry that shouldn't be created, or it will be a bluelink to an unrelated term that just happens to share the same spelling. Also, I'm not too thrilled about wikilinking language names to Wikipedia articles, but I don't know if that's just me. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It was an edit that made a rambling, off-topic etymology even messier. I've solved the problem by removing everything that isn't appropriate for the word itself; anything else can go on güey. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"The only thing that's a major issue is that Kephir really shouldn't be blocking people he's in a dispute with"[edit]

How are you going to get him to stop doing that? Many have tried, none have succeeded. He is making the editing environment very uncomfortable for me; I shouldn't have to look over my shoulder every edit to wonder if a Kephir long block is coming. Purplebackpack89 18:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, and it doesn't really matter, since someone else can always change it. But if you want to be less worried about being reverted and blocked, maybe make more good edits. Looking in your last 50 edits, only one was in mainspace and it was a bad redirect. Regardless, I really don't want to discuss it further with you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of me?[edit]

Reading the above topic makes me wonder about your thoughts on me. Am I labouring arduously? Not arduously enough? Are my modifications (generally) good or are they the opposite? Do my entries belong here? Are there any flaws in myself that I should fix? Seriously, I do care. --Romanophile (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any standardised way of judging an editor, so I'll try the method I used above, as you suggest. (Note that I'm sure there are times, perhaps even right now, when I would find myself to be lacking if I assessed myself. Only a few editors, like Equinox or Semper, seem to devote all their time to the creation of good entries and fighting vandals.) Your edits were good in the sense that they were productive and mostly in mainspace; I note that many are based off of other editors (e.g. everywhither after I added everywhence, or adding migero as a translation after Kozmonaut added the entry), but that's a good thing because otherwise those related tasks will be neglected for a while. You made a formatting error, you added a macron to amīcam but not in both places and without using the requisite template, and you added Latin translations without macra (I have fixed all of these). Of these issues, the first was bad but would be caught by an autoformat bot if we actually had one that ran, the second did improve the entry, just not enough, and the third was exceedingly minor. So my analysis of these 50 edits makes you seem like an overall good editor right now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody asked me, but I've seen Romanophile ask essentially the same question of a few users, so hey I'm just being pre-emptive. R, relax, you are one of the "good guys", and you have a basically good reputation around here. And (as much as Meta's comment above is flattering) most people literally don't have time to write down and research and add a zillion brave new words. If you aren't Equinox or Blotto (or, hell, Wonderfool, who was doing this years before I turned up), it probably just means you aren't hugely obsessive or bored, and have other stuff to do. And my own amount of time to do this goes up and down. You're fine. You'll be okay. Chill. We like you. Equinox 00:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Lua-based Yiddish conjugation tables[edit]

@Metaknowledge, Dick Laurent, Angr, CodeCat

Take a look and give me feedback:

I plan on adding support for separable prefixes soon. --WikiTiki89 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh those composed forms <3
How about for reflexives? That's one thing I've been thinking about recently. Also, will the verbs with separable prefixes include the form with the infixed -tsu-? — [Ric Laurent] — 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm planning on supporting reflexives, as well as Hebrew-participle-+-zayn verbs like מבֿטל זײַן (mavatl zayn) (is there a name for them?), and the separables will of course have the -tsu-. I'm still confused about word order for reflexives. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I remember offhand when reading about reflexives is that zikh generally comes as close as possible to the inflected verb form. Luckily Yiddish isn't obsessed with word order.
While we're on the subject of verbs, I wonder how we should address perfective forms of simple verbs? I like how our Russian templates address them in the headword line, but I can see why it might not work as well for Yiddish. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent: I don't think we need to do indicate perfective forms of verbs in the headword line. It would be enough to just list the prefixed forms in the derived terms and maybe even mark their aspects. --WikiTiki89 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think they look great! Thank you, Wikitiki! I've always been worried when adding conjugations, because I've never had much formal Yiddish grammar and thus have an eternal lurking fear that there's something irregular I'm missing unless I check every form on Google. In any case, it'd be good if we could get templates on every page (and maybe mass-create inflected forms as well). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    I have had zero formal Yiddish education. I'm learning as I go. I didn't know about the pluperfect until yesterday, for example. --WikiTiki89 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation of gregarious[edit]

What was the issue you had with this edit to gregarious that made you revert it? BlaueBlüte (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(If I had to guess), the display not being what was linked to. If Herden- warrants being displayed in a translation table, it probably merits an entry, or a mention on Herden. Displaying Herden- while linking to Herden wouldn't be a big deal. — קהת — 05:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It would help if the entry had real definitions, rather than "Describing..." and "Of...". I think the problem is that the second sense makes very little sense, and the reverted edit translated what it said rather than what it must have meant. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Dear Metaknowledge, your rollback of my edit on shithead is in error. Please see the relevant Wikipedia article (linked from the Wiktionary page on shithead). The definitions I added are commonly used. Please consider undoing your rollback. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is irrelevant. The definitions you added were too specific for a term this general, which, in my experience as an L1 speaker, is general enough to refer to any person whom the speaker despises regardless of cruelty. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


The Chinese ones confuse me a bit because I don't know my Cantonese from my Mandarin (nor my claret from my beaujolais). Equinox 16:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

But at least you could use the code zh in {{etyl}} so it categorises. And now that Unified Chinese is a thing around here, you should definitely never have to use {{term}} with a lang= parameter, because zh will always be the right thing to use there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

great work[edit]

Thanks for all the Spanish, BTW. If you ever want to add plurals, I wouldn't mind at all! --Type56op9 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe when I get back, I can get a bot running to deal with all those missing plurals. Perhaps you'll be kind enough to help my incompetent self when the time comes? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I've got a bot code for Spanish already. I'll fish it out from somewhere. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope it addresses entries that have both adjective and noun sections, so that we don't neglect to address both POS's in the inflected forms. Might be worth doing a bot run just for catching those entries that don't, but shouldn't. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Visviva/Pais 20150704[edit]

Hey. Visvia has got a tool to find missing Spanish words, if you feel like helping out create some more entries. --A230rjfowe (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Anything interesting happen whilst I was away?"[edit]

Haven't you heard? We finished Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh good. That'll make learning every language ever considerably easier for me now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back! No sooner are you back than you're back to blocking vandals — nice! Let me know if you agree or disagree with what I did at WT:RFM#Kiyaka_language. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Lol I can't believe you say whilst — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 20:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
An old habit; I tend to write in a different dialect than the one I speak. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback or Undoing[edit]

Hey! This edit was not vandalism. You should not have used rollback, because it has been meant to vandalism. You should have used the normal undoing.-- 10:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia, and administrators are not expected to notify people when the crap they've added to an entry is summarily removed. We don't have enough people patrolling recent edits to take the extra time to undo an edit that isn't strictly vandalism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)