User talk:Metaknowledge

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

In God We Trrust[edit]

Hello!

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)
Before the memory of this conversation has completely vanished, is there a way to make compound verbs to appear at categories by the verbal element, like in Category:Persian compound verbs by verbal element? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks for the reminder. I'll work on that today. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

t=[edit]

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)

bajoccho[edit]

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)

Bureaucrat[edit]

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)

relish[edit]

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)

malagan[edit]

Hey,

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/47.21.27.58. 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)

GÜero[edit]

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)

WuHan[edit]

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)

eventual[edit]

Check out https://www.thefreedictionary.com/eventual to see the "archaic" (still used though, especially in AmE) meaning of eventual as contingent/possible/likely/potential. Also see https://books.google.com/books?id=ETXa4Y6HkFcC&pg=PA266&dq=eventual+potentiality+sense&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_07eRsZ3ZAhWSCOwKHb6CCjgQ6AEIKDAA

Who?[edit]

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)

Tabulata[edit]

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)
i am a bad man <3 Equinox 03:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I like these entries and I think you should create more. DTLHS (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox Are you all right mate? Please don't be so tough on yourself. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:50, 21 June 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)

Transliterations[edit]

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 137.99.174.138 then — but the fact remains that it's the same laptop and no-one else has an account on it) 50.28.128.221 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: 50.28.128.221 and 137.99.174.138.) 50.28.147.85 07:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not good enough, huh?[edit]

Well I tried. Thanks for not letting my mediocre entry mess things up. I didnt think it was that bad though. But then again Im not formally educated as Im sure you are. I know my slang/street code terms though. Thought maybe what little knowledge i do have could be of some use. But not here i guess. EvilYve (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't good enough, no. It was misspelled, written like Urban Dictionary, and placed right in the middle of a Latin entry. The correct entry already existed at leño. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Romanian aduse[edit]

We should have something there, word shows up in all kinds of Romanian-language articles, "brought" is what Google Translate suggests. Do you know a better translation? We shouldn't just say it's a Latin word. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many, many words that we lack, but if you can't add even a basic entry in those languages, you shouldn't do it. Relying on Google Translate for your entries is unacceptable, and if it continues, will result in a block. Post at WT:RE:ro or ask someone like @Robbie SWE if you need Romanian entries created. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@ScratchMarshall Yes check.svg Done. I added the request, and pinged Robbie. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, aduse has a Romanian section now. It is actually an adjective form. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I will make a note on my userpage to remind me about WT:RE and use that in the future. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Assamese হোৱা[edit]

Hi, why did you delete the page হোৱা? Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't looking very carefully, but you'd marked a template for deletion and it transcluded onto the page using that template, making me think you wanted that page deleted as well. I've restored it now, but you've got a couple failing templates to fix there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Rules Are Rules[edit]

And should not be ignored.  And yet "we do not create case-forms of Korean words" explains why one out of three of the words I look up are not listed, forcing me to go to that abomination called Google Translate.  Perhaps this rule is not very helpful. —This unsigned comment was added by 伟思礼 (talkcontribs).

You can continue the discussion where I started it, on your talk page. In any case, Wyang has now created a redirect, so it takes you to the correct entry. But in general, anyone above a very basic level in learning Korean should be able to apply these rules on their own and look up words in a normal dictionary. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

cutoff date of Afrikaans[edit]

Starting from what date does Wiktionary consider the lect derived from Dutch spoken in southern Africa to have become Afrikaans? 1700, 1750, 1800, later still? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a thorny problem, because it isn't well-suited to having a cutoff. The English-Middle English cutoff is useful because the two languages are not mutually intelligible in their respectively best attested forms, and that Middle English had low enough prestige that it wasn't really written after its time. Such a cutoff would fail here because Afrikaans and Dutch retain a great deal of mutual intelligibility, and because Dutch was vastly more prestigious than Afrikaans. Afrikaans speakers educated enough to do so would write in Dutch far after Afrikaans began to be documented.
I would recommend that early Afrikaans be diagnosed by its characteristic loss of morphology and by a conscious attempt on the part of the writer to transcribe spoken usage. Arabic Afrikaans, which abandons Dutch orthographic norms wholesale by switching script, was the earliest example I could think of, but Wikipedia mentions texts going back to a doggerel verse from 1795, certainly a stage at which nearly all written material belongs in the (currently redlinked) Category:South African Dutch. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that morphology and orthography are the best guide to identifying written Afrikaans. But some sort of cutoff date may be useful for etymologies, if only to distinguish between inherited and borrowed terms. E.g. I recently added fiets as a borrowing, presuming that it was too late to be inherited, but that may have to be changed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that there's even a meaningful distinction to be made there. The individual speakers in Africa got the actual bicycles, and thus the word for them, directly from the individual speakers in Europe. The word was unequivocally borrowed between lects, but whether or not those lects were separate languages is almost immaterial. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Righto. Another question, what convention to transcribe a "short a" phoneme must be used? Afrikaans phonology, to which the IPA template links, uses /a/ but it mentions alternative notations. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure, although in broad transcription, it would make the most sense to use /a/ by the rule of using the simplest scheme (which we don't often follow...). I don't do Afrikaans IPA any more, ever since I realised that I pronounce some of the vowels a bit off and I don't want to insert anything incorrect in our entries. @Naudefj might be able to help you on that front. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This may help: Uitspraakwoordeboek van Afrikaans. Regards. Naudefj (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was that very useful source's use of /ɑ/ (for which we would probably use /ä/, see page ix (pdf: 9); also they use /a/ in Afrikaanse fonetiek, pages 32, 46, 50) and the contrast with Wikipedia's /a/ that made me wonder about what system to use. I'll ask Mr KEBAB about it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

TragedyUkraine[edit]

It is indeed sockpuppeting, but some of the newer edits can't be worse than the ones they left behind months ago (like 𒂗𒈗𒋀), can they? (Just wondering if reverting everything is a bit excessive... might as well delete the original entry itself in the cases?) —suzukaze (tc) 04:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

They apparently have a limited capability to learn, so I see no reason that the newer edits are any better than the older ones. I meant only to leave edits that @Vorziblix had checked, but I see that entry slipped through (like many others, sadly) — it can be deleted unless someone checks it now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion?[edit]

Hi there. You deleted the page ataxiophobia for being a "creative invention"...despite being well attested to? Mind explaining that? FourMastab (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained on your talk page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Quotations[edit]

Hello! Do you know why the templates {{quote-book}}, {{quote-web}} etc. don't automatically create category addition to "X-language terms with quotations" if the passage is added into |passage=}}? Is it really supposed to be that way? As it is now, tons of quotations are added to all sorts of languages without the terms being listed in the category. I think it's useful to be able to search for terms with quotations, for various purposes. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. @Sgconlaw? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The original templates that I worked on didn't have this feature either. The issue is that the templates would have to be updated to allow one to specify the language of a quotation, and I'm afraid that is probably beyond my coding capabilities as I'm not familiar with Lua. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I should request an update on Grease pit, then. That is, if it's not too big of a project to ask someone to do there. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Vetustity[edit]

Why did you revert my additions? Do you even check to see if a word is attested?

The word is attested:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=V5f7RBgYVjQC&pg=PA625&lpg=PA625&dq=vetustity&source=bl&ots=lPe1tABIBY&sig=o4_BpPER_VsiPGXh2TMmWFIjXDs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQt8Oi89rZAhUEL6wKHXriCiQQ6AEINDAB#v=onepage&q=vetustity&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=f79ZzLC_4JsC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=vetustity&source=bl&ots=Lcn78VFgQl&sig=B_0g2-FUHtnuhqqpsFL--s7ndCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQt8Oi89rZAhUEL6wKHXriCiQQ6AEIPjAD#v=onepage&q=vetustity&f=false

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/acp/cr/772/772490/772490en.pdf

--Tataryn (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually did; when I saw less than a page of Google results, only two of which were from independent books, I assumed it was a protologism. I am happy to see that one of the non-book results was this EU report which is presumably durably archived, so I have restored the entry, and given it the well-earned context label (rare). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

glass x glassed[edit]

Hi. Are you sure that the case of the clock in the picture at the entry pendlovky can be called "a glass case"? It seems to me that "glassed" is better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The word glassed is fairly uncommon in English, and it sounds less natural in this context. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. I just thought that "glassed case" suggests that the case is completely made of glass, which Google pictures seem confirming. Our entry glassed does not suggest that it is uncommon, so I thought it is OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
What about "glazed"? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I have changed it for "glazed", if you disagree, feel free to revert it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
That is even worse, I'm afraid. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
That makes it sound like a glaze has been applied to its surface. I can see your point about calling that a "glass case", but I don't think we have a a way of making this distinction in English using a single word. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
As a native speaker and voracious reader, I didn't even realise that "glassed" could mean "having glass on it". To me it's only a word that means having a glass smashed on you, like "he got glassed in the pub". Equinox 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
And note that plasticked isn't even a word. Equinox 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Now look what you've done.Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

henna[edit]

Of course it is. I can only assume that the folks using "henna" as a translation must have intended both the plant and the dye, unless they say otherwise. Have you heard of talk pages as a less aggravating tool than reversion? DCDuring (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The key is that you shouldn't assume things, because that's how inaccuracies get in the dictionary. Hebrew Wikipedia confirms that a different word is used for the plant. Also, for other readers, this is in relation to the page חינה, not the page henna. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Why are the overwhelming proportion of translations of polysemic words added without glosses if this is such a major issue? We make assumptions all the time and need to to make progress. We are still in the position of making draft entries, not finished ones, in case you hadn't noticed. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I should have added that gloss to begin with. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Foreign Word Nominations[edit]

Aearthrise multam dicit salutem tibi. I see that you have made a large number of nominations; as it is my first time creating a nomination, I would like to know if I've effected the addition correctly for ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ. Gratias.

--Aearthrise
E23
(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ) 18:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure; as I haven't studied Coptic, you might well be better off asking @Vorziblix, say. For example, I don't understand the initial ̀ in the headword line, nor am I sure if this is supported as a separate entry at all, since it seems to be the definite form of ⲟⲩⲣⲟ (ouro). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The intial ̀ is a diacritic, the jinkim, that only occurs in some Bohairic-dialect texts; its original intended function is somewhat disputed, but most likely it marked syllabicity, or perhaps in some cases an epenthetic vowel. We usually have it in the headword line but not in the entry name because it doesn’t consistently appear and isn’t traditionally included in dictionary lemmata.
On the matter of definiteness, this is indeed ⲟⲩⲣⲟ (ouro) with a clitic definite article attached (at least from a synchronic perspective; from a diachronic perspective the form with ‘article’ was primary). Presumably the definite article shouldn’t be included in the entry name, so it should be merged into ⲟⲩⲣⲟ (ouro). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Celtic noun templates[edit]

Hi Metaknowledge, I was looking to edit the Proto-Celtic noun and adjective templates to mirror the cases (adding locative and ablative) given on Wikipedia, but I think I may have to delegate this to someone more techy, if you knew best who to ask?

On begrebsforvirring: yes, you’re right, apologies, I read 'imprecise technology'. Gherkinmad (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Best that whatever you do be based on scholarly sources, not just Wikipedia. I would make @JohnC5 do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gherkinmad: Yes, if you could provide sources concerning Continental Celtic cases, I'd be prepared to look into it. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: @JohnC5: Dammit: Coccionos, who put them in the article, apparently knew which sources but didn’t specify, which is highly irritating. Gherkinmad (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ċycen vs. ċȳcen[edit]

Hey ! The first syllable vowel seems tricky in this word. The PGmc form *kiukīną would certainly make it long (as OE *ċīecen, ċīacen, ċȳcan, ċīcen); however, we find attested the nom/acc plural ċicenu, ċicceno, which for neuters can only mean that the vowel is short (< PGmc *kukkīną ?, diminutive of *kukkaz). I've expanded both entries (ċicen, ċȳcen) to accommodate both. Your thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, my first reaction is that I don't know why you've asked me in particular, as I'm no expert on Old English. But my line of thought is that the PGmc indicates that we have an inherited long vowel, and OE metrical rules operate on the plural to reduce it to a short vowel. I don't know the conventions for indicating that in the article, but the one thing I am sure we should not do is provide a declension table with an unattested (AFAIK) plural cicen as a seemingly equal alternative to the actually attested cicenu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought that as a possibility as well, that the vowel became short over time. I brought this to you because I thought that you changed the Pronunciation and Headwords form. I see now that I was mistaken :( (sigh). My bad. Okay, I believe we're dealing with a cicen (short vowel), and the variants ciacen and cycen are unclear. They could be long or short, we don't know. I will proceed from what we can be certain of. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:fringe science[edit]

Hi Metaknowledge!

While I am happy to read "Wiktionary does not have any English dictionary entry for this term. This is because the term, though it may be attested, is not idiomatic or fails to meet our criteria for inclusion in another way." regarding "fringe science", I'm also hoping you can point me to "fails to meet our criteria for inclusion in another way". I was thinking of an alternative definition: the science, or sciences, of fringes. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • <butting in>We used to have a reasonable definition of "fringe science", and Wikipedia still has an entry for it. It was the subject of a "Request for Deletion" and was deleted and replaced with a "no entry" template in December last year. Not all of us approved of this change. Among the Google book search hits, none supports the definition of "science of fringes". </butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for butting in! I naively wrote into a bit of a controversy and both points of view are helpful. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Applying the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion has demonstrated why the policy usurpation of the term "fringe science" does not qualify for Wiktionary. As Joseph Armstrong, a reviewer and author put it "But the fact that some real fringes lend themselves to scientific study, albeit minor phenomena, doesn’t change the desire to expose or illustrate those things out on the real edges of science. Unfortunately, such terms do tend to get usurped." So, the scientific study of fringes, albeit minor phenomena, appears to pass for inclusion in Wiktionary. My review is here on Wikiversity. I have no desire to embroil Wiktionary in this mess. Comments and criticisms, or suggestions welcome. On the other hand, I could try to create an entry and let the deletion process do its thing. --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not create an entry you think will trigger the deletion process. That's a waste of everybody's time. As Semper already told you, and as you seem to acknowledge, the term is apparently not attested in that sense and does not meet our Criteria for inclusion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your comments! They are much appreciated! --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Template for Ngazidja Comorians nouns[edit]

Hello Μετάknowledge. I have given you the rules for Ngazidja Comorian classes on my discussion page. I think it will be easy for you to create a template similar to the Maore Comorian template. If something is not clear or if you need more explanations, please let me know. After that, we could deal first with Maore Comorian and then with Ngazidja Comorian verbs.--Echtio (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm watching your page. I already did most of the work on it ({{zdj-noun}}), but I'm just too busy today to add the finishing touches. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for your quick answer.--Echtio (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

About Igbo Wiktionary[edit]

Hi, Metaknowledge, am happy you are excited to help me improve the Igbo Wiktionary. Right now, it is still in incubator and am trying to bring in more editors to work with me so we can get it out of there. However, you can help me look at it in Incubator and tell me what i can do to improve on it or better still, improve the interface for me. Thank you.--Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Uzoma Ozurumba, thank you for contacting me. I'm glad to see that you're forging ahead with the Igbo Wiktionary, and it looks like a good start. There is a great deal of infrastructure (modules and templates) that you'll need in order to take advantage of how a Wiktionary like the English one functions, but that can all wait until after it leaves the incubator. I don't speak Igbo at all, so I don't know of a way I can help, but if anything comes up where you think I could be of use, please don't hesitate to ask.
On a somewhat different topic, I am always interested in improving the Igbo content here at the English Wiktionary, which is currently shamefully poor. I understand that you may well be occupied with creating the Igbo Wiktionary, but if you want to do any work here, I would certainly appreciate it, and I can help you create the infrastructure here that perhaps you can eventually modify and import for the Igbo Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi there! Nice to still see you active on this site! I think I'm going to come back to this project again. I know that the last time I was here, I might've made some mistakes, and I did promise that I would mark for deletion any pages that I think would not meet the verification processes here on this site. I am going to go through and do this now. Razorflame 02:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You just marked one (levstango) for speedy deletion that is actually attested, though. Going overboard in the opposite direction is no more helpful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You are correct. I shall look at the ones that I have on my list a bit more carefully :). Please also forgive me as I have just come back after like 4 years away :) Razorflame 03:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

rodiace et al[edit]

Hey. An ambitious play you made in the competition. Please add entries for rodiace and anything red in reg, olr, dua, ieb, anoo, ctwt, esex. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. A couple of the red ones have different spellings, though: ǫlr, IEB, CTWT, Esex. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. I thought esex (cybersex?) would be the one you'd create. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I was having trouble finding cites for it, at least with a consistent spelling, but I think it's probably real. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd say anything appearing in Quijote automatically counts. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I always loved that scene where Quijote has esex with Sancho Panza. Classic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I still haven't read the book, something I'm pretty embarrassed about. But I could envisage an XXX version - pollón Quijote de la Mancha, por ejemplo --Cien pies 6 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandeae[edit]

Does the usage of monophyletic in the definition make sense? DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Our entry is atrocious, so I can forgive you for not understanding how to use it. In any case, a taxon can be monophyletic, but the orchids themselves cannot. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Substitution[edit]

Hello. Your substitution seems wrong, as it contains an HTML comment and a category. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't actually check to see whether it could be substed... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My speculative screeds[edit]

The latest Etymology Scriptorium post, that you reverted, tried to suggest looking for a correlation. Do you take Issue with that specifically? When at least three languages have terms for certain bowl shaped objects on the one hand, that are homonymous in each respective language with simple cloth objects like scarfs or sacks, then I find that. I don't think that's objectional.

I have to concede my writing might be hard to follow, but I hope the above mentioned conclusion was obvious enough. I try to be careful not to jump to conclusions. I mostly stated facts. I found it noteworthy that at least some of these have synonyms rooted in meanings related to cutting. Trying to explain that succinctly is difficult for me.

Communication works well in dialog, but if you disrupt the discussion, that's hard to achieve. Contrary, you allege my posts were disruptive and a waste of time. I think that's hypocritical, because I'd appreciate constructive critique.

I can see how my posts might raise more red flags, clearly not here to build a dictionary, axe to grind, unprofessional (no pants no service in stackexchange parlance), own research. Did I miss anything? I must be, because none if that is disruptive.

I mean, I understand you are trying to attract professional contributors. I should probably learn a dozent languages, but in the mean time I see myself as a heavy user to give feedback. If I suggest to look for better sources and there are non, that's not my fault. I should go looking for sources, but it's not my field, I wouldn't know where to beginn with or I didn't have much luck, so, yeah I am asking for help. So, my axe may be blunt, but I'm not asking anyone to clean up a mess that I left in entries. Which seems to be the more common problem with OR. Instead, if I want to see my opiniin reflected here, that might well require a change of my opinion instead ... if I was wrong, which is up for debate. E. G. "probably from semitic" is not satisfactory either way, if Bekes actually gives Akka. , Syr., etc. source terms. I wouldn't feel comfortable to edit Akkadian. And I don't feel comfortable blindly copying sources either. Whether sound judgement about sources is OR in the sense of w:WT:NOR is besides the point, because sources in scientific literature are not ment to derive arguments from authority instead of linking a work for sake of discoverability, not merely credibility.

That's an interesting point worth discussing because for ancient languages the rules of attestation are much more difficult. And I fear this is somewhat out of scope for the project. But certainly not in the Etymology scriptorium. The general idea here seems to encourage learning from experienced users. So my posts are to be understood as that, even if try to speak with authority. So, I'm sorry if am now directing this at you directly, but you are drawing attention and I hope you were not acting in jest or out of spite. Rhyminreason (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language entry additions; colloquial English terms[edit]

That's a good idea, I'll ask native speakers to review the entries. And instead of clicking the Random Page link on other Wiktionaries, next time I'll look up words in online dictionaries (particularly ones that look official and reliable).

Also, I have a question about a different topic: what kinds of colloquial English terms are allowed to be added? I've seen/heard some of them used to a high extent, but they don't have their own pages on Wiktionary. Do they need to be accepted by widely-known reputable dictionaries before they can be added to Wiktionary?

- Sir Beluga (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Beluga: Please see WT:ATTEST. To summarise, an English word has to be used (not mentioned) at least three times by three different people spanning over a year in durably archived media, like Google Books, Usenet, or anything that's printed. (Also, it's customary here to respond at the same place a message was left in the first place.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that with certain languages (like Spanish), entries I have seen include a simple es-IPA tag to generate an IPA pronunciation for the word, since Spanish pronunciation nearly matches the spellings. How accurate would you say these tags are, and should I add them to Spanish entries that already exist? (I decided to reply to you here because I'm not sure if you would have seen my reply if I replied to you on my page.) - Sir Beluga (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You shouldn't add automatic pronunciation templates unless you understand the pronunciation of the target language, and how that is represented in IPA. They aren't perfect and their output has to be verified. DTLHS (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense, being it's a natural language. What about adding that type of tag to an entry for a constructed language, like Esperanto? In that language, every letter makes the sound of only one phoneme, and words must be pronounced exactly as they are spelled. - Sir Beluga (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Mostly that's true, except for compound words such as vesperstelo where the module will not syllabify it correctly. DTLHS (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sir Beluga, importing words from dictionaries, however "official" they are, and then asking native speakers to review them will not do. You have to be familiar with the language, otherwise you will make mistakes all the time (as you did in կազմակերպում (kazmakerpum)). Native speakers have better things to do. --Vahag (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WT:FUN[edit]

Hey again. Can you point to the words that should be played in our penultimate round of WT:FUN. GGEV, LNAI, eaur, śnią, oel all look valid but I'd like no red links before the final letters are placed on the board. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we nearing the end? I can probably do it today, but I'm a little short on time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, just 5 tiles left in my green bag. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Done, and fixed the links in your comment above to the entries I created. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Cool. For the last round, you can add yourself to the page. I shan't be using email. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So, apparently you have now won this game twice in a row. It'd be fun to take you on one-on-one some day (maybe in real life?). Also, perhaps you can organise the next Wiktionary game. Keep up the excellent work, MK. --Genecioso (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Genecioso (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    The only reason I won is because Gloves isn't around any more. I'd love to play you, but I don't expect I'll be in Europe any time in the near future. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Aah, Gloves, RIP. --Genecioso (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop being rude[edit]

I am registering a long-term pattern of your rude behavior toward me. I wish you to stop. A last instance is diff, where you write: "Here is a warning that I am more accustomed to giving newcomers, but apparently you need to hear it: ...". What is the purpose of that statement other than inflamming any subsequent communication? Why would "Please do not create entries in languages you do not know and have not studied" not be enough to start a conversation? You might also write "I do not think it a good idea to create entries in languages you do not know and have not studied"; that would be much more friendly and invite a discussion rather than mere obedience. As for the matter itself, I disagree with you, on my talk page. Here, my point is simply, please don't go out of your way to be rude and write things that inflame while contribute nothing to the substance of the communication. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting; I've long perceived you as the most consistently and thoroughly rude of our major editors. I wonder if it's mostly cultural differences. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Qehath: This is interesting; I've long perceived you as the most consistently and thoroughly rude of our major editors. I wonder if it's mostly cultural differences. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: That could be; it's not as if we are a homogeneous people like the Japanese. I think it's more likely that it's because I do not initiate conversations and most of the people who talk to me are doing so because they're upset with something I've done, meaning they're not likely to be sweet, meaning neither am I.
Also, I am not a major editor by any stretch of the imagination. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
So do multiple other editors in the failed admin vote so there must be something to it. But what is the explanation? Is what I wrote above wrong? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course, it is a bit harder to take something like that seriously from someone who writes "Most importantly, anything is possible if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" and "If you bite, (or if you're just a tool, or if I'm just in a foul mood,) I might bite back" on their talk page; and I have seen much worse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a matter of perspective, so I wouldn't say right or wrong. From my perspective it seems overly sensitive. Like yes, I also would have found MK's wording irritating; but also if I had to tell a long-time major editor not to edit stuff they're not familiar with, I probably would have been way less diplomatic.
(I recognize that I am among the "rude" editors. But you'll also notice that I am significantly less likely to interact with other editors than you are. I work on entries and mostly leave people alone. When they come at me with stupidity, that's when I react poorly. I also don't need to defend my talk page; the first part is a reaction to people here who think their ignorance is as valuable as my research. The other is a warning that if you're rude to me I'm going to be rude back. Seems reasonable to me.) — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You're both not very polite, in my opinion, but it doesn't bother me. As for Dan's analysis of my message, the first statement was, as Dick notes, an expression of disappointment that I have to leave this kind of a message for somebody who should know better. The second statement could not be reworded in the more indirect way you would have preferred, because I wasn't trying to "invite a discussion"; I was giving you a warning. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Since this is about long-term pattern, even if you are right on this item (which I do not admit to be the case), another recent example is in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Unifying on Inflection heading, where you wrote "The issue here is your ignorance of Irish", although my knowledge of Irish is not the matter of the vote at all. Let me just ask you: when an occassion arises when you feel you need to mention me or talk about me, please consider whether omitting any mention of me would not be more civil or less inflammatory, especially when that mention is not key to the matter discussed, given your long-term aversion toward me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have come to enjoy Meta's well-intention nagging edit summaries. "Don't format Greek like that, and stop leaving your clothes on the floor!" Equinox 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: He tells it like it is, not worrying about dispensing with pleasantries. I find Metaknowledge's bluntness rather enjoyable. Aearthrise (𓂀) 07:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

French translations of “although”[edit]

Two distinct meanings are present:

  • in spite of the fact that” means “bien que” or “quoique”, yes, and other words could even be added;
  • but” does not mean “bien que” or “quoique”, but at least “mais”.

I can leave you some links about all this if you wish.

→ Revisions I would like you rollback:

--77.141.95.102 15:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems right, but I was rather suspicious of someone replacing translations on a basic word. I'll restore to your version, but I'd like if @Per utramque cavernam could confirm. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with these edits. The translation will often depend on context though. --Per utramque cavernam 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand, I will create an account to minimize this kind of problems. Thank you! --77.141.95.102 17:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

پرسش[edit]

سلام ربات ها در wiktionary چه کار میکنند و از آنها چه استفاده ای میشود

Your continued requests for people to use bots is very disruptive to editors who are actually working on building the dictionary. If you do not stop, I will have to block you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:GalaicoWarrior[edit]

Hey Meta, were there edits beyond the one in their contribution log which prompted the block? Thanks - TheDaveRoss 20:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any, but it was five years ago, so I have no memory of the events. GalaicoWarrior is clearly committed to their pseudoscientific hypotheses (as you must have seen in the ticket), so I remain confident that this user is only going to waste our time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That is probably the case, but an permanent block for a single, probably good-faith edit with not other communication is extremely bad policy. Can we try communication instead? I am willing to explain that we avoid original research, even from scholars, and that any additions should be supported by published research. - TheDaveRoss 11:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It's bad policy, I have to agree. I'm giving past me the benefit of the doubt (that is, that I had seen something else from this editor), because present me sees that it is abundantly clear from off-wiki evidence that GalaicoWarrior is not going to be a productive contributor. You can, of course, do whatever you like with your own time, as long as you promise to clean up the mess if you unblock him (rather than leave the mess to those who specialise in the field and don't want to deal with it). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I also suspect that you had further evidence to support your decision. I'm going to respond to the guys email and see if there is any change in attitude from the previous two, if so perhaps give him another shot, if not stick with your younger-self's judgment. I'll clean up after him if necessary, although I won't necessarily know that it is necessary without being told. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: I think I found the evidence I had used when I blocked him: w:Special:Contributions/GalaicoWarrior. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That certainly does add weight. I'm sold. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

New categories[edit]

On my talk page, you explained about creating new Categories on Wiktionary. Below, in a subsection titled "Three new categories", i proposed three new categories. Comments? Btw, i also propose categories "en:Urine and urination" (or should it be titled "en:Urine" or "en:Urination"?) and "en:Creationism".--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Solomonfromfinland: The second category seems unnecessary; the first and third are potentially good ideas, but I'm not sure what others would think. @Chuck Entz, not to foist this on you, but as somebody who's perhaps a bit better at our categorisation structure, what do you think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Inkomo[edit]

I noticed that you added an etymology for inkomo. I was wondering what the source is for that etymology? Smashhoof2 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smashhoof2: I'm sorry, I am incredibly lazy when it comes to citing my sources. I got that from {{R:Ehret 2008}}, which I can send to you if you lack journal access. I'll add the reference into the entry.
On a related note, I am trying to support any editors working on African languages (in particular Bantu) on Wiktionary, and if you have any questions or concerns, I would be happy to help. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

re: hanyauku[edit]

The source does mention the word and per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion a mention in any permanently recorded media is adequate (even if the word is completely made-up). I think we should consider the quality of source seriously. Wiktionary does include some made-up words and they currently meet CFI (Za pô nê).--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I was rather annoyed in my message because I thought that I wouldn't be able to find the word in a reputable source (which yours was not); luckily, I did locate a dictionary with it. As for the Rade word you mention, it's really up to Rade editors (which may well just be Fumiko Take) as to whether they wish to include neologisms from dictionaries. With other LDLs like Irish, editors have chosen to exclude dictionaries known to coin protologisms that never see actual spoken use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)