Talk:walnut

'Foreigner'

There is no evidence that this word ever meant 'foreigner' rather than Roman (or something more specific before that). Do @Chuck Entz @Robbie SWE actually have an opinion on this, or were they just abusing their editing privileges because I chose to contribute as an IP? Pretty disgraceful that you acted like this and got my IP address blocked for a day, a bunch of mavericks here, never get away with that at English Wikipedia, IPs can contribute too. Anyway, @-sche reason for reverting was, according to his edit summary, the content of another wiktionary page which actually supports what I've said. — This unsigned comment was added by 92.1.205.192 (talk).

It's etymologically from the name of a Celtic tribe, and there are descendants that are clearly "foreign", not "Roman". It may have also meant "Roman" at some period and some places, but I have yet to see you provide any evidence that it was never used to mean "foreign" (or any evidence at all, for that matter- just indignant assertions). You're free to edit here, of course, but don't expect us to ignore the obvious implication of descendants such as Wales solely based on the personal authority of someone who's anonymous (the matter of logged-in vs. IP is irrelevant for this particular issue). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Entz summarised the situation as I would have done. You provided no substantial evidence whatsoever and you insisted on readding information despite being reverted by three different admins. Normally – if you believed so strongly in your supposition – you would have brought it to the attention of the greater community, perhaps in the Etymology Scriptorium. You didn't do that and then you got offended when you were blocked for a measly 24 hours – a common penalty for anyone who adds the same reverted information three times in a row (granted, on two separate occasions). If it's any consolation, I would have reverted any user – anonymous or registered – who would have done the same thing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, let's get the behaviour point cleared up. My edit was reverted once on content grounds, the others used roll back, which is not supposed to be used for content disputes. I was presuming that the users using rollback mistook my edits for vandalism and would have recognized the errors when reviewing. It wasn't until I got blocked and had my block request ignored that I realized Wiktionary is a den of lawless mavericks. Do that stuff on English Wikipedia, for instance, you'll be desysoped by ArbCom in no time.

Secondly, in regard to the dispute in question, I do appreciate that 'foreigner' is often given as an 'original meaning' for this word. This is one of those 'factoids' established in the early days of scholarship that has taken hold without ever having been proven, it is just meaningful enough but sufficiently vague to accommodate the crudest understanding of the surviving evidence; and since Romance-speakers are always one group of foreigners, it can always be plausibly translated as 'foreigner' unless it occurs in a list of other foreigners. However, the generic meaning 'foreigner' is impossible as a primary meaning for Roman-era Germanic, the word and its reflexes are consistently used for 'Romans/', including the Romano-Britons of Britain called Welsh in English (it should be noted that the early English also called French and Italians by that word; and that Northumbrians appear to have called their own less Romanized Britons Cumere). It is not used for Slavs, or Scots, or Picts, or Magyars or Finns, or indeed for 'foreign' Germanic speakers, and there is no consistent basis for labelling its meaning 'foreign', any usage in that manner is not related to any early Germanic etymology (e.g. perhaps isolated cases of the development Roman>Foreigner). If you mavericks are going to take a blood red line 'no surrender' approach then it'll just be left as it is, you will always be able to 'verify' the 'foreigner' definition from other sources, I was just trying to improve the encyclopedia. — This unsigned comment was added by 92.1.205.192 (talk).

Feel free to make your case on the content issue at the Etymology scriptorium. I think the main problem is that you're expecting us to be just like Wikipedia. Our rules are different. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Having a brief peruse of Wiktionary:Index_to_policies I can see that the rules are less developed, but also that you guys violated multiple rules including on blocking. It's not so much the difference in rules but difference in willingness to obey, perhaps in knowledge also, and in enforcement. — This unsigned comment was added by 92.1.205.192 (talk).

1. The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary.

Readding previously reverted information by several admins/users, constitutes a disruption. User -sche even provided an explanation, you didn't – no sources, no references, absolutely nada to motivate why you felt you had to readd that information. As Chuck Entz said, please partake in a discussion at the Etymology scriptorium if you feel so strongly that you're right and we're wrong. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Robbie, the conversation has ended, and does not benefit from you regurgitating Chuck or posting embarrassing nonsense trying to justify your abuse of blocking powers. The best of it is that you are so thick that you post a reference to the text that proves the silliness of your own comments, and even go out of your way to acknowledge your own involvement! Perhaps it is fair to say that you are not going to win any awards for brains any time soon, but at least take comfort in the fact that this article satisfies your own knowledge of the evidence and congratulate yourself on driving a doctorate-bearing potential contributor away. — This unsigned comment was added by 92.1.205.192 (talk).

And you only keep giving more reasons to block you, since you've now devolved into making personal attacks. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case. It was never about the etymology or making a productive change. Your attitude says it all. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)