User talk:Lysdexia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Our format guidelines (nicknamed "ELE")
• Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
• What Wiktionary is not
• FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

μέθυ

May I ask what the point of this was? We don't have an entry for μεθυ. If you'd like to request the entry be created, there are other routes to do that. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See "What links here" for these terms. What are these routes? Lysdexia 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm not quite following you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The routes you spoke of.

Oh, duh. :) Sorry. Requested entries should go at Wiktionary:Requested articles:Ancient Greek. But don't worry about it for this one, I'm already working on it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see we both took a crack at it. :) However, there were a number of formatting problems. Why don't you take a look at some of the changes I've made and see if we can't get this figured out. First of all, I wonder if you might be muddling Greek and Ancient Greek together here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we don't do entries for romanizations of Greek. methu has been deleted and your changes to thu have been reverted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? Other pages link to romanisations, and your deletion of methu broke its link from the amethyst- entries. Your edits are obstructive and disruptive; unless you can show me policy for your stark editing, don't wipe mine. Lysdexia 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What about? This doesn't explain your deletions.

Huh. I guess we don't have the "No romanizations policy" written down. Sorry for wasting your time. On Wiktionary, policy is a bit less formal then it is on Wikipedia. Not everything is written down. Rest assured that it is a policy, though. Within minutes of your edits I had two administrators asking me about those. Here is a link to the discussion where it was decided. I'll have to include that in AAG when I get some time. Also, if you can access IRC, it may be more efficient to have the discussion there. We're at #Wiktionary. Otherwise, I'll be keeping an eye on your talk page if you have anymore questions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

You may have noticed that a number of your edits have been reverted (some by me). I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but quite a bit of it is incorrect. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Otherwise, I advise a bit more caution with whatever sources you're currently using. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you prove they're (what bit?) incorrect first instead of revertere? Lysdexia 11:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. κρίνω (krínō) isn't related to English hear, which is from PIE skeu-. ὑποκρίνομαι (hupokrínomai) does not mean "I do carry under" (which is confusing on top of incorrect). Additionally, it does not mean replication, but rather reply. Finally, you've changed a number of verbs to archaic (or even Old English forms), which in no way helps our readers, but rather confuses them. I am going to revert again. I must insist that you leave them until you've convinced someone of their merits, or I will have to block you. I'm sorry to take such a strong-arm approach, but I cannot leave these entries in the state you've put them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the -ing forms of verbs are called "present participle" by convention here. "Gerund" may also be an appropriate term, but changing to that would require a great deal of community conversation, and cannot simply be done haphazardly. In any case, they are certainly still verbs. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't prove they were from skeu-, nor the other. Your assertions are not proof! reply was short for replication and must be in the same -io declension. Is such convention descriptive or prescriptive? Lysdexia 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

inflection template

If you would, can you get a bot to go over the declension tables so the cases are betterly ranked as vocative, nominative, accusative, dative/locative, ablative, genitive? instead of the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, vocative, locative. The former is by person—the ranks as they are are uncanny, unless they are supposed to fall by the word order in a clause? If so, then locative or vocative is always the first word, then ablative, and so on with nominative the last. Can you write me a statement with all declensions of verbum? Lysdexia 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the standard order as they appear in most English language textbooks, and we have chosen to follow that order. Nominative should definitely be first as it is the lemma form for nouns and adjectives. I am not sure what you mean by "Can you write me a statement with all declensions of verbum?"; it is only second declension.

Please do not use archaic English to translate entries. We wish to use modern English for translations, not English of the 19th-century and earlier. Also, please do not remove spaces as you've been doing. They are supposed to be there, and will be re-inserted by bot. You don't need to get into an edit war with the bots. --EncycloPetey 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the order was chosen, but it doesn't answer my proposal. Nominative (or first-person) may be first, but the vocative (or imperative) is the nouhth. Sorry, I mean class for your declension, and declension for your inflection—write the sýntagm for verb-.

What in the hell do you mean—where is the policy on what kinds of words one may not put in entries? And why are spaces supposed to be there? Lysdexia 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what "nouhth" or "sýntagm". mean either.

Please see Wiktionary:AGF#Advice to newcomers. If your primary purpose here is to push your edits on the community while ignoring the advice of the experienced, then you have violated policy. No further argument from policy will be offered. If you choose to wiki-lawyer rather than learn and contribute, then you should find another community elsewhere. whose purpose is arguing. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Information desk

You'll find that we have a tendency to get rid of anything which isn't helping build a dictionary, like your comments at the Information desk. I suggest you leave it be. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion is vandalism. The section and other abdictionary comments are still there, and you didn't answer me in the section above. I find editors and admins on here and Wikipedia with special interests like to suppress information against them, and conspire at ease. Bring the warrant or policy, or I'll revert. Lysdexia 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the situation. We are not the police. I do not need a warrant to revert your edits. My only special interest is building a dictionary, and, yes, if your edits don't conform to that interest, then I, and other admins, will conspire against you. If you persist in reverting the edits of more experienced editors, you will quickly find yourself blocked. Please desist. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the whole section in question was off-topic. I removed it. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to follow this site's policies, of which there are each for mainspace, rooms, and blocking, and admins are the police here. Do you own or lord over Information Desk, or write for its pròtocol? You still cannot tell me what where allows you to revert over my entries outside the mainspace. Lysdexia 02:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither me nor Atelaes violated policy in removing that stuff. Here on Wiktionary, there are not as many formal policies as on Wikipedia. Practices are established by informal consensus. Users can take this kind of action if they feel that the comments made were too disruptive to the community. That's been the de facto policy for a very long time. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

-ia

Please do not delete topics of current discussion. --EncycloPetey 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion, and it belongs on -alis. Lysdexia 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked (again) for your disruptive edits. There is a discussion that has not been closed; I looked at it. You have again chosen to replace understandable translations with obsolete counterparts. Your edits are disruptive and your refusal to believe the information you have been given or abide by community norms leaves no alternative but blocking. --EncycloPetey 05:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-ica

Hello again. It seems like whenever we meet, we're always bumping heads. I've reverted your edit to -ica. The masculine singular form is considered the lemma format here, and so is what should be referenced in that statement. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What in the hell do you mean? The plural of -icus is -ici; the plural of -icum is -ica; the plural of -ic is -ics. Lysdexia (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So it is. Clearly I didn't think that through properly. I have restored your edit. My apologies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

γε

I'm having a little difficulty with "huh" as a definition for this word. Could you possibly use huh in a sentence in the way it's used as a definition for γε? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Usually huh as intensifier is broader and covers a string of words:

Huh—this sucks. means the same as Wow, does this suck.

huh as assent marker (don't know the term) in interrogative works the same as yes or right:

You knew that, huh?::You knew that, yes? Lysdexia (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I've never heard the word used like that. I would interpret the "huh" in your first sentence to indicate recent realization, not general intensification, and would not consider it equal to the "wow" variant. Additionally, I'm not seeing such a definition at [[huh]]. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

λέχος

In English, the word "lair" does not mean the same thing as "couch" or "bed". --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In English, it does, but maybe not in Einglish. Lysdexia (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't follow the link the posted. I assume you mean that there is an obscure, archaic, or obsolete meaning of lair that is the same as "couch, bed", but if so, then it isn't a meaning most modern speakers of the language will be familiar with. I do not know what you mean by "Einglish". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Put in something for the library card. What is obscure? Einglish is what you speak, instead of English. Can't you tell the vowel is off? Lysdexia (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see that I might as well be talking to Humpty Dumpty. I won't bother posting comments to you in future; I'll just block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll contact another admin to block you for this when there was no provocation. Lysdexia (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you could stop wikilawyering and speaking in circles. I don't understand any more than EncycloPetey seems to. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave my citation and he refused to check it. My block note above is "Disruptive edits: continuing to add obsolete translations against multiple warnings; see salveo, arguo". I gave no obsolete translations, and there is no policy against my edits whether specific or generic. EncycloPetey acts against me on his own and there was no consensus to block me. He chooses to block me rather than learn English, which he seems to shun or scorn. Lysdexia (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You are twisting the facts. Both and EncycloPetey and I are not able to view your citation. The relevant senses of hale and bewray are obsolete or archaic, and you did add them as translations on the aforementioned pages. Both he and I are native English speakers. He is not on his own; Chuck Entz (talk • contribs) and I agree with him AFAICT. No consensus is necessary, per local policy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He was instructed how to read the link; you can do the same. What do you mean by obsolete?—it's some illicit jargon these admins made up (Then they break AGF.) to forfend these accurate entries which I owe to their sharing of a root both in spelling and meaning, and still there is no policy against these. They help the reader learn where a word comes from, what the same word is in cousins of English or in English. English has been dead for 1000 years, so ye are not. This Einglish you only understand is the sham. Where does Chuck agree? Lysdexia (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And many dictionaries agree with me. Admins so ignorant and abusive of English don't belong on here. Lysdexia (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, we don't have OED accounts. Don't ask me to define words; just check the entry. We don't need a policy against them to revert. Chuck reverted one of your edits, I believe. But you can ask him yourself if you wish by emailing him. AGF, incidentally, is also not policy. I still don't comprehend your cryptic comments regarding 'Einglish'. Moreover, calling us "ignorant and abusive" is something of a personal attack. I'm going to try not to respond much more, if at all, to this thread. If I were you I would just wait for a week. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

One needs no OED accounts. Put anything in the library card field! Or look at other dictionaries. How about a policy to block? There's nothing on me. Which edit? The world speaks Einglish now, not English. This screen is full of nonEnglish words. Lysdexia (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted

Why making it harder to understand? [1] Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That was rude. It's not harder nor softer, but if it's touher for you, you could use the dictionary again. Trains do not travel (< travail < trepale); one travels on foot or by oar. Lysdexia (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We use standard English at Wiktionary. You seem not to have grasped that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's standard English. Lysdexia (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Trains travel. I suppose next you'll be saying it's impossible to breathe air because breathe is Germanic and air is Latin/Ancient Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the same sort of game you're playing that got you blocked before. Please contribute instead of proliferating obscure, archaic, or obsolete words where more commonly ones will do just as well. And please cease edit warring. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mglovesfun, the statement "breathe air" is not incorrect. The origin and meaning are two matters. Whereas trains don't travel. Whether trains travel or not should not bear on my edit which is [more] accurate. Metaknowledge, the blocker admin had committed libel against me when he said I used obsolete terms. If he'd only go to the problematic term, he'd find a set of entries which are not obsolete. I undo entries when they are inaccurate, wrong. So nobody would care if I put "goes" instead of "fares" but not if I put the latter trip term as it's in English and not in perverted Latin. Lysdexia (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never blocked you; calling me "the blocker admin" is excessively rude. You seem unaware of what libel actually is, and your wikilawyering is only hurting your case. I spoke only the truth and have diffs to back to it up. If you continue to edit disruptively, however, even after being told to cease, I will block you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said you were the blocker admin! See, you can't even read: "Metaknowledge, the blocker admin had" not "Metaknowledge, the blocker admin, had". A block message goes under public indictment. He didn't follow the 3RR and wouldn't hear my case. He was easily disproven. Lysdexia (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to make a perfectly reasonable argument but you'll just ignore it. So I'll level with you, stop being a dick and you won't get blocked, ok? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't ignore anything. What about AGF? and the policies admins ignore? Lysdexia (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:AGF doesn't say to assume good faith blindly, just when it is reasonable to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't admit to any mistakes. The project is for accurate entries, not non-obscure ones. I follow etýma. Lysdexia (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. Please stop wikilawyering. 3RR doesn't exist here, and AGF is for new editors, not ones like you with a track record going back years of questionable editing and blocks. You can use whatever language you want in your personal writings, but this is a dictionary, and we are trying to provide a resource for a wide range of English speakers. Accuracy and clarity are both necessary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet my edits were accurate and clear. I don't know what wikilawyering means and it doesn't exist on Wiktionary; how eironic. Lysdexia (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

gaslight

No, "who" is not a singular pronoun in that sense: you can't say "The person's name is John and who is 8 years old." Also, singular "they" has existed for many centuries and been used by many famous writers. It's fine. Equinox ◑ 17:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course I can say it; you did. If you bother to look at the entry for who, in any dictionary, you see it is substantive besides relative. Whether writers pervert case (1 = 2) doesn't mean it's correct or fine. Lysdexia (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Linguists operate in a descriptive, not a prescriptive manner; language does change, and the change is driven by writers and speakers. To call it a "perversion" is absurd; see for example Fowler's Modern English Usage on this topic (which is a century old but still agrees with me, not you). 2. When you wrote "who", you must have meant "he/she". "Who" in the way you used it in your edit is not even remotely standard: it would sound wrong to anybody. Ask on WT:TR if you need confirmation from other editors. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A word that describes two things should be forgone for a word that describes one thing. It is also standard in some dialects to put the opposite of the intended word (bad for good; nice for well; stupid for fine) but that is still wrong. When users are infamiliar with a word's etýmon and disrespect other words, the language can only decay. It doesn't matter how things sound; the meaning is most important. Lysdexia (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Again: we are a descriptivist dictionary, like every modern dictionary. You will have to get used to it, or create your own personal dictionary elsewhere; but people do not actually speak and write your way, so it would be of little use. Equinox ◑ 11:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Troll

I think you are a troll, since you registered user name Lysdexia (a pun on dyslexia) to edit a dictionary. Your diff was reverted, and justly so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This was my IRC and WWW ekename until it became too common and I went with alysdexia. If you make all of your decisions on such superficial prejudice I recommend you not edit here. I do not troll ever; I am brutally frank and soothful and back up anything I do. Your slur breaches AGF. Why are you even here? Lysdexia (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you the owner of W:User:Lysdexia? That user was blocked over there for abusing one or more accounts. Here is an old version of talk page over there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim was that my edits there were also trolling, which is libel. I made/make corrections; the ignorant userbase who don't understand the details of English, Latin, etc. revert them; then I undid the reverts with explanations in the edit summary; then with their GIGO attitude didn't understand those summaries either and summarily undid those and got dirty admins to conspire agains me. The further explanations on my talk page were ignored. Lysdexia (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you the owner of W:User:Lysdexia? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The account is indefinitely blocked but not banned. The talk page has been locked not after abuse of the unblock template but after I made defenses after the template didn't convince them. Lysdexia (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology as a standard

Re diff: Etymology is not a standard by which to judge spelling and word choice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about spelling? What I meant by "attested" was that a dictionary has senses for each of the words I edit in and they agree with the comparisons with other words; their origin is a guide that the relation holds. Lysdexia (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I find your second sentennce unintelligible; in any case, origin of words is not a guide to their semantics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And in that vein, viruses is a perfectly legit plural. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Where? The origin of words is a guide, the guide, the only guide to semantics; whoever coins a word gets to say what it means [and doesn't], not the malliterate/illiterate offspring of the generation that coins. viruses is the English plural of a Latin word where the Latin plural was virus. I rather use viria as a plural of virion/virium. Lysdexia (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of obscure terms in definitions

Regarding diff: Use of obscure terms in definitions shall be avoided. A definition is intended to state the meaning of an unfamiliar term in familiar terms, or as familiar as possible. Dictionary definitions are not the place through which to make obscure or obsolete words more used; that has to happen outside of a dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't say this; it says to list a set of terms that one can understand the entry by. Lysdexia (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

2 week block

I previously stated that if you continued on your current path it would result in a block, and this has now come to fruition. I have no interest in arguing with you about how etymology relates to semantics, nor what direction the English language should or not should be taking. You still have the option of becoming a productive editor, should you wish it. If not, your next block will be a month. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You would not answer me what problem you had with my edits. Your abuse and disruptive edits are in violation of NPOV: User_talk:Chuck_Entz#compensation. Chuck has admitted to his mistake on error which you blindly revert. If you do not do the same I'll contact other admins to suspend you. Lysdexia (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Transclude to Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress

Atelaes (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) and EncycloPetey (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) are ultraconservative English-haters who revert glosses and bully and block the user, me, who adds them. Their NPOV violations are linked at User talk:Lysdexia#2 week block and thereabove. Help:FAQ is exactly the standards I follow where one section tells the editor to use OED and other dictionaries for verification. When I tried to post a OED link to prove my edit to the entry sense, EncycloPetey said he didn't get OED and couldn't read the link; therefore he wouldn't consider my edit and block, even if one can access OED.com for free if one enters anything in the library card field. Atelaes has picked on me the whole time where at last he's reverted a legitimate edit after I had a talk with another admin, Chuck Entz, and blocked me for two weeks after I had another talk with Chuck on another word where I stated my case where he and the other admins or editors all break the NPOV policy and that the policies agree with my edits and disagree with theirs; however, Chuck has not answered and I did not revert this word. These two editors bring a hostile work environment to this project and misrepresent its policies and my edits. Lysdexia (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are an insane person, please see a doctor as soon as possible.

Revert at pal

I reverted you because your edit placed the entry in Category:Angloromani terms inherited from Romani and Category:Sanskrit terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Please only use {{inh}} in entries for languages that are direct descendants of the languages in the template, and make sure the first parameter for {{inh}}, {{bor}}, and {{der}} always contains the language code of the entry. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

How is this?

Borrowed from Angloromani phal, from Romani phral, from Sanskrit भ्रातृ (bhrātṛ), from Proto-Indo-European *bʰréh₂tēr. Cognates also include English brother, Ancient Greek φράτηρ (phrátēr), Latin frater.

Lysdexia (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Babel

Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree with its premise on the meaning of English. Similarly I fault modern definitions or usages which treat Levant exclusive of Asia, nonhuman animals exclusive of sexual or genderal pronouns, humans exclusive of animals, food plants exclusive of meat, nonhart animals exclusive of deers, theories exclusive of proof, general addresses exclusive of females, and loanwords exclusive of etýma. Lysdexia (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Instead of using Babel, you could state in words which language you are a native speaker of. I guess there is a description of that language that is acceptable to you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

NPA policy

Wikilawyering won't get you very far here. You can and will be blocked for conscious, vicious personal attacks, like calling someone a "fucktard" and pointlessly denigrating their religion. Andrew's views on etymology are wrong, but that's not the way to tell him. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody tells what others will, the optative auxilary as in "like to", only what they shall, the future auxiliary. You blindly believe this nonpolicy founded on assertions and beliefs without any proof, when it is more likely the lack of insults and personal criticism that drives off users, not that all users are alike or that quantity matters over quality. This expectation of basic respect for all without regard to whom deserves it has becomen codified sociopathy, self-defeating. You invite the very defects who break the policies and nonpolicies, and your block of someone who did not insult the offender alone but used real arguments and resources along with the insult makes for intimidating behavior for which you deserve to be blocked. If you had bothered to read everything I gave him you'd know the huge societal and mental harms that religion directly causes; everything I say has a good reason. Lysdexia (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For ease of reference, this is about diff, where Lysdexia says "You are a fucktard. (I will call immunity as Wiktionary has no official NPA policy, luckily.) ..." --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yiddish

Don't make edits like this in languages you don't know. If I see it happen again, you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I will (optative auxiliary) instead of shall (future auxiliary). You don't even know English. Why did you revert run-on sentence? Lysdexia (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Courriel du Wiktionnaire

Je vous ai restauré la permission de modifier cette page-ci (User talk:Lysdexia), malgré votre blocage, pour que vous puissiez y en discuter.

I've restored your ability to edit this page (User talk:Lysdexia), despite your block, so you can discuss it here.

Thanks,
—Ruakh_TALK
21:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Lysdexia (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Lysdexia (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Review my comments under User talk:Qehath#explain your mass revert vandalism of Category:Abrahamism and Category:Protestantism. I did not threaten to make controversial or offensive edits, nor did I make any, after this mass revert but was in the end stage of BRD. Also review Qehath's past transgressions and general sociopathy.

@Ruakh @Metaknowledge why hasn't anyone answered?! Lysdexia (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Because your block was merited. Please stop pinging and emailing me; I would rather not restrict your talk-page access, but I will do so if you become a nuisance. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No it wasn't merited. A block is supposed to stop disruptive editing when I had already stopped after the warning. Which admins agree that I should be blocked for two weeks for Zack's misrepresentation of me and my following of BRD? Lysdexia (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Message for when your block expires

I stumbled upon your case, was intrigued and did a little reading. I just wanted to say that your excessive linguistic purism is concerning when building a descriptive dictionary is involved. From what I read, I see you're knowledgable in hard sciences; you could be a valuable contributor by editing and adding scientific terms and finding good citations. I know you're a prolific pot-stirrer all over the internet, but we'd all really appreciate it if you could focus on bettering the dictionary, rather than pushing personal agendas. Thanks :-) Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 04:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That page is somewhat inaccurate but of course they wouldn't let me dispute their kangaroo court claims. In any case it's a decade ago. If you can dispute how I categorize religion pages, do so; otherwise your comment is off-topic. Zack couldn't dispute my arguments either which shows that this project goes on power biases instead of verifiability even. Agendas isn't a word; agenda is plural of agendum. Lysdexia (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

unblock Lysdexia 2

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Lysdexia (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

@Equinox your claim that I ever vandalized anything breaks AGF and like Qehath you deserve to be punished for your abuse of admin privileges. I was suspended for 2 weeks then 3 months for admin abuse, not for what any rational person understands as vandalism. The mechanical pencil definition was too long, stated the common knowledge that something is worn down with use, had the misnomer of thickness which refers to density rather than extension, and didn't need to state it had no need to be sharpened as it was implied from the "replaceable and mechanically extendable" qualifier. I overwrote my last edit of "size" with the more-correct "breadth" to say that one dimension of the lead does wear. Moreover mechanical pencils come in a wide variety of finenesses/coarsenesses (not thicknesses), some whose leads are as broad as a pen clicker, so not all are even sharp; likewise regular pencils of that size can stay blunt with use and are only shaven of their sheath so they aren't sharpened at all. Another of your reverts of my edits had no reason at all: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Zarge&diff=prev&oldid=49965115. The last time I mistook Related terms for Derived terms I was reverted by another admin. Formerly I was reverted by another admin during my Abrahamism edits, IIRC when I removed the self-category on Baha'i. Wiktionary like Wikipedia is full of corrupt and ignorant admins who elicit and deserve no respect from the general user; they break their own rules and they use their blocking power [without consensus] to cover up their own faulty edits. So now there's no reason for me to care about the term or context of whatever block some kneejerk admin tool awards me with and there's no reason for me to respect the single-account rule anymore. I may now use different addresses and names and make the job of every underqualified and pretentiose admin hell. Lysdexia (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this is certainly a classic case of admin abuse: to wit, you're abusing admins again. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How did I ever abuse admins? Lysdexia (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The "block reason" "Vandalism: look, if you come back and do the same thing, we will block you the same way, but longer each time": I didn't even edit the same each time I was blocked for, so this escalation of 2 weeks plus is totally uncalled for, as is any block at all when all I did was delete misinformation. These admins who added back the misinformation deserve the suspension or loss of their powers.

These dictionaries don't add extra overlong common misconceptions and common knowledge that better go onto Wikipedia: https://onelook.com/?w=mechanical+pencil; http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/115544?redirectedFrom=mechanical+pencil#eid37502790. I expect admins to know better than to fill entries with crap: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=encyclopedic&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&searchengineselect=mediawiki&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns12=1&ns13=1; Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/October#Definitions versus Descriptions. Lysdexia (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Lysdexia,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

unblock for libel by User:Metaknowledge

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Lysdexia (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

User:surjection and User:Metaknowledge didn't prove the relation between futhark and Fotze/futh was false, or the links in the Google search were false, nor did the former cite what kind of proof is needed to add a related term. Surjection also vandalized yeet into the name for the millennium instead of the decade. The block reason "Edit warring: Readding false information, as well as personal attacks." applies to Surjection, who added no information in the next revert after I added some. And neither Metaknowledge nor surjection can understand counting. "dolt" is one statement, not many, and is a statement of fact that one mis-understands so much as to harm the subject, impersonal and personal; the harm, a personal attack was callan me a plural as it attacks both reality and myself. Like Metaknowledge fraudulently inflates one alleged personal attack into personal attacks. Every admin who has blocked me has disrupted the project of my corrections, accused me of disruption or worse instead to deflect their unmet burden of proof, so deserve to be blocked and demoted. But the leaders will never self-criticize and shall never be decently intelligent. Years ago I was blocked for referring and linking to OED and the admin griped that he couldn't read the link. Corrupt powerful abusive users must be taken down. (The "his or her" in this template can better be stated "whose".) Lysdexia (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe this block is completely justified; in fact, I'm more surprised that the block isn't indefinite considering the length of the block log already.

The burden of proof lies on the editor that makes a claim. I don't need to prove that the relation is false; you need to prove that it has any credence, which you have failed to do. A Google search link is not a valid source, and none of the search results even make the claim other than a blog post (which does not present any other sources and is pure speculation). There is little doubt that you simply would have edit-warred further to add the information back, should you not have been blocked, which again serves to justify the block (to prevent further disruption).

The argument about me being guilty of readding false information because I "added no information" is outlandish.

Also, "libel" could be considered a serious legal accusation, and making those can get you into further trouble. If I were you, I'd acknowledge the fact that I'm in a hole and would stop digging deeper. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:surjection Who cares about your beliefs? In other words, you're surprised the admins aren't more abusive towards unusual editors. The last time I was wrongfully blocked for months I cut down a overspecific overlong wrongly-worded definition for a general one and the crooked admin put the block reason as vandalism. Admins get to break policy regularly and no one punishes them.

You piled onto the first claim that the relation "seems false", with "absurd", both positive claims and neither reasons to revert. If this went regularly someone would slap the attn template on either of the pages or ask the portal. The search result had three+ mentions of the meaning of the first stem and the stem used in other runic constructions. Is your Google broken? pure = clean -> sheer = absolute. Is there a formal definition of edit war? I didn't simply make the same edit without use of the talk page. You believe I deserve to be blocked for 3 months for this one-page two-edit incident? You added no information on the talk page and added false information in the edit summary and history.

How can a legal accusation get me into further trouble? You'd victim-blame. I didn't put myself in a hole; admins did. If I had really vandalized I'd'v replaced the entry with gibberish or spam. If I had really disrupted, I'd'v moved pages into false categories (as they already were/are) or revert without ever talking. My opponents never defend themselves; they don't answer my rebuttals. They don't even understand the subject. Yet they run this site. Lysdexia (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Who cares about your beliefs?"

It is unfortunate that an editor that seems to reliably fall back on personal attacks and condescending behavior isn't willing to change their ways. But hey, feel free to cry admin abuse all you want, but the fact is that this isn't about you being "unusual", it's about you being disruptive, which you don't seem to realize despite the fact that you edit-war constantly no matter how many times it ends up getting you blocked.

But hey, everyone else is always wrong, and it's never you, right?

Also noteworthy is the fact that you're not solely edit warring against me or against one admin in many (arguably most) of these cases. Other editors questioned the connection too - two separate editors, in fact; one of them removed the mention from Fotze and the other one posted a question in Talk:futhark, which led me to remove it initially. The situation is much of the same in yeet, where the crux is that you seem to insist that Wiktionary is a place to promote your alternative orthography (it isn't).

"The search result had three+ mentions of the meaning of the first stem and the stem used in other runic constructions."

I checked through three pages and I only ever found one result that asserted a connection between the two words (the one I mentioned). If there are "three+ mentions" as you claim there to be, please link them in your next response.

"You believe I deserve to be blocked for 3 months for this one-page two-edit incident?"

It feels like you're refusing to admit that you've been blocked for this sort of disruptive behavior before. This isn't your first rodeo, and I'm as much aware of it as you are (or should be).

As for why legal accusations are troublesome, there are very good reasons Wikipedia has a full policy about blocking editors who make legal threats. Sure, this isn't Wikipedia, but there is little within the arguments of that page that couldn't also apply here. They create an environment in which such ultimately insignificant actions as these (you've made at most a few dozen contributions this year so far) can lead to legal threats being thrown to and fro, and help to further the image that you're not willing to contribute collaboratively (in addition to an earlier threat on this page that you'd start using sockpuppets to evade your block). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:surjection I already told you not to refer to me as a plural and that it's offensive yet you want to provoke me to repeat myself or get angrier at you. You insert false information about my number. You even had a chance to use a singular pronoun I supplied if you didn't know which to use. And as this is a dictionary full of information about how nomenclature works in IndoEuropean languages, you'v no excuse. You couldn't do simple maths, simple inflection, or define edit war.

My edits make sense; I can explain my edits; the stuff I overwrote or undid didn't make sense; I didn't expect my edits to be a problem; those who call my edits disruptive never explain themselves. They don't use the talk pages; they simply revert and get me blocked. They don't cite the policies I break. How am I supposed to collaborate with those who don't talk? I'm almost never wrong and when I'm wrong I usually correct myself. You want to leave the standard diction/spelling in so that readers can misinterpret what can easily be corrected by extra thinking.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BClach_fibula "fud..vulva" (Fotze even links to fud.)
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=TL-tDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=futhark%7Cfuthorc+vulva%7CFotze#v=onepage&q=futhark%7Cfuthorc%20vulva%7CFotze&f=false "futh..fudh..vulva and vagina"
3. https://blog.oup.com/2007/11/bigot/ "futhark..vulva"
4. https://books.google.com/books?id=TKcc-27YYqMC&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq=futhark%7Cfuthorc+vulva%7CFotze#v=onepage&q=futhark%7Cfuthorc%20vulva%7CFotze&f=false "fuþ..fuð..vulva"
5. https://www.academia.edu/41822419/The_Architecture_of_the_Younger_Futhark_Alphabet "Fut..Vulva"
6. https://tunglet.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/continuation-of-the-firesoul/ "FUTH..pussy..fitte..fotze"
7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jenglgermphil.117.2.0276?seq=1 "futhark..fuð..vulva"
8. http://www.avenoctum.com/2019/07/heilung-futha-season-of-mist/ "Futhark..futh..cunt..Fotze"
9. https://www.sprachnudel.de/woerterbuch/fotze "Fotze..Fut..Futhark"
10. https://www.academia.edu/35971551/Der_Kern_der_Futhark-Sprachen "fut..Futharks..Vagina..fot..fud..Fott, Fotz..vot, vod"
11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307863980_Sexuella_runinskrifter "fuþ..fuþark..fuð..fitta"

There are no good reasons for blocking for legal threats. It sounds like a university or church environment where the leaders cover up rape and embezzlement. Everyone must be taken to account. There is only a good reason for blocking if a claim is false. The unexplained civility policy lets users get by without criticism and that hurts the quality of the content and the reputation of the critics. The false block reasons and inflated block times aren't insignificant. (I never said I'd use sockpuppets. Sockpuppets pretend to be another person.) Lysdexia (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment, but wow. Some of your "sources" are just straight-up white supremacists. You have a lot to learn, and editing Wiktionary isn't the right way to learn it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've very much explained what's disruptive about your edits, so that isn't going to work.

"You want to leave the standard diction/spelling in so that readers can misinterpret what can easily be corrected by extra thinking."

Yes, yes I do. Most readers aren't going to have any issues interpreting the sentence because of context anyway.

Alright, how about the sources then?

1. Doesn't make a connection that Futhark is connected with the word
2. Doesn't make a connection that Futhark is connected with the word, just says that they sound similar so it "may be called" that. It's comparable to saying "andiron could also be called "and iron"."
3. This is the one I talked about, but it is complete speculation on the author's part with no sources cited for the claim (the writer says that there might be a source, but isn't even sure)
4. Doesn't make a connection that Futhark is connected with the word - in fact, it intentionally considers them separate concepts by using the "or" to suggest that the beginning of Futhark and the word for "vulva" are two different things!
5. Doesn't look like a reliable source, and it doesn't even make the claim that Futhark comes from that word
6. Finally a source that even mentions the connection, and it's yet another blog from someone who doesn't seem to have any linguistic credentials (who seems to think Ancient Hebrew was Gothic (???))
7. I cannot read the source, but I again doubt that it makes a connection between Futhark and the word
8. No etymological connection here either, it makes a claim equivalent to saying that (in terms of spelling) weather starts with we, which is demonstrably true, but that's about it.
9. I suppose the "source" here is a comment from an anonymous contributor who thinks the word didn't even originally mean "vulva" but was a sacred word hence its use in Futhark, but either way, this isn't a reliable source either
10. Finally, a source that actually makes the claim! But wait, the same author has released this [2] in which "fut" apparently is just a reversed form of some other word. So which one is it?
11. The abstract says "the double meaning in Futhark with its start for fuþ also meaning 'vulva' must have been widely known to the people who inscribed these runes", which again doesn't make an etymological connection, but something akin to "haha assert starts with ass!"

In short, through some double-reading and healthy source criticism, none of those are reliable sources that can corroborate the claim you're making. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed. Not that your objection is relevant, or that your repeated posturing adds any information. Lysdexia (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

“Editing from Lysdexia has been disabled by Equinox for the following reason(s):

Edit warring: repeated blocks over ten years. basically sociopathic

This block has been set to expire: infinite.”

Look at what one of the crooked admins did to cover up their mistakes and offenses, besides revoke the user talk page editing so that I can’t defend myself like what the Wikipedia admins did, add more libel that I’m sociopathic (for talking and arguing instead of ignoring?) [instead of admit that the admins Equinox, Metaknowledge, et al. are sociopathic], and like you use “edit war” without a definition. Can anyone identify why Equinox could claim my edit to mechanical pencil was vandalism? or is he a halfwitted liar who needs to lose his job?

“issue” means something gone out. You mean “problems”. Issues and problems can negatively correlate. “Most readers” would read a millennium instead of a decade, then use more effort to decide a decade was meant as it was badly-written. You said my correction was nonsense when it was your fault if you didn’t understand how the spelling was better or how the extant spelling was wrong.

If two users disagreed with my edits [and never let me know about them] but never gave a good reason to disagree with them like cite a discussion of the root that disagrees with the cognate I put, and I undid a revert after them, that doesn’t make my revert disruptive or edit warring. The case for a link is stronger than without. Unlike other entries this doesn’t refer to a real object but to the incipit of a writing at a convenient break, arranged into unique tokens, shortened from futharkgw, a proper noun usually isolate in sources. If someone had rearranged the English alfabet to read cuntsabdef.. (as futhar ~ cunts), who would think the ordering were random? and who would need a linguist to write that cuntsab comes from cunt? One “word” doesn’t only begin with another word but two words. (The runes’ meanings also pair into similar themes.) “andiron” isn’t related to “and” as they’re from different language families, like “assert” and “ass”. Come up with a better argument. “weather” and “we” aren’t abstractions; they bear meanings that impose rules on how they fit with other words. When futh/fudh, fud, and Fotze are related and all are in the same family as futhark, assimilation/mutation rules yield no other stems in futhark, and a random arrangement doesn’t make two vulgar words like that, futhark has to be related. Futhark is the first of its kind; there are no earlier versions so no records of different constructions and even if there were they’d be rearrangements of the same tokens. Abcedaries do not come with explanations of why they were arranged so. They are public resources that are mentioned much more often than used. They don’t need the author’s collocative usage or whatever your secret standard for inclusion is. Wiktionary doesn’t say whatever you framed as a “connection”:

Wiktionary:Etymology#General

”Etymology is the study of the origins of words. The vocabularies of modern languages come from a variety of different sources: some have evolved from older words, others have been borrowed from foreign languages, and some have been named from people, developed from initialisms, or even have been deliberately invented by a certain author.”

“developed from initalisms” and “deliberately invented” apply here.

Wiktionary:Etymology#Surface etymologies

”Etymologies trace the historical development of words, not simply an analysis of their current (“surface”) forms.”

The history has been exhausted so doesn’t apply here. Only surface remains.

Wiktionary:Etymology#Coined expressions

”In some historically recent cases where words have been deliberately created, we may be able to give details of where and by whom this was done. Where possible, the reasoning behind the coinage should be suggested, however note that this will properly be conjectural unless it has been documented by the word’s original creator.”

should -> ouht; suggested, -> suggested;; will -> shall. Sweden 1600 years ago, 400 years after invention of runes, by one engraver. This entry does not say that one who writes the surface analýsis shall be blocked.

”In the entry chortle:

Coined by Lewis Carroll in Jabberwocky, apparently as a blend of chuckle + snort.”

The live entry says

”Perhaps a blend of chuckle + snort.”

Entries of this kind almost never cite the source. And I don’t know anyone who’s ever been blocked for it.

I did make one mistake and again only I was the one who found it:

Wiktionary:Etymology#Descendants

”Closely etymologically related terms in the same language should be listed instead at “Related terms”, and there should be links both ways, as this is a sibling relationship; related terms in other languages are instead handled as cognates in the etymology section, or as descendants of a common ancestor term.”

Thus “Fotze”, “the word” you will not say, belongs under Etymology, along with “fud” as cognates of and along with “fuþ” as origin, or their plurals as.

You originally took “or” in 4 to mean exclusive or, supposed to follow “either”, instead of a restatement. Even or contradicts your misrepresentation.

It looks like tunglet’s Ancient Hebrew entry is much badly written amids brainfarts and seems to refer to the writing as what’s descended, but that’d be the wrong Semitic branch. Another conflated the two: https://grammar.katabiblon.com/?page=ph

”Keown, REBUTTAL to “Final proposal for encoding the Phoenician script in the UCS”: an aleph is an aleph is an aleph, since about 1200 B.C.E. ... Just after 1200 B.C.E., the 22-letter very late Proto-Canaanite writing (e.g., 'El-Khadr arrowheads) loses its pictographic character and becomes more readable. ... standard ‘Phoenician’ should be regarded as a set of glyphs with no significant technical differences from ‘Hebrew.’ There are glyph differences, but they can be regarded as the usual variation in glyphs seen with Roman, Greek, or other scripts more familiar to the western eye than ‘Phoenician’ or other early Semitic glyphs.”

Richter’s other essay treats futhark like a word game or poem; it doesn’t matter what soundalikes and patterns he finds in it as they don’t exclude the overt representation.

Wiktionary never defines “reliable sources”: Wiktionary:Reliable sources. And the portal is full of trash and noise for want of a policy: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=reliable+source&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&searchengineselect=mediawiki&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns12=1. Angr said Wiktionary applies Wikipedia’s RS but then years later CodeCat contradictd him [as policy does] that WP:RS doesn’t apply. The problem doesn’t call for diakronic observation and mutant tracking as the root is damned clear as day. Lysdexia (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Grammar neologism - whom vs who

On the off chance that this user ever successfully challenges their ban, I'll add this to the list of things for them to read when they get back.

I found myself editing a page to change a glaringly wrong "whom" to "who", since it was the subject of the subordinate clause (though that was made more complicated to recognize as it was written in the passive voice). And then I went to find out how it got there, and discovered that the single word had been changed from "who" to "whom" in this edit which led me to this user and thence to this discussion.

Contemporary English accepts "who" as both subject and object, so such an edit was unnecessary. But this use of "whom" is either neologistic (and disputed), or hypercorrection, or simply "wrong".

(There is perhaps a new evolving use of "whom", matching its role in the main clause, rather than (as previously) to its role in the subordinate clause, but to my knowledge this has yet to be accepted as standard or even acceptable by any reputably dictionary. For citation, read any Shakespeare play.)

Either way, it is quite ironic for someone so focussed on a prescriptivist approach to grammar to go to the trouble of adding an error, yet it seems entirely in keeping with their approach highlighted in other comments here. Martin Kealey (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

When challenged this user just insults me

Thank you for calling me a "dolt" on my user page, as that insult relieves me of the obligation to give you the benefit of any doubt about your motivations. Martin Kealey (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)