User talk:Surjection/archive/2019-1

fong

Hi, Thanks very much for improving my addition to fong. I know little to nothing about how Irish is categorized on here so am just wondering how you decide it gets the header 'English' rather than 'Irish'. Also, should it have the category Irish slang? (It currently has 'English slang'.) --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You also know little to nothing about Irish, apparently. On Wiktionary, "Irish" refers to Irish Gaelic, which is a Celtic language completely different from English. To give you a rough idea (about all that Google Translate is good for), this is what Google Translate gives as an Irish translation for the Angela's Ashes quote: "Faigh amach ó mo dhoras nó beidh mé ag teacht amach agus tabharfaidh gach duine maith duit i bpoll do asal." You may notice that there's not a single word in common with English. Suffice it to say, if there's even the slightest glimmer of uncertainty as to whether it might be English, it's definitely NOT Irish. Instead, it's Irish English a.k.a. Hibernian English. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as Surjection then?--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Most assuredly not. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

rollback

I mean sure, it’s not a necessary edit, but don’t you think a little bit of diversity would be nice for Wiktionary? Surely, we don’t want to make the impression that only men do business and that only heterosexual couples are together? https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=together&type=revision&diff=51230619&oldid=51230610 --188.100.202.199 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's shoehorning in something that isn't necessary, and I have a feeling you're not actually serious about it anyway. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comparatives and superlatives

The categories "comparative adjectives" and "superlative adjectives" should be used for adjective lemmas, not for non-lemma forms. For non-lemmas, forms of adjectives use "adjective forms". —Rua (mew) 23:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rua Not so anymore since this vote; now "comparative/superlative adjectives" are always non-lemmas unless the forms have some other attached meaning and "comparative/superlative adjective forms" for inflected forms of comparative/superlative adjectives or such. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rua Also worth noting is that I am willing to exercise my right to block your bot, if it is applied to unilaterally reverse the changes by my bot for any more languages. If you wish to override the consensus achieved via a vote, you must first achieve that consensus. By contrast, nothing about a vote with 10 involved voters and 80% approval rate is "unilateral". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 11:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

öses

• https://www.google.com/search?q=%C3%B6ses&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=882
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%B6ses&diff=51269999&oldid=51269997

--212.78.202.98 09:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The image search doesn't really tell anything to me. Which language is öses supposed to be a plural form in and what word is it a plural of? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You work too fast

Hi. Can you please not create so many Finnish entries so quickly? I'm trying to have Spanish beat Finnish in the stats page and you're too productive... kippis! --Wonderfool later January 2019 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting such a déjà vu feeling from this. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Wonderfool 2020 will resend the same message too --Wonderfool later January 2019 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

But to be fair, when Finnish reaches 100k lemmas (hopefully some time this year), I'll probably be too drunk to work on entries and then suffer from hangover, so that'll be a one day break. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You can time 100k entries for that Finnish May day that begins with V when everyone gets drunk. I'll join ya. Kippis! Equinox ◑ 09:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the famous game show

REAL OR NOT REAL? And you are the contestant. taitelija! Thank you. Equinox ◑ 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The misspelling is definitely real. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't like your new signature, did you hire a branding consultancy? Equinox ◑ 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I plagiarized one of their rejects that had been sketched on a piece of paper I found in the trash. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

But Gay People do it too!

Why did you revert my edits to Second base? I was just trying to acknowledge that not all relationships have boobs, so why did you not think about it, I’m just saying! Heck even my MOTHER agrees on this stuff! (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC))

I'm not sure it is verifiable, and even if it were, it should not replace the existing definition. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

hexillion

I am rather sure, I was right, see my comments there. Ra-raisch (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Help

I'm relying on you, a sysop in en.wiktionary, because I'm currently being victim of an abuse in en.wikipedia. My IP range was blocked by a sysop names "Ohnoitsjamie". What I did was to revert a user's edits back to some time ago because currently there's a new consensus about such edits. The edits were about Italian phonetic transcriptions containing the sound "ɱ". In the past it was transcribed by "m" for simplicity, but now it was consensually decided to transcribe it just as it is, not to talk about the fact that the Help:IPA page about Italian now has such a sound listed. He blocked me because I was correcting a phonetic transcriptions he knows absolutely nothing about, and blocked my full range when I reverted his edits. I can't even make an appeal for this block because I'm prevented to edit my own talk page! Please, do something to help me, even just a suggestion about what I can do now. It's absurd but it's real, and it's Wikipedia (alas!)...

I see no reason to involve myself in affairs taking place on another site. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Then I have another question, you should have no problems to answer this one. Do you know the UTRS, right? Well: I tried using it, but when I submit it an error appeared: "We need to know which administrator placed your block."... But there's no field to indicate the admin! It's a bug in the UTRS form! It's kafkian, an innocent blocked user prevented from appealing in any way he tries... Could you tell the right persons about the bug, please?

No, I do not know what the UTRS is, and I have no idea who to contact about something like that. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 07:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pupper Changes

Hey, I made changes to the Pupper page, and I noticed that you recently reverted it back to its previous form. I'm curious as to why you did this. Please let me know. GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Etymological details do not belong in definition lines. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Understandable. I have a question. The term is of 20th century or earlier American origin. Wouldn't it make sense to describe it as American slang instead of internet slang? GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be if so, but I'm not sure if that older meaning is verifiable; I cannot find it on DARE, for instance. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I can give you evidence in a sec. What is DARE? GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DARE refers to the Dictionary of American Regional English. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

An example from media in the 1980s,is in the Garfield and Friends cartoon (1988), in which Garfield often refers to Odie as "pupper". GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If there is a specific quote/cite you could add to the entry from that or another source, I would consider that sufficient. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi there. I see you delete something for being a copyright. You might want to delete malinterpretación too - it is a blatant copy of Collins dictionary. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am indeed currently drafting up a list of pages that violate copyright and am about to delete half of all of the pages on Wiktionary. This seemingly includes most of the pages I have created, a fact that I wasn't aware of. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the best idea. Incidentally, I got an email from Margarita Madrigal. We copied her definition of vino blanco from the 1989 Madrigal's Magic Key to Spanish. So that has to go too. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

About the yottasecond

Sorry if it was in the middle, but to be honest your talk section isnt very user friendly, and I had a hard time looking for a place to put it. Also, my comment wasnt pointless, and if you deem it pointless, then remove the other two comments, and mabye while you are at it, remove the talk page since it deosnt meet your "requirements". Thank you for making this bigger than it needed to be, and I hope you have a good day Surjection.

Please do not reply to this unless you have constructive information that you can supply, thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by Modernmotem (talk • contribs).

New talk sections go to the end; on the desktop, there is a + button next to "Edit" that adds a new section for you. As for pointless, the entry talk page is for talking about the entry on Wiktionary, not for talking about philosophical topics. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection Thanks for the "advice", but I didnt post anything "philosophical" If you want a reference to the comment, here it is.

The ammount of time for this is so small, that we humans cant comprehend it -modernmotem 11:11, 7 Feb 2019 (CT)

@Surjection I also used that function with the edit. Im pretty sure thats not the point but ok you can point that useless thing out. To each his own. — This unsigned comment was added by Modernmotem (talk • contribs).

The "+" button? It is the best way to add a new entry to a talk page. If your comment was not meant to be "philosophical", what was it for then? It certainly isn't discussing the entry itself. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection It actually was about the subject. I explained that a Yettosecond was so small we cant really comprehend it. That obviously pretains to the subject I was talking about. Also, it was in a Talk section. So its not like I put it in the article itself. — This unsigned comment was added by Modernmotem (talk • contribs).

The thing is, talk pages are not for discussing the concept of a word either, but the entry of that word or whether such an entry should exist. The comments on there are about whether the word is actually used, i.e. whether the entry should exist. Similarly I wouldn't go on Talk:dog and write about dogs, because that is not what the talk page is for. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection Ok that makes a little more sense. I dont get why they would call it that, but I guess its solved now. If you would like to join my little team, we just watch pages and update game related articles. You sound like you know your stuff, and we need someone like that.

Ill try to keep this on topic but I just wanted to say this while I had your attention.

Just remember that talk pages- including user talk pages- are for discussing dictionary business. We're a bit more relaxed when it comes to someone who's already contributing a lot, but that's the general rule. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

materiaalinkäsittelymessuilla

Hi, while verifying that some Finnish nominative plurals were used enough (via Google books) to create entries for them, I noticed this crazy long word in one of the results. While it seems that this specific non-lemma form gets hardly any results I would like it if you could create an entry for the lemma form of this word. :) User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be an inflected form of "materiaalinkäsittelymessut" (probably plural only) which literally means "material processing fair" ("fair" as in trade fair), and I don't think it's attested well enough to meet WT:CFI. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the response. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

So, just out of curiosity, I was wondering if there was a way I could see what the vandal(s) wrote on my talk page, of which edits have since been reverted and erased. Thanks! -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ ^{(탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒)}. 15:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC).

It's standard LTA vandalism which we have decided should receive the damnatio memoriae treatment. Admins can technically view the content, but it's not really that entertaining and hence there's not that much of a reason to reveal it. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Basically, the vandal takes certain themes that are sort of like their "trademark" and throw in something barbaric for shock value. The idea is to gain a feeling of power by 1) showing that they got around our defenses, and 2) forcing an involuntary emotional reaction on unsuspecting people. They also like to harass people who have spoiled their fun in the past. We hide everything because it reduces the benefit they get from their vandalism, and as an added plus it reduces the likelihood of imitation (most of the "themes" this vandal uses were copied from previous vandals).

Having seen just about everything they've done over the past few years, I can verify that you're not missing much. As hard as they try to come up with original and shocking content, it's really just a rehash of what they've done before. All the patrollers are completely used to it by now. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Finnish grammar question

Hey, after looking through a fair few Finnish entries, I'm wondering are the nominative and accusative plurals always the same or are there exceptions? User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Apart from some pronouns, no exceptions. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Finnish vernacular names of taxa

Thanks for all the names and for using the taxon templates. There was one, that had two definitions one for a species of Fallopia, the other for the genus. It misfired or something. I tried to complete it, but I forgot exactly how you show the plural for the genus. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah right, it's a shorthand I use for a script that I use to help create some of the entries. It needs the "plant" part (for "any plant of..."), otherwise it falls apart, and it seems I forgot to put it in. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad I noticed it. Thanks for the prompt fix. DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

New Finnish entries

Hi again, I'm just curious, where are you getting the words you are adding from? Some website, or a book (dictionary or otherwise)? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Various sources, including word lists (including one of 120,000 words that is released under a CC license), glossaries (in which I only take the Finnish words and find out the definitions/meanings by myself), finding words in actual use on media, occasional thoughts popping into my mind about "does this have a Finnish word for it"... — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, interesting. :) Some Wiktionary entries contain a handful of lists (derived terms, etc.) which have a number of redlinks too. One such entry I saw recently is kirves which I looked up out of curiosity because I heard it in a song. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That is another source and I also fill in those sections at times, using both the word lists mentioned earlier as well as additions made on the Finnish Wiktionary, and often just go through those lists on articles creating the entries that can be attested. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A number of Finnish words I picked out from books search

Hey, I've been looking at some b.g.c. search results again and picked out a few (relatively) long Finnish words we don't have entries for. They all seem attestable but first of course we need entries for their lemmas, which I can't deduce naturally, since I don't speak the language. I'd be grateful if you create entries for the lemmas. :) So, here is the list:

• musiikkikappeleita
• sukulaisuudestaan
• paremmuusjärjestykseen
• budjettiviranomaisille

User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 15:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The first is probably musiikkikappaleita; if the source says kappeleita, it might refer to musiikkikappeli which doesn't make sense and is more probably a typo. The second one has a possessive suffix -an, which isn't currently really represented on Wiktionary (it is planned; the form without the possessive suffix here is sukulaisuudesta). I can create the lemmata, though. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Finnish has possessive suffixes like Hungarian? Cool. :) User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've now created musiikkikappale, paremmuusjärjestys and budjettiviranomainen. The second is sukulaisuus, which already exists. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've picked out another few here. :) päiväsairaalatoimintaa, keskikoostumuksesta, metsätilanomistajien, hallintoperinteemme, mielenterveystoimistoja User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I will create the lemmata for those as well. You can also add these to WT:RE:fi. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. :) User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The fourth one again has a possessive suffix, by the way (and would be hallintoperinne/hallintoperinteen). My sandbox has some possessive suffix related stuff which I will probably work on at some point; the ultimate goal is to add some kind of possessive suffixes to entries so that they too could be represented somehow (I'm not sure if they should still be entries or not, though). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that Finnish entries should show possessives just like Hungarian. Perhaps they would benefit from having a note stating that not all forms may actually occur in practice. It's very much a simpler case but, in the case of Irish (and maybe Welsh too) for "mutations" it states "Note: Some of these forms may be hypothetical. Not every possible mutated form of every word actually occurs."

On another note, what about metsätilanomistajien? What is the lemma, and what is this form? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How do the Hungarian possessive forms work? I could use it as a model. metsätilanomistajien is the genitive plural of metsätilanomistaja. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, szarvas is an example of a noun entry that has both the declension table of all the cases, and one for possessives. You can take a look at the template it uses by editing the entry of course. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Right, that makes sense, although that doesn't seem to show the inflected forms with possessive suffixes. I think the Sami model is to have such a possessive table but the possessive entries would have their own inflection tables, which probably is the model that makes the most sense. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Crazy long word

I was looking around on b.g.c. again here and I came across this monstrosity lol: ettänämämetaharzburgiititeroavatkauempana. It's clearly not attestable but I'm curious, what does it mean? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 17:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a scanno and actually consists of multiple words: "että nämä metaharzburgiitit eroavat kauempana", which in context seems to mean "that these metaharzburgites differ from the ones further" — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

{{l}} in definitions

{{l|en}} should not be used to link to the words in definitions or other kinds of running English text. Use plain [[ ]] there. —Rua (mew) 21:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about lemmata that seem to not meet CFI

So I've seen a few longish lists of Finnish compound words in a few entries and I've noticed at least a few of those that are redlinks get like, 0-2 hits on b.g.c...do you think we should delete such words from the compound lists? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 18:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If they barely even get any Google search hits (apart from other dictionaries), then yes, feel free to remove them. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

vajaatyökykyinen

Is this not an adjective? The definition you gave sounds like an adjective to me. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 17:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It is an adjective, yes. It seems I thought it was a noun for some reason. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

moloi

I've Made My Work 5min Ago And It's Rejected i don't know why...:( BONGINKOSI (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The surname info belongs on Moloi (capitalized), but before adding anything on there, I suggest you read WT:EL or compare to other surname entries, such as those on Category:English surnames. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Finnic consonant gradation

I noticed the message you left on kirkas. Proto-Finnic distinguished four different grades of stops:

• Singletons: k ~ g
• Geminates: kk ~ k'

And parallel for the other stops. The distinction between k and k' was lost in Finnish, but is still preserved in several other Finnic languages like Veps and Estonian. So whenever a Finnish k is a strong grade, it corresponds to Proto-Finnic k, while if it is a weak grade it corresponds to Proto-Finnic k'. —Rua (mew) 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That does make sense. I wasn't 100% sure with the reconstruction which is why I only left whatever I added as a comment. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Violent threats by IP user

Please block User:74.111.44.254. He vandalized a page today with threatening language. Inner Focus (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've issued a standard vandalism block since I think it is just standard vandalism (even if a more morbid kind). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sum-of-parts entries' correction

Hi, Thank you very much for informing me. I am quite new here but however I would like to help improving. — Tutanjoe (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for creating entries. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian exaggerated adjectives

Hi Surjection, if it is not too much trouble, would you please set up the same category structure for Hungarian exaggerated adjectives as you did for Hungarian comparative adjectives and Hungarian superlative adjectives? I am getting an {{auto cat}} error when trying to create this category. Thank you. Panda10 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

{{auto cat}} itself doesn't work, since you also need to add it to the poscatboiler data modules. Are the exaggerated adjectives considered lemmata or not? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

They are non-lemma entries, just like the comparative and superlative adjective forms. Currently, they are in Category:Hungarian adjective exaggerated forms. Panda10 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case, they should be added under Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/non-lemma forms, but I can do that for you. What should the description for the category be, like Category:Hungarian comparative adjectives has "Hungarian adjectives that express attributes in a relatively higher degree, or serve to set apart one thing from another"? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if this makes sense: "Hungarian adjectives that express attributes in an even more magnified degree than the superlative forms." Just to give you an example: I bought the biggest apples on the market, and I give you the very biggest. So the exaggerated form in English is expressed with the very ... -est. Panda10 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, {{auto cat}} should work now on Category:Hungarian exaggerated adjectives (or start working soon). If you need a bot to move the entries, let me know. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A bot would be great. There are 470 entries. Thank you so much for your help! Panda10 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll see if there are actually that many to move. Most seem to use Template:hu-exaggerated of and I just changed what category it adds the entries to. We'll see if any are left over after that (it takes a while for the template category transclusions to update) — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like all 470 are there. :) Thank you again! Panda10 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

바르다 Meaning in Korean

What is RFV? I just want to tell you the truth. 바르다 has many meanings, but "insufficient" one, I've never heard of. 바르다 1. To apply on something 2. Right, Upright 3. To be in place where no shade, lots of sunlight. 4. Bone

This is all. [[1]] — This unsigned comment was added by 211.198.112.251 (talk).

WT:RFV is the process for verifying entries on Wiktionary, since this is a descriptive dictionary and doesn't work on the basis "I don't know it, so it must not exist". Add a {{rfv-sense|ko}} before the meaning (like # {{rfv-sense|ko}} To be [[uncommon]]...) and use the + button after the "verify" in "can we verify this sense?" to add a new section to the RFV request page. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh that seems difficult, but I'll do it later.. Thanks..

Yak shaving

Is there a need to restore numbering at a word that no longer has a secondary definition? An explanation for the edits I made today is posted at the talk page. Short version: editors had been objecting to the secondary definition for years, which was only weakly supported by vague syntax at a single source. Since consensus already existed I removed the secondary definition and noted the reasoning. Hadn't provided an edit summary since the followup seemed like obvious housekeeping. Yet since I'm editing from an IP it's understandable that someone who follows recent changes and hadn't checked the context could mistake that for vandalism. Best regards. 172.117.210.213 01:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The numbering is present for all words regardless of how many definitions there are, see WT:EL or compare to other entries such as surjective. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the correction. 172.117.210.213 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

potassium nitrate

You rolled back my edit on "potassium nitrate", and said that if I thought the rollback was a mistake I should leave a message on your talk page. So, yes, potassium nitrate, is indeed one of the few ingredients of gunpowder and also TNT. It's also found in Slim Jims. It's not difficult to research this. So ... ?Cachequarto (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked at it again and decided to readd the information in a slightly different form. I originally reverted it because I thought it had no lexical significance. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Message from Peggydru:

• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_given_names — This unsigned comment was added by Peggydru (talk • contribs).

OK. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think your roll back is an error because of these reasons.

"Computer" comes from the Latin "putare" which means both to think and to prune. Virgil's Georgics - depictions of country life - speak of tidying vines by pruning (fingitque putando) The playwright Terence left one of the most famous Latin quotations - I am a man and I think nothing human foreign to me (humani… nihil alienum puto). The link in sense seems to be tidying, setting to rights, balancing an account, reckoning up. The historian Tacitus wrote "if the number of soldiers is counted" (si numerus militum putatur). Computare (com- means "together") also meant calculate - Pliny's Natural History tells how the breadth of Asia should be "rightly calculated" (sane computetur).

Also, from here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/compute?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_17291

In conclusion, your rollback is an error because my revision is supported by many historical documents. — This unsigned comment was added by 222.99.79.115 (talk).

Your edit summary stated that you were changing the meaning of putare shown, but you changed the meaning of putus, an adjective which is why "prune, reckon" makes no sense as the translation. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Putus is same word with Purus, which means to prune, to adjust accounts, to think. Hence, I did not make a mistake. Please check this link: https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=vGyay-o9LcMC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=computer+word+origin+putus&source=bl&ots=RNiePTowA6&sig=ACfU3U0I0pz8OYWJh-uqDPPv_fH9ov2Bew&hl=ko&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin4v3V2bHhAhUS9rwKHXrqBDkQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=computer%20word%20origin%20putus&f=false — This unsigned comment was added by 222.99.79.115 (talk).

purus is also an adjective so that cannot be the meaning and that entry has quite good referencing for what its meaning actually is. Besides, the link you posted is clearly meaning that "to prune, to adjust accounts..." is the meaning of putō, not of purus or putus. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Phoenician - Punic language

Hi, I think that the Punic Language was later and now written in Greek and Latin alphabet. Is my page correct? Serpolil (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If a term is originally attested (when Punic was still spoken/written) in the Greek alphabet, it should be fine to have entries with that alphabet (because of it being a historical language, and I don't think Punic has specific guidelines on the script). The problem was more with the formatting of the specific entry; you should probably take a look at the existing entries for comparison. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Persian Mummy

Saw your comment about reliable sources - not intended as advertising, but fair point. Added the original 1821 source as citation + link to Google books instead.

Lahtea

Why did you revert my changes to lahtea? I just made it more simple to understand. Arandomuser8 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You should not edit entries for languages you clearly don't know anything about. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Even assuming that a and ä were really interchangeable in Finnish (hint: they're not), the verb section at go has 40 senses with 32 subsenses, including a number that have their translation tables at other entries, so changing the definition to "to go" definitely doesn't make anything more simple to understand.

With so few edits as yet, it's hard to tell if you're deliberately messing things up or accidentally out of cluelessness and total lack of common sense. Time will tell. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

ammattimerkki ‎

Hey. What's a job badge? --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to be honest, no idea how to translate it properly, but let's see if my change improved it. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

metsätilanomistaja

And what the hell is a forest holding owner? --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Owner of a forest holding? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

and a thin, thin space? --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a typographic thing: thin space. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

And what's a thin? --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The same as a thin space. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Everything in Aromanian then should be "protologism" according to your view but your worldview is actually nonsense since Aromanian alphabet wasn't yet been seriously standarized and clearly isn't a widely spread language in literature. I am saving the language by adding lemmas, I am a heritage speaker and learner and my sources are native speakers who share the same heritage so if my grandmother uses it and I haven't obviously invented it isn't a protologism which you weirdly claim to be despite not knowing the awful situation of the language and the language itself. What you stated is weird and inane. — This unsigned comment was added by Hanno the Navigator (talk • contribs).

The trouble is that I cannot find anything about a "Kalesi" or "Kalesis" clan or anything like that. If you can provide a reliably archived source for the entry (just one is fine, since Aromanian is considered a limited documentation language), you can recreate the entry provided that source is included. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue

But as you can see in this link, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/대다, many sentences were retrieved from dictionary without citation. For example, 그는 그동안 남몰래 가난한 이웃에게 양식을 대 왔다. This one can be found in here: https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/c909bbbd6f104c318069e405a8149a01. No citation.

Please see this link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:B2V22BHARAT B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Then those that have been copied should be removed. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Suck Like"

"Such Like" is used as preposition but it's outdated one. Why did you make it a rollback. Can't I explain to Acroterion? If so, you would be setting it to indefinite, it would not be any better like this. 112.201.3.230 00:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You're putting your information in as part of the name of the template, which doesn't work. Also, you obviously aren't a native speaker of English- are you sure about the term being being outdated? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Do I know you? We don't really don't know the details. Are you an alien or something. 112.201.3.230 06:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't know me, and I don't know all the details, but I did see fatally flawed edits by both the IPs in such like's edit history, and pointed out what was wrong with them (you're correct that my second sentence was based on a mistaken assumption). I might add that inserting garbage in an entry so you can show it to someone is not acceptable, regardless of the details of your past interactions on another wiki (I wouldn't be surprised if it was you that left a message on Acroterion's Wiktionary talk page back in 2017 calling them "garbage"). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, this is a harrassing IP whose previous IP was globally blocked. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert on "倭"

You reverted my edit about the meaning. I have search up every information about the meaning in Mandarin (and other Chinese meanings). It does not mean "dwarf". The meaning that are listed are: "submissive, docile, obedient", "bowing; bent over" or “distant”. The meaning dwarfish or short is this: 矮. Please do not revert to an wrong version. If you have a reference that states otherwise, please show me this reference or include it on the talk page of the article. Thank you.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't delete meanings like that unless it's completely obvious they are creative inventions or such, otherwise we use RFV when you suspect a meaning isn't actually real for a given entry, hence if you want to actually contest the existence of that meaning, you need to add {{rfv-sense|zh}} after the # and press the + to add a new section to the list of active RFVs. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 12:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that information.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=当て付けがましい&diff=52499986&oldid=52499483

当付けがましい is an altform of 当て付けがましい Could you please explain why you rollback-reverted my edit?

Thanks 125.9.92.76 04:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see our Entry layout page: every definition- even "alternative form of" has to have a part of speech header and a headword line. Alt-form entries are meant to be bare-bones because they're supposed to refer the reader to the main entry, where all the important information is. You didn't even supply the bones- just a redlink to nowhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

halloween

I'm guessing the etymology here needs to be updated right? I mean, the existence of kurpitsajuhla would seem to contradict it. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot something from kurpitsajuhla - it's a bit of an uncommon/jocular term, at least right now. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should mention that in the entry for kurpitsajuhla then. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 17:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was going to but changed my mind about it - it seems to be in wider use after all, so I updated the etymology section of halloween instead. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your rollback on honeypot was an error.

Can you please undo it? It will be much appreciated. :) (64.20.139.44 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)64.20.139.44)

Can you explain your reasoning? That will also be appreciated. —Rua (mew) 14:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You changed an established meaning, one that had no less than three quotes, to something different altogether. The rollback wasn't as much of a way to tell "that's not the meaning", but rather because the changed meaning did not match the quotes the original meaning had, so you should have added the new meaning instead of replacing the existing one. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

elintarvikemuovi

Did I get the declension right? Also, it needs pronunciation. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The declension looks correct to me. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

juoppo

So what's the problem? Paradoctor (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Since when is juoppo German? You also managed to remove one of the listed terms. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. Seems I got my incoming and outgoing languages mixed up there.

BTW, please don't mark non-vandalism reverts as minor. Thanks, Paradoctor (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The rollback feature does that automatically; besides, that is Wikipedia policy which is not necessarily applicable here. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Keralan

Hi there. As a native of Kerala, and having spent several years in the UK, I can verify that the word 'Keralan' was popularised in the UK by chefs and the BBC. The word is not used or recognised in Kerala at all, with Keralite being used sometimes and Malayali at other times. The use of the word Keralan verges on colonial, which is why it is an issue of great importance to me. Jamie Oliver and the BBC have popularised this word such that it is now used across the UK, but not in India.

As a small fraction of the world's English-speaking population, residents of Kerala don't get to decide what's correct for the rest of the world- even when it comes to what people call them- and the angry tone of your "etymological" note is a violation of our Neutral Point of View policies. On top of that, you mangled the formatting in the process. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

anagalactic

See my entry on Talk:anagalactic. I understand the confusion, as the word is mostly antiquated, but it means inside and part of the Milky Way as the entire universe. The opposite word is extragalactic - beyond the Milky Way. Many sources have got this wrong. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

All sources I can find do consider the two words synonyms. Are there any sources saying that they aren't? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

majolica

15:30, 5 June 2019 diff hist -186‎ majolica ‎ not good links current 1. Not sure why these are not good links. I'll look it up in Help. 2. Did you look at the other links in further reading? The first does not work. Can it be removed? Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

One was a Weebly link and the Society one isn't really something for Further reading. The Wikipedia link was okay in hindsight, though, so I'll readd it. If the first one doesn't work, I'll just replace that. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding viku, stogu and selju

You rollbacked my change of template, but the template I replaced it with is better because it automatically places the words in the right category, which the template you reverted to doesn't. 62.16.151.61 15:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Those templates are meant for definition lines and they're not headword templates; for the same reason they shouldn't have had a number sign in front of them. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

To note

Due to ongoing account creations, I have implemented this change. It should have no general impact, unless you are trying to create your own clone account. If you do need to do that, then you will need to utilise the admin spoof override function. I am hoping that it is not otherwise problematic, and please do not hesitate to contact me at meta if there are issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello

How we know, Abkhazia is part of Georgia, so many abkhazian words are borrowed from Georgian or Megrelian, for example this:https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B0%D2%AD&action=history

• Abkhazian:Asaat
• Georgian:Saati

• Abkhazian:Kart
• Megrelian:Kart

Abkhazian is one from the Georgian languages: Svan, Georgian, Megrelian, Laz and Abkhazian--ჯეო/მიქაელ (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Because of the order of etymologies you put, it made it look like that the Abkhaz word came from Arabic which came from Georgian. The order matters - if the order is Arabic > Georgian > Abkhaz, the Abkhaz entry should have "From Georgian ..., from Arabic ...". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Waterloo

Thanks for removing the vandalism from that entry. The vandal's revision contains an ethnic slur, so perhaps it could be hidden. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll probably revdel it all just in case. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

rollback

逆 this is ni. Why did you roll back my edits on one of it's character components (radical)? Kanji are derived from Hanzi, and if you thought it ought to have been elsewhere the better solution would have been to move the edit. — This unsigned comment was added by Ericengle (talk • contribs) at 13:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

The content doesn't belong there and some of it isn't lexicographically relevant. "inverted version of da4 大": I fail to see how it is an "inverted" version, and since there is no glyph origin describing the appearance of the glyph in past scripts, I cannot confirm whether it really was originally an upside-down man. The two last sentences, on the other hand, are what I would consider not relevant for that entry. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

IP removing secondary stress from Finnish words

Hi, I noticed the IP user 86.145.58.11 removing the hyphen in {{fi-IPA}} in various entries, so that the transcription does not show secondary stress. I reverted the change in yhdeksän based on Finnish Wiktionary, but that was probably not a good idea since I don't have a very deep grasp of Finnish stress and rhythm. You are better qualified to decide whether these edits are correct, so you might want to take a look. — Eru·tuon 01:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is apparently the same English IP who's been making a career out of adding/updating pronunciation sections in various languages. Mostly their contributions are worthwhile, but you have to question how well they know the entries they're working on, especially given the high speed of their edits. Granted, Finnish spelling is more straightforward than that of some of the languages they've worked on, but they're less likely to have personal experience with the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically, in the standard language, secondary stress is present at 1) the beginning of later components in a compound word and 2) on odd syllables (third, fifth, seventh...), albeit with at most one syllable per stress skipped if they are considered "light", i.e. they end in a short vowel, not a long vowel, diphthong or a consonant and if the following syllable is considered "heavy", i.e. not "light". In addition, secondary stress usually doesn't fall on the last syllable of a word. (The latter is described in more detail in w:Finnish phonology#Stress).

While the first case is consistently indicated with {{fi-IPA}}, the latter case less so and most entries that use {{fi-IPA}} have not indicated in any way. It's probably a better approach to somehow automate the process of indicating those secondary stresses if it is felt necessary. Stress isn't phonemic in Finnish though, which makes it less of an issue. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

vandalism on hungarian wiktionary

this guy keeps vandalizing articles on the hungarian wiktionary, from various IPs for a month now. he keeps trying to prove that the Romani language doesn't exist and invented a new language "Csermán" instead. i think it would be a good idea to remove the article csermán and prevent it from recreation, or lock it as an empty page, since there is nothing in literature that points to its existence. thank you for patrolling. please delete https://hu.wiktionary.org/wiki/cserm%C3%A1n and prevent recreation of it 2001:4C4E:19C6:4900:2D10:D58C:7C47:EC1C 09:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on Hungarian Wiktionary so I can't delete it. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. I advise the anon to request a global range block here. The issue is starting to spiral out of control at the Hungarian Wiktionary project and I would hate for him/her to turn their attention back to us. If you anon contributor don't feel up to it, just let me know and I'll request it myself. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a message here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steward_requests/Global. I don't know if it is the right place. 2001:4C4E:19C6:4900:2D10:D58C:7C47:EC1C 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

kansanhuoltoministeriö

Just noticed it says "stare welfare" in the definition...that should be "state", right? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just a simple typo. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of an entry for the Latin suffix "-ura".

Hi, Surjection. I have discerned that there is no Latin entry in the "-ura" suffix page, which, since the suffix in the Latin legacy languages are all found there, would seem to represent a significant omission to Wiktionary. The Latin "-ura", much as does Latin "-io", is used to create abstract nouns from a perfect participle base, both meaning the act of doing that which is indicated by the given participle, as in: captus> captio, captura; or status> statio, statura. I wonder if you would be interested in adding the Latin entry to the "-ura" page, or alternatively, might be able to find the right person to do that. I would attempt it, but I have not done any editing herein which involves adding an entire language entry, and I dont want to "screw things up". Hope you see this, and thanks for your time. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.162.223.164 (talk).

I think the suffix you're looking for is -tūra. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick reply! No, I mean Latin "-ura", from which derive Italian, Spanish and Portuguese "-ura" as well as French and English "-ure", and as can be found, for instance, at the following page: https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/greeklatinroots/chapter/%C2%A772-the-perfect-participle-base-suffix-ura-as-abstract-noun/. The omission seems especially obvious, as the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese entries point via a link to the Latin suffix in their various etymologies...

Right. I don't exactly have the sufficient expertise in Latin, so I'm not really the person to create the entry. It needs the pronunciation, meaning, declension, descendants and possibly sources. You can use the suffix entry I thought you were referring to as a template. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 20:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I hesitate to try this because I have not the knowledge of how to properly (by Wiktionary methods) create such parts as the pronunciation, there obviously being more than one way to do these things. Using your suggestion, however, I might just give it a shot. I will want to have the entry checked directly, though, once I have completed it. Who are the Latin experts on Wiktionary, if I might ask?

Also, I do have one question: when one is dealing with two morphemes, as opposed to two lexemes (words or phrases), such as are represented by the Latin suffixes "-io" and "-ura", are the two properly called "synonyms", or is there a more proper term giving the same meaning as "synonym"? I ask because I always thought that the term "synonym" only applied to lexemes.

@144.121.24.154: Please sign your messages with four tildes. Also, even though it's convenient to say that these words are built on the supine stem (i.e. to make -t- a part of the stem and not of the suffix), I'll show you why this approach is wrong:

• in (most) words ending in -tiō, the suffix is -tiō, not -iō: compare the semantics of Category:Latin words suffixed with -tio with that of Category:Latin words suffixed with -io (abstract noun).
• in (most) words ending in -tor, the suffix is -tor, not -or: compare the semantics of Category:Latin words suffixed with -tor with that of Category:Latin words suffixed with -or.

Sometimes, the difference is morphologically very clear, because you can contrast the two: regiō vs. rectiō; legiō vs. lectiō; amor vs. amātor; canor vs. cantor.

That's why I think that, similarly, the suffix you're talking about is -tūra, not **-ūra. Canonicalization (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not a completely waterproof argument, as an alternative analysis is that there are two -or and two -io suffixes with different meanings, one added to the present stem, the other to the supine stem. This analysis doesn't require an alternative form -sor or -sio; on the other hand, it removes a visual cue to the identity of the suffix. — Eru·tuon 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, guys. I am a beginner in Latin, and it is good to have the input of those with more expertise. This begins to appear as a somewhat cryptic type of suffixation. Canonicalization seems to make a valid argument. However, I still think that the suffix"-ura" seems to exist in Latin. I did a little probing, and noted that flexura initially appears to be in "-ura" rather than "-tura", seeming to be formed from flexus, perfect passive participle of flecto + -ura. Then, I came across yet a third possibility (which I think somewhat suspect), here: https://www.spanishetym.com/terms/ura By the way, when it is said that I should sign my posts with four tildes, does that mean four tildes alone, or my name followed by four tildes, or something else? I do not have an account here. I do, however, have an answer for the question regarding the use of the term "synonym" to describe morphemes. It is improper to refer to unbound morphemes, such as unbound suffixes, as being synonyms of one another. Rather, a better term to refer to them is as being "analogues" of one another. I have seen "Synonyms" headings on Wiktionary the pages of suffixes, and these headings should probably be considered for replacement.

bubble "citations" removal

I wish you hadn't removed the "citations". They actually provided good examples of how hard it can be to determine what the intended meaning of a term might be. I myself have removed cites to the citations tab, eg, for Kappa, but I wouldn't delete them except by consensus, which BTW can be hard to achieve over a Summer. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose a case could be made for the TV one, but I still fail to see how the forum post belongs on there at all. The "intended meaning" is best illustrated with an usex. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes a negative can be illustrated by a poor alleged citation. The forum cite is from a fictional (game) universe relating to a game construct (bubble (noun)). This tells us something about the original contribution. The TV cite would seem to allow for many meanings, which is part of the problem with TV cites, especially if not in a conveniently available form, such as YouTube. DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

How is the forum cite any less ambiguous? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Counter-productive edit warring at twat

First of all, thanks for getting involved: I was at loss where to apply for mediation.

Regarding the content dispute, User:SemperBlotto doesn't want to explain his revert even after I appealed to him at his talk page. Could you please help with that? --5.29.197.103 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

if he is unwilling to communicate, so be it. The best place for entry-specific mediation or discussion is the Tea Room. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock/16

I changed your 86.173.0.0/16 range block to /21 because there were recent non-vandal IP edits in the /16 range. This covers both IPs used for bad edits and excludes all the other IPs used in the past couple of years. We can broaden it a little if necessary, but I'd rather not. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

They've also used IPs outside the /16 I blocked, but making it smaller was a good idea to reduce the collateral, which I wasn't sure I would have been able to eliminate )but clearly that was possible). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the system won't allow anything broader than /16, so you would have had to do separate blocks anyway. At any rate, I wasn't really that concerned, because it's not like there were a huge number of edits in the affected range, but it's a good idea in general to keep ranges to a minimum. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for showing me the correct formatting for etymological descendents (I had learned the wrong way from a pre-existing page that I emulated, so I will keep an eye out in the future). I went back and corrected the other pages I've made. Should be good going forward now :) — Uiscefada (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My Epistocracy

As the only example of a detailed Epistocratic system government, I think referencing Epistocracy.net is in the readers’ best interests.

Please reconsider. Finks81 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This is a dictionary, not a link farm. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Kʷe-

Chinese 谁 Shei=Ind/Eur kwis

Chinese 什么 She(n) me=Ind/Eur kwem

Does it not make sense? Houses39 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make any sense. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

But kʷ to sʷ to sh? Houses39 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You're comparing Proto-Indo-European with modern Mandarin Chinese which are thousands of years apart. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What about a prehistoric ancestor of both? Even though there is "no relation", logic would suggest otherwise. Houses39 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What "logic"? Let's take a look at the first of your examples: 誰／谁 (shéi), which states etymologically Modern Mandarin shéi, shuí < Middle Chinese /d͡ʑiuɪ/ < Old Chinese /*[d]uj/, /*djul/. Are you somehow saying that *kʷos would correspond to that in any way? Again, you shouldn't be editing etymological entries if you don't know how comparative linguistics works. Chinese is particularly precarious because it has gone through sound changes that can seem weird to the uninitiated. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"a prehistoric ancestor" Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan are separate language families. Are you arguing they have a common ancestor? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

None of the correspondences you've proposed are theoretically impossible. On the other hand, it's also theoretically possible to be struck by lightning and win the lottery on the same day. Keep in mind that, since you're ignoring manner of articulation and vowels, for single-consonant morphemes everything boils down to three possibilities- so random chance would lead to a match a third of the time. If we assume that the choice is random on both sides, that makes a 1 in 9 chance of a match for any two languages. The result is that you have an even chance that any 9 random comparisons will have a match- and you're no doubt making many more than 9 comparisons. Your method seems to be looking through lists and only paying attention to matches, so it's very easy for you to not even notice 8 or more non-matches.

Basically your methodology almost guarantees you'll find matches of some kind just based on random chance, and your discarding of non-matches has guaranteed your being oblivious to this fact until I pointed it out to you. Logic based on reality says that your logic, based on flawed premises and wishful thinking, is best ignored. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Maeng" Power

I think you're an expert. Could this possibly be related to mana, 蒙, and 命 through a stem *megʰn? — This unsigned comment was added by Houses39 (talk • contribs).

I'm not an expert, I'm not pretending to be an expert, but I still know enough to spot nonsense when something clearly is. And no, the chances of that are extremely remote. You shouldn't be looking for these correspondences unless a reliable source has actually published the speculation, and in the latter case, you may take it to WT:ES. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 11:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Dzongkha images

So, why'd you decide to remove both the Van Driem transliteration and category from 2 Dzongkha articles with images? I can understand removing the category alphabetizer, which was a copy-paste mistake on my part where I meant to put the VDT instead, but why those other 2? -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ ^{(탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒)}. 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC).

"Copy-paste mistake" Don't think for a moment I would fall for that.

As for romanization, any kind of romanization or transcription isn't normally in the image caption (the entry itself already has it), and there is no category like "entries with images" for other languages either. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1. You imply that I don't have an index of my own detailing both transliterations that I often use for reference. 2. Fair enough. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ ^{(탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒)}. 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC).

There is no system for transliterating Dzongkha to Cyrillic other than the one you have invented, and you seemingly (based on your edits) want to insert it into Dzongkha entries in one way or another. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Theories

May I post dubious theories here?: User:Houses39/sandbox Houses39 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't really matter what you have in your sandbox as long as it doesn't actually break any general rules. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please check the theories? Houses39 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

They look just as much like wishful thinking as your previous ones. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How did you determine that? Houses39 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Just look at the etymologies of the example words you purport to be descendants. Besides, you should be finding regular sound changes between the proto-form and the descendants - sound changes that always happen from your supposed Proto-Human language to the individual protolanguages of those branches. Just finding a "middle ground" word isn't enough. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I just added a phonetics section. Houses39 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

I made my etymology more rigorous. User:Houses39/sandbox — This unsigned comment was added by Houses39 (talk • contribs).

It still doesn't look nearly rigorous enough when it comes to sound changes. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

ko.

Hello, please can you check the entry ko.? It looks like a noun to me, can you confirm? --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say adjective. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I put it as an adjective. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Obsolete Finnish units of measurement

Jooo! Look at Obsolete Finnish units of measurement. We have got some of these words but not others. Could you please make sure we have got good entries for all of these words? Not because random English man asked you, but because Finnish honour demands :D Thanks Equinox ◑ 14:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. It's not like obscure old Finnish terms aren't my forte. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

hurstuthame

Thanks for the image you added - it's OK, but I'd rather we had a picture of someone wearing one. Please can you go to a traditional dress shop, put it on in the changing room, take a selfie, and upload it? Last time I checked, this also counts as Finnish honour. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

PS, if you decide to buy it, Wikimedia will cover the costs. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You have some weird tastes, Mr. seriously-totally-not-WF. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

What is a -WF? --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Minus work done by some force, clearly. I didn't take the classical mechanics courses for nothing. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

wictionary MAIOLICA

Re "...we don't need nor want duplicates of this information, so it's better to keep one form as the main lemma and direct readers there". MAIOLICA has only one sense, the tin-glaze ceramic. MAJOLICA is used in two senses 1. tin-glaze ceramic 2. coloured lead glazes ceramic. Would not the information deleted help to clarify the majolica/maiolica confusion? Davidmadelena (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case, the "synonym of" can be made more exact by specifying the meaning for which maiolica stands. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 07:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)