User talk:Surjection/archive/2022

---

Please add a new topic by clicking or tapping the button below (remember to add a subject):

Add a new topic

---

Finnish index

Hi,

Do you know where the Finnish index has disappeared? I have used its redlinks as a source for words that still need to be added, but it seems that no current entry is linked to it. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I backed up the redlinks from the index into userspace before they were deleted. The list can be found at User:Surjection/fiindexredlinks. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but why was it deleted? --Hekaheka (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Because (almost) all indexes were deleted as a result of a vote. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

ekstiärä

What do you think of this entry? Also tiärä and eks. The latter is also wrong. It's not a variant of etkö but a contraction of etkö sinä. I would not mind a deletion without warning. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried fixing eks and tiärä. ekstiärä seems plausible but I can't find too many uses so I RFV'd it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Pandora's box is open: meenksmä, meetsä, mennääksme, meettekste, tuunksmä, tuutsä, tuuksä, tullaaksme, tuuttekste, oonksmä, ootsä, ootsä, ollaaksme... Good that the entries are supposed to be added manually. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hekaheka "Ekstiärä" doesn't seem to be totally sum-of-parts, though. I don't see how it's any worse than you see or you know. brittletheories (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please block 217.138.234.82 and consider protecting the page berba. 37.110.218.43 12:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Numbers

Hey Surjection. Am I allowed to speedy number entries that obviously don't meet the criteria laid out in WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess it depends. If there's community consensus, sure, but I haven't looked into it too much. At the very least they could be RFD'd. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I think I'll start a BP discussion. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to know why mald WOULDN'T fit under the criteria for inclusion?

Its a commonly used term with many people (myself included) would consider being a valid neologism. — This unsigned comment was added by FishandChipper (talk • contribs).

WT:CFI#Attestation. Since it was deleted via RFV, you need to provide at least three compliant cites before restoring it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Colloquial and informal

As you know, colloquial and informal categories have been blanket merged for all languages, and just now I noticed that the labels in definition lines have been too. This seems like a very bad call for Finnish entries as we have lost the distinction between arkikieli and puhekieli, so I think something should be done about it. Would it be best to start a BP-discussion? If so, I think you should be the one to do it as you have the gravitas to affect page-wide consensus in matters like this. brittletheories (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You can start it and ping me, as I completely support the idea that the labels (and ideally even the categories) should be kept separate. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Me too. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Me too, I always perceived there to be a difference even for English, mostly related to the fact that colloquial is more speech-centric and informal is more of an overarching term. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiding reverted edits

Re Swiss etc.: "content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden"? It seems a bit extreme. Remember that non-admins might like to see what was going on in the history. I would reserve "hiding" for things that are deeply offensive, or otherwise real trouble (e.g. doxing real names and addresses). Equinox ◑ 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not give vandalism-only accounts, especially those created by the same people over and over again, any credit which is what they're probably seeking to begin with. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed this might be a legitimate account as claimed (some 12-year-old kid), but perhaps you know something I don't. They're globally blocked now, so never mind. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

UNBLOCK ME AND RESTORE MY EDITS AND PAGES!

Please read the edit summary of os, oses, sation. Also, stop seeing and blocking me until all of my edits are reverted and all of my pages are deleted. THEY ARE NOT DISRUPTIVE AND TEST. 176.88.87.105 13:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

lol, there is a regular plural of os. 176.88.87.105 13:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted {ko-IPA} edits

I feel that reverting every single {ko-IPA} was a bit indiscriminate in itself, I tried to help but whatever I guess. Ffffrr (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I imagined having the IPA pronunciation would be helpful, that’s what the category noting entries lacking IPA pronunciations was for, but I get others did not feel them to be necessary, maybe Category:Korean_terms_without_ko-IPA_template should be deleted or something to not cause that mistake again, it’s okay though either way. Ffffrr (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You, nor anyone else, should not be adding automated pronunciation templates to entries when you don't know enough about the language to know when you're making a mistake. The mass revert was explicitly requested by our more regular Korean editors who noticed you were screwing entries up. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

But were all of the edits wrong? If they weren’t I think they shouldn’t have all been reverted. At least maybe someone should eventually add the correct pronunciations one day then I guess, I won’t touch it though no problem. Ffffrr (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point. You should've never added them in the first place. It's irresponsible to assume that Korean editors who actually speak enough Korean to tell when a pronunciation is wrong should waste their time cleaning after the mess you leave behind and checking every single template you've added. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok I guess you’re right, my mistake. Ffffrr (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

head-lite

Saw you experimenting with it. Just wanted to add that I did get it working with |3=, |4=, ... parameters too if you check the deleted version. And I got gender to work fairly well (check deleted version of {{g-lite}}; a bit of a monstrosity, but it seemed to handle all cases). 70.172.194.25 19:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll see if it'll be necessary to get {{head-lite}} to handle extra parameters. In any case, I'd probably rewrite that support to use {{l-lite/raw}} or {{m-lite/raw}} anyway. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quote without the template

The vast majority of Finnish quotations seem to be lacking the correct template. I've found a good portion of them to be biblical, so I decided to experiment and made a search [1] that yielded 276 038 results. I combed through the first 500, which included 40+ Finnish entries lacking the template. I wrote them down in notepad before converting them to links with a Python script and copypasting them into my sandbox. I'd say this is too labour-intensive to repeat for the other 99.8% of search results. Is there a better way to find pages like this? brittletheories (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's probably possible to make a regex for it, I can try running a bot job to find those, but there might also be unformatted usage examples in there. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Brittletheories Special:Diff/65660479 has all the Raamattu ones that it could find. The Bible ones are still running. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/65660553 — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you a bunch. Still, it seems to have missed a few (e.g. tulikivi). I think most of the remaining ones could be hunted down with the terms "KJV", "King James Version" and "New American Standard". brittletheories (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/65660684 — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on this?

I modified Module:letters so that it uses fewer requirements (probably would save memory?): Module talk:letters/sandbox. I think all that would be required to switch would be adding |lang=, |sc=, |langname=, and |scname= parameters to the templates that use it. 70.172.194.25 16:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

On the three test cases on the sandbox talk page, the simplified module uses ~30% as much Lua memory as the current version (881,853 vs. 3,033,235 bytes). However, I just realized that this is probably too much effort and wouldn't save much memory, considering a already uses substed subpages of the letter lists. Never mind. 70.172.194.25 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the right effort. I think reducing code size and imports is the right way to go to reduce memory usage, but it's better to first figure out how much can be reduced without cutting too much functionality. Module:letters/sandbox seems to not use any of the link modules, but I wonder if that will cause some functionality to be lost. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

{{fi-decl-nainen-toimi}}

We seem to be missing this one. brittletheories (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

XXXing is an error

... because "-ing#Suffix_2 " yet exists and is really indexable, contrary to "xxxing", in classical paper dictionaries. Hello and good luck. VirguloMane (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

XXXing is not an error, but a form of XXX#Verb. "--ing" on the other hand is unequivocally an error. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

RE: Kimchi and Wiktionary's severely uneducated Korean editors:

The correct and precise english word is "derivation," defined by actual academic dictionaries as "something that naturally develops or is developed from something else"; 沉菜 or whatever they call it in dialects throughout centuries is literally, it's not NATIVIZED (actually, "Koreanized" would be a more precise term) because IT ALREADY IS a native Korean word which does not exist in any Chinese dialect, it IS NOT a chinese loanword but native KOREAN coining from Hanja---so are all Korean city and province names like Gwangju "nativized," this is utterly preposterous. The sound Ju@Gwangju doesn't even exist in any Chinese dialects now nor historically, either, it is "nativized" pronunciation, do we need to spell this out 1000s+ of times for each Korean place name?

So at which stage is it considered native then??? There are at least 3 different sound changes/spellings over the centuries BEFORE you get to "kimchi": timchɑi (팀ᄎᆡ; 沈菜) > dimchɑi (딤ᄎᆡ) > jimchɑi (짐ᄎᆡ) > jimchui (짐츼) > gimchi (김치), all of which are considered Korean and NOT Chinese words

I copypasted the exact quoted definition@"Kimchi" from your "clueless" (per other mentally retarded user's exact words) dictionary's other entries because mental retardation results in failure to consult actual academic dictionaries, and instead magically conjuring up word usages ("NATIVIZED"/derivation) that violate their definitions in both Korean and English. 沈 isn't even the correct Hanja if it were Chinese, and "soaked" for 沉, what the fuck! Just get an actual hanja AND english dictionary like Taiwan's Ministry of Education https://www.moedict.tw/%E6%B2%89

This poorly sourced Wiktionary project is an absurd joke up there with Wikipedia, and China was correct to ban them and google/bing for spreading misinformation via algorithm. You should feel ashamed as an admin for the dissemination of this libelous slander against the English, Chinese, and Korean languages. — This unsigned comment was added by 98.149.220.34 (talk).

I'm really sorry to hear this. We'd like to correct our bad project. Can you put me in touch with a Chinese government official who can define all the words for us? Equinox ◑ 11:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

kohtupidamine: Thanks for the correction

Hello, Surjection! Of course you're right about my avoiding to edit entries in languages that I know too little. I conjecture from your revert & accompanying message that you, being a Finn also, do know enough about Estonian to make an informed edit. And I am intrigued by your comment about compounds. How does it work then for them? If you can spare some time, could you please replace my ill-informed automated IPA by something more accurate and informed? --Rádoby Raádoby (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I know enough about Estonian to tell your edit was wrong but not enough to be confident to add the right pronunciation. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Kiitos anyway. Any idea who might? --Rádoby Raádoby (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC) @Joonas07, Strombones, Andres:

As far as I know, Estonian compound words work the same way as in Finnish, that is – the first syllable of the first word has primary stress and the first syllable of the second part of the compound word has secondary stress. At the moment, {{et-IPA}} doesn't display this exactly, you have to have the two parts of the compound words as two separate parameters, giving both of them primary stress on the first syllable. I don't know how to code however so I can't fix the template, but in theory, it should have the first parameter have primary stress and all following parameters secondary stress on the first syllable. ~ Joonas07 (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Joonas is basically right, although the secondary stress is pretty weak. For "kohtupidamine", omitting the secondary stress entirely sounds fine. Imo there's no need to edit the module, you can just manually add the secondary stress symbol <ˌ> to the pronunciation. I've added it to the article. Strombones (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

vaahdota

This should probably have a figurative sense of froth at the mouth added, right? Asking because the English entry lists this as a translation. 37.110.218.43 13:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sodac

Thanks for blocking the dumbass. If I had my password on hand I would've blocked them before they had a chance to start an edit war. 37.110.218.43 13:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/32

I think this (Special:AbuseFilter/history/32/diff/prev/1185) is what you intended, right? Ice's edits pass now. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Little pinky quote

Hello!! is voice of america article not quote? it this word 小粉紅 — This unsigned comment was added by 195.169.52.66 (talk).

It lacks correct formatting and I'm not sure if radio broadcasts are durably archived. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh! so it not count? — This unsigned comment was added by 195.169.52.66 (talk).

It might not, I don't know. Only "durably archived" sources, as defined by WT:CFI, count for attestability. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Delection of KSC defintion

Hi,

Why did you delete the KSC definition? "Inc" is a similar word, and that has a wiktionary entry.

I added the entry because I saw this KSC quite commonly when dealing with Kuwait based companies, and I wanted to know what it meant (and it took some research to find out). I thought defining it here might help the next person. El sjaako (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Because you added a random external link which made your edit look like promotional spam (if it wasn't). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I wanted to add a source, as I figured not many people would have heard of the term KSC (like I said, it took me a little while to figure out what it was). It was indeed some random legal website that I linked to.

Should I re-add it without a citation?

Or alternately, I found this link, which is maybe less random, which also shows a definition: https://doi.org/10.2307/3381422

However, that requires a login to view. Should I re-add with that link? El sjaako (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't need a source in the definition. Someone else seems to have added the definition by now though. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hyvä mieli, ruskea kieli

Entry y/n? Equinox ◑ 13:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I doubt its attestability. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I need help

I'm new here, can I have help? --Ireadbooks12 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I've left a welcome template on your talk page. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

i was pointing out amon g us

2001:8003:1D5E:9F00:5588:A3B3:E5DB:FEC2 08:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your Vandalism

re: Orc-Etymology 3. Where does Wiktionary policy state that this is not an academic site with real words and real etymology, but a site for propaganda and internet slang? Sorry, you seem like a bannable troll and merely vandalising articles. But maybe this is actually a rule? I'm open to it. Thanks. Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You only have to go a couple of sentences in the description of the website on the front page where it clearly says:

Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary. It aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English.

We have extensive coverage on internet slang, in multiple languages even. The main requirement for a word to be worthy of inclusion is to meet the aptly named criteria for inclusion which sets attestability requirements among other things. Anyone can feel free to question a word or sense by starting a request for verification. Senses should not be deleted unless they are clearly made up, mistakes or redundant to other senses, but not even in these cases if an RFV is already ongoing about whether the word is attestable.

It is patently obvious that you insist on getting rid of this sense no matter what. You have very few contributions outside this very particular issue. Based on your behavior, I find it extremely hard to believe some of your claims such as that you have been "an English professor for half a century." You already lied about "never coming back to this site again"; your permanent leave lasted for a total of three minutes, most of which were probably spent on writing this message onto my talk page.

The reason you were blocked from editing that page is plain and simple. You could have behaved yet chose not to. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Slang internet pop homosexual terms are not words! Me trying to make this academic is not making it a "playground". You turning this site into disgusting joke is playing with it. You know you can be banned without warning for this, right? Do you want to be banned? I suggest you stop immediately. Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me I'm going to get banned just for telling you the policies of this site? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Statistical information for Finnish surnames

Though our coverage of Finnish surnames is spotty, it seems to be better than that of any other Wikimedia project, which is why ours might be a reasonable place to aggregate additional information. Following the model of English surname articles, we could devise a template to use under an L4 Statistics header. Again, by English precedent, the output might look something like this:

• According to the Finnish Population Register Center, X is the n^th most common surname in Finland, belonging to y individuals.

We could then provide a link to the relevant article at vrk.fi. Further, the scheme seems simple and reliable enough that it might even be automised for all extant articles. What do you think? brittletheories (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the information still public? I remember them restricting access to it somehow. I doubt their data is available in a way that would make it easier to automate either - it's almost certainly not available as a downloadable data dump; I don't think there's an API either which would just leave scraping (not ideal and probably against their terms of use, assuming they have any). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, fi.wikt has many more Finnish surnames than we do. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, though unfortunate. brittletheories (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Krishnamurthy GovindaReddy

Hello, this user whom you blocked before, is back to making useless cosmetic edits. Can you please block them again? Thanks in advance, Prahlad balaji (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I gave them a final warning. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely, all the reorderings seem to be into alphabetical order- which strikes me as a bit compulsive: they may have trouble resisting the impulse to make things "right". Of course, we all have that to some extent- we spend our free time on a dictionary, after all- but this is too much. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that they were alphabetically organizing it as well, but it is problematic, especially in entries where we list definitions by importance, not alphabetically. On the Tamil entry சிங்கம் (ciṅkam), for example, they made Leo the top definition, even though the primary definition is really lion and Leo is secondary. Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

At first I saw the quotation edit and thought "well, it's minor, but making a quotation more accurate is certainly not something I'd discourage". Then I clicked the page link and noticed that they made the quotation less accurate to the original. 70.172.194.25 15:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New anonymous user

Have you noticed a new anonymous user 2001:999:40d:6dd9:f1d2:9854:fe24:f4d5? They've been adding etymologies that look home-spun to me, such as on taimen and äikätatti. Because I'm not an expert in etymology, I'm asking your opinion on them. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a larger /32 (Special:Contributions/2001:999:40d:6dd9:f1d2:9854:fe24:f4d5/32) and has some IPv4 ranges. I've been keeping an eye on them - I'm not sure if they're related to the IP that keeps removing mentions of loanword etymologies, but that is likely. Some of the etymologies added are questionable (and in hindsight some would probably be worth reverting), but some others check out based on the sources I have. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

-ikko

Are you convinced that there are two separate etymologies here? Also, I believe that the "diminutive" group is too large now. It contains many that look collective to me rather than diminutive. For example, I moved säleikkö from diminutive to collective category although it doesn't conform with our current collective definition (which should be expanded, I believe). According to this article[2] the words formed with -(i)kko can be grouped in three:

1. locative ones (paikkaa tarkoittavat), such as hietikko, matalikko, pyhäkkö
2. collective ones (ryhmäsanat), such as aallokko, solukko, koivikko, sammalikko
3. diminutive ones (vähennys- tai hellittelysanat), such as lammikko, suukko

The difference between the groups is not necessarily clear-cut. For example koivikko might be understood as locative, collective or sometimes even diminutive (as in Havumetsän keskellä kasvoi pieni koivikko). This leads to following considerations:

1. Should we combine -kko and -ikko to -kko? If we did, the etymology for e.g. matalikko would look like this: matala +‎ -i- +‎ -kko.
2. Should there be one or more etymologies under it?

The second question is valid even if we end up keeping -kko and -ikko separate. I would suggest one etymology and three senses under it. We can still separate locative, collective and diminutive usage into separate tables which may overlap as they do now. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There must be two distinct Proto-Finnic forms, *-kko for "collective" (Ingrian shows that there is no final *-i for this) and *-kkoi for "diminutive" (etymologically the *-i must be present as the ending comes from *-oi, or rather from the older diminutive suffix *-j). In hindsight, it's possible that they are so confused that they should be listed as one etymology, but then we'd need some ID for them (like "person" for -kko in Latinate/Greek borrowings). IMO we could also merge -ikko to -kko in the process as the former is just the latter with the plural infix. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Breadth of Finnish etymology sections – possible bot work

There was some discussion on the topic of collapsible etymologies around a relevant vote last year. Since then, I have implemented a few in Finnish entries when I've come across ones bloated beyond reason. Undoubtedly plenty remain. Is there a way to generate a list of Finnish entries with etymology sections longer than, say, 200 characters? Generating this from wikitext would include some false alarms due to citation templates, but there is probably a way to avoid that. brittletheories (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably possible but will require quite a bit of thought to only count "visible" characters so to speak. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. brittletheories (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

szab cognate

Hi, you reverted me edit on "szab" comparing it to the Turkic selebe. This is a theory given on the Szablya page too. May I ask why you reverted it? — This unsigned comment was added by Gibby01 (talk • contribs) at 15:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

If you think the etymology szablya says anything about the origin of szab, you clearly do not have the competence to edit etymology sections. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Nill offense but, can you explain why did you remove my edit on the page for jabber? 69.114.167.158 17:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How are they synonyms? The synonym almost certainly isn't part of the quote anyway. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your edit, I would say two things: 1) faff isn't a synonym for jabber. The one is meaningless activity, and the other is meaningless talking. The main problem though, is that 2) you added it inside a quote. I haven't read the story in question, but I'm pretty sure H.G. Wells didn't write "Synonym faff" anywhere in it. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

t:fi-p and t:rhymes linking to rhyme pages

Automated rhyme pages were implemented some time ago. The pronunciation sections generated by template:fi-pronunciation still link to the old rhyme pages rather than the new category based ones, so we end up with a lot of red links that will never be created. I'd assume a change to this would either require changing template:rhymes or implementing another one like template:fi-rhymes. Has this been discussed before? Is there a particular reason why we still link to the old pages? brittletheories (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It'd require changing the main rhymes template, yes. Nobody has done it yet because it's not yet agreed what should be done with the Rhymes namespace. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection. Where can I find further discussion on the fate of the namespace post-vote? Or has it not been discussed yet? brittletheories (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Some discussions include Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/August#Retiring Rhymes:, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/November#Proposal: New abuse filter for Rhyme categories and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/September#Issues with rhymes. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Finnish rhymes with semivocalic i's.

I think the title explains the problem: kaiu should rhyme with Maiju and daiju, yet they end up in different categories. Is there a way to fix {{fi-p}} so that we'd pairs like this in the same place? brittletheories (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source for how the vowel sequence iU behaves when rhyming words? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Iso suomen kielioppi § 25 Yleistä vokaaliyhtymistä:

i:n tai U:n sisältävää vokaaliyhtymää äännettäessä sen tavunrajalla voi esiintyä konsonanttisia siirtymä-äänteitä. Tavallinen siirtymä-äänne i:n jäljessä on j, U:n jäljessä v tai vastaava bilabiaalinen konsonantti.

sijan (: sika) | Kuopijo | kauwan ’kauan’ | puoluve

meij(j)än, niij(j)en ’niiden’ | murt. luven ~ lujen ’luen’

Indeed, /u/ and /uv/ need to be merged as well. brittletheories (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

voi esiintyä, not esiintyy... possibly both would need to be represented. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The second, separated category would be redundant as there are no words with an intervocalic i or u that would not rhyme with their semivocalic counterparts. I doubt any native speaker would dispute that "kaiu" rhymes with "daiju". It is only by convention that we spell "kaiu" without the j (because we choose to regard it as a special case of k:ø gradation as opposed to an independent k:j gradation pattern). Such etymological concerns are, however secondary. All that matters is that no information would be lost by merging the categories, and on the contrary some would be gained as more rhyming connections could be drawn by a reader. brittletheories (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I definitely can tell a difference between kauan and hauvan and likewise between kaiu and daiju. A semivocalic glide here is simply not universal. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Further note that for some speakers, the semivowel is long (kauvvan). Should we represent those too? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching those incorrect pluralizations on se. I was lazy and just wrote a regex which added -s. I will be sure to check for redlinked categories and manually fix them in the future. 70.172.194.25 05:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism and nonsense

Here Special:Contributions/130.193.239.85...drop a nuke on this crap and ban them please. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, Vininn126 took care of it. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ace-Vandalism

Hi. Ace does not mean asexual. Your vandalism will have you banned with no warnings. Stop immediately. Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You've already been told you cannot simply remove words if you don't like them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, not a prescriptive one. Get over yourself. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a DICTIONARY! You don't just make up fake words and put them in a dictionary! That is VANDALISM! If you do not know what a dictionary is, stay off this site. Cease your vandalism immediately! Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

micronovaatje

There are no protologisms when it comes to Dutch diminutives, as might be the case with French -et(te). Modanung (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is. @Lingo Bingo Dingo

The practice is that nonlemma forms too, if diminutives even count as such, must also be attestable. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It's hersenschuddinkje, not hersenschuddingetje. Hersenschuddingetje is not a protologism, it's simply incorrect.

One might even smoke a sigaretje by een verwarminkje. Modanung (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Diminutive plural would be micronovaatjes, not micronovae'tje. Just as it is museumpjes, and not musea'tje. Modanung (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

-ngetje mostly happens in single syllable words: dingetje not dinkje, stangetje not stankje, tongetje not tonkje. But there are exceptions: belangetje not belankje, behangetje not behankje.

And then there is bedankje (noun). Recognized by 99% of Dutch speakers, yet bedank is not even a noun. Modanung (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It had slipped my mind that the apostrophe rule has - in most cases - been replaced by a doubling of the preceding letter. Modanung (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Modanung We as Dutch editors do in practice require that there is some attestation of the diminutive, whether that be in the singular or the plural. Although we do not insist on a minimum of three. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, here people are discussing neveltjes and melkwegstelseltjes. Modanung (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong's Concordance redirects

Hello, I saw that you deleted the redirects I created. Would it be okay to recreate the pages, but say something like "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number for ..." instead of redirects? 99.197.202.188 18:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Such redirects should not be present in mainspace. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Is there somewhere outside mainspace it would be appropriate to have them? 99.197.202.188 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any. In theory there could be an appendix page for this, but I don't think anything like that exists and creating something like that would require wider consensus. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. 99.197.202.188 18:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is User talk:Kajin Majel autopatroller-protected?

It's a user talk page, semi-protection is enough. 2001:8004:44F0:C8BA:B04E:692B:C1D0:E6E2 07:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been enough bad-handing on that page already. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to confirm: this IP has been stalking and vandalizing everything associated with the IP whose latest account was Kajin Majel, mostly using throwaway socks. Evidently these two know each other in real life, and this IP is carrying over some kind of adolescent bullying/abuse into our space. I've blocked them. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barcade

This word really didn't exist in common language before this company kickstarted the arcade bar niche back in 2004. The brand should be cited here in the same way that Rollerblades brand is cited.

Some quick press history found on the first couple of pages when googling the name:

https://imbibemagazine.com/arcade-bars/

https://www.inc.com/articles/201108/building-a-retro-nightlife-empire.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-METROB-13069

https://www.polygon.com/features/2013/2/26/3992898/the-rise-of-barcade

Some stuff on their trademark pulled from Wikipedia page:

https://www.eater.com/2019/3/14/18262368/barcade-arcade-bars-lawsuits-trademark-infringement

https://www.prweek.com/article/1402045/tennents-rebrands-campaign-us-firm-claims-trademark-infringement

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/357375/barcade-solicits-new-name-after-cease-and-desist/

Vulsh (talk)

I don't have the time right now to look into whether that is correct, but even if it is, we're not here to promote it and thus shouldn't have external links to their websites. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Then, it should be cited without a link to the website. Promoting it wasn't my intention, just noticed this site came up on google when looking for information on the company. I will attempt an edit without a link then, sorry. Vulsh (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Manas Turkish section

Dear user:Surjection (comment),

Turkish section in manas article;

1. manas destanı (epic of manas)

should be in the article like this.

Also Turkish Dirived terms section;

• Manastır: manas+tır means (is a hero)

sencierly

--3210 (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edits were misformatted and also nonsensical. It makes no sense for manastır (“monastery, abbot”) to be derived from manas (“hero”). The name of an epic story is not a definition either. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Debilism

Why were my chsnges reverted? I literally wrote the definition from the sources below. 77.71.185.124 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Read WT:EL. Labels are not placed in headings, all definitions should be properly formatted dictionary definitions, and much of the etymology section was not etymology but encyclopedic text (and this is not an encyclopedia, but a dictionary). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Seeking explanation for this. Rowing007 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "Türkiye" in English except Turkish government sources. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And the UN. The "Translations" section I agree can stay as Turkey for common recognition, but "Republic of Turkey" is not an actual thing anymore, hence that bullet point on Republic of Türkiye should be removed and the entire page that is Republic of Turkey should be redirected. Anyway, I'm sure I'll get blasted with COMMONNAME and a handful of other rules/guidelines to "justify" your opinion. Those guidelines should be more nuanced. I don't feel strongly about this but I know I'm objectively correct, and I do think it's foolish to go with an incorrect term just because it's the popular/common one. If anything, the common name should be a redirect to the correctly named article. Anyway, do what you want, I guess. Rowing007 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We're a dictionary, not a news site. "COMMONNAME" doesn't apply here, but common sense does - we use whatever form is most commonly used by sources. For terms regarding official names an exception can reasonably be made, but redirects are not in any case the correct solution (WT:REDIR); instead Republic of Turkey should be tagged similarly to Kingdom of Swaziland. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The second sense (“Alternative form of Republic of Turkey”) should be removed as it does not make sense: we do not have “Alternative form of Kingdom of Swaziland” as a second sense of Kingdom of Eswatini. J3133 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection

Perfect, then the rules and style forms that apply to the pages related to the Swaziland/Eswatini case (specifically, the ways in which those pages refer to each other) should be applied in the same way here too. Rowing007 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know when the official name changed and I have other things to do, so I'll let someone else do the edits. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And don't be rude by implying that your position is one of "common sense" (thus that mine somehow isn't). Use facts regarding style guides and previous examples, as you did with Swaziland/Eswatini. Rowing007 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

porky

Considering the source, I understand your reversion. Oddly enough, though, there really is informal usage calling porkupines "porkies". I'm not sure about the "childish" label, but if you search Google Books for "a porky" there's enough there to justify a sense, which would have to be a different etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's a real word, someone else than an IP editor known for making stuff up (which is why a blanket revert is the correct option) will add it eventually. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Surjection: I have re-added the sense with quotations. It was not vandalism as Surjection claimed (“rv/v”), as would be evident from looking at the first Google page. J3133 (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

See above. Every edit by that IP editor is vandalism by default, because they are circumventing their block and most of the words they add are not attestable. I see it as the same as if a vandal would remove an L2 from a page and later it turns out that entry doesn't actually exist after all. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@J3133: It definitely was vandalism. The fact that they accidentally added something that wasn't entirely wrong doesn't change that- vandalism is more about intent than the desirability of the result. One thing you will eventually learn is that context is important in dealing with vandalism. Vandals do what they do for reasons of their own, and the response should take that into account. There are those who just want to disrupt things, and there are those who want attention, and there are those who want the ego boost that comes from showing that they can do things others don't want them to.

I'm not quite sure of what makes this one tick. They may think they're funny, or they may enjoy making a serious dictionary say silly things, or they may be showing off their vandalism skills to the patrollers.

In general, the best way to deal with most vandals is to be quiet, efficient and boring: quickly remove all traces of their actions without reacting emotionally. If they have nothing to show for their efforts, they're less likely to take the time and effort to do more of it. If I had thought about it more, I might not have tried to fix this. When someone is doing a block of vandalism, it's cleaner to just revert the whole thing. Spending too much time and effort on dealing with it makes some vandals feel like they have control over you and makes them feel powerful and important. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Nostratic

Why There's no Nostratic Reconstruction but Niger-Saharan Have that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Coding da Master (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, because Nostratic is nonsense, and secondly because your list had absolutely no useful content whatsoever. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

exestentialism - Swidish section

Hello. I just wanted to ask about your adding of the Sweidish section in the existentialism entry. I've never seen something like that on any other entry—it's a Swedish section on the English dictionary. Why is it there? Worm-Like (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary (note how the main page already says "all words in all languages"), not a monolingual one. We cover entries in all languages, and since this is the English Wiktionary, our coverage is in English. If you go onto the Swedish Wiktionary, you'll find words of all languages covered in Swedish. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

-dumbre

Muchedumbre, incertidumbre, mansedumbre and servidumbre are Spanish word with -dumbre ending. 190.183.78.82 01:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how categories work. You have to edit the entries themselves to add the category. Look at how it's done in the entries that are already in the category. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Block

Thank you for quickly undoing your incorrect block. I can assure you that I'm not a vandal. 98.170.164.88 05:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's the problem with not registering an account: you start editing from a different IP address and no one knows you're the same person. I'm borderline-compulsive about checking the geolocation of every IP I come across, and it took me a week to catch on to who you were. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Entry to Phonetic Alphabets reverted as spam?

The discussion contrasts those who feel that the IPA is so entrenched that there's no point in considering any alternatives, and those who feel that the IPA is so flawed - as demonstrated by the existing alternatives - as to require supplemental phonetic alphabets. My entry proposed a new alternative, unfamiliar to most. Is that really so off-topic? Are you sure no participant would be interested? Pcyrus (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sure that nobody is interested in promoting your system that is used absolutely nowhere else. Neither Wiktionary nor its discussion forums exists for you to promote your pet projects. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Every innovation starts as a pet project, but your point is fair: Musa isn’t used anywhere yet, and maybe Wiktionary isn’t the place to start, even though you’ve already realized that you have the problem Musa is intended to solve. I’ll propose it again when someone else is using it. Thanks for the clarification. Pcyrus (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

More crap to deal with

Please review this. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmong pronunciation

Ever wondered about the Hmong that pronounce “ntawv” as /dǎɯ/ rather than /ⁿdǎɯ/? 50.241.14.29 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I certainly have. Sometimes it keeps me awake at night Dunderdool (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Infinifat

Why is my edit reverted? The word is clearly used in this way: https://i.redd.it/6k0fyeisgsw21.jpg Username142857 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't write dictionary definitions if you see nothing wrong with this. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Username142857 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote. If you don't see anything wrong with the definition you wrote, you shouldn't be writing them. Acting obtuse isn't going to make me undo my revert. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Username142857 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

1. "A term used" is not a valid way to start a dictionary definition, unless infinifat means "a term used...", which it clearly doesn't.
2. The word is an adjective, but the definition is a noun ("people who wear 6X or over clothing")
3. It contains stuff not related to the definition ("Fat acceptance states that...")
4. It's doubtful whether the term is attestable by our standards.
5. Most egregiously of all, it contains your own commentary ("It's pseudoscience wrapped up in social justice.").

Need more? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It DESCRIBES those people Username142857 (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That addresses none of the above concerns. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /}

dirty old man definition

Are you denying pure and simple facts and reality? Is that why you blocked the page with the pretext of the counter-productive edit war? 151.68.168.216 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You might have a point as far as ageism (it's debatable), but your additions came across as angry namecalling and polemics. Wiktionary has no opinion, and everything must be written from a neutral point of view, whether the subject is Donald Trump, the queen of England, or Pol Pot. Also, "The term has assumed ageist and offensive, if not even misandrist connotations" is not a statement of what the term means, but a commentary on what you believe is wrong with it. Try putting it in a sentence: "she called him a the term has assumed ageist and offensive, if not even misandrist connotations". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Error

Yes it's an error, sorry for that Magikidmusicentertainment (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

3rd pers. poss. of "meri" and "veri"

Hei! Sana-artikkeleissa meri ja veri (ja ehkä muissakin samalla tapaa taivutettavissa jotka eivät nyt tule mieleen) on ilmeisesti virheellinen 3. persoonan omistusmuoto "merensa", "verensa" eikä "merensä", "verensä". Olisin korjannut ongelman itse, mutta täällä on niin monimutkaiset mallinesysteemit etten saanut edes selville, missä vika piilee. Osaisitko auttaa? Jnovikov (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Tosiaan, nuo muodot ovat väärin. Vika lienee Module:fi-nominals:n (joka vastaa nominien taivutuksesta) koodissa. Yritän selvittää ja korjata vian. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

The word chappal is borrowed from Hindustani not Hindi which is standard between Urdu and Hindi. And urud ,Hindi are smae languages with two different scripts. Arqamkhawaja (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It may be debatable whether one should turn to the left or to the right, but attempting to do both at the same time never turns out well. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A new category

Hi.

I don't know who to write to but since you're a beaurocrat, could you pls add a new category for me? namely "Category:History of Poland". There is "History of Hong Kong" and since Poland is far more important and bigger, I don't think it will be much of an issue, right? thx in advance XOXO Shumkichi (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:History of Hong Kong seems awfully specific, but apparently the community doesn't agree, as there are plenty of individual countries just in Category:History of Europe, and the selection seems to be haphazard. One more country cannot do that much damage, I suppose... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection I know, right? The selection of any of these categories seems rather arbitrary, and I honestly think that we should be more radical in our approach to them and either add a category for every single country (since all countries have had their own history, historical political forms, names, etc., you know what I mean, and not having e.g. Belgium in favour of Germany looks like someone thought Germany has had a bigger impact on the world affairs, but it can't really be evaluated objectively IMO) OR delete all these categories altogether, and either leave only the histories of continents or remove those as well and leave only the category of "History". It's really annoying to see such inconsistency here sometimes :/

tl;dr either way, thank you very much for adding the Polish one :3 Shumkichi (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

леща‎

Do you think you could templatise the etymology the anon added here please? I'm not super-familiar with all the necessary templates. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone who is more familiar with Slavic etymology should probably do it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ooh never mind, looks like the anon kinda fixed it, except they duplicated lang names, but I have since fixed that. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Or rather, I tried but they beat me to it too lol. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert made in error

There were some reverts made in error on your part but i have added more sources with quote. Sorry for any misunderstanding. 205.189.187.4 22:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Synonyms are not definitions and are not written in the definition itself, unless the term itself is a synonym. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert on ඞ

Hi, can you explain your revert on ඞ? Your edit message, "it is still not dictionary material" is a little unclear and seems to imply that the entry could become "dictionary material" sometime in the future.

The entry reverted is also similar to the ones for ღ and ツ, so I'd like your opinion on whether those are acceptable.

Ioaxxere (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I used "still" because people keep adding it, and most of those didn't even bother adding it correctly. In any case, "a representation of a character from a game" is not a definition, and it doesn't carry any meaning. I doubt the character is ever used to carry any meaning, but simply as graffiti. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

ඞ is often used as a noun. See [3] [4] [5] It is absolutely used to carry meaning.

You're right that this character wouldn't qualify as a definition in a traditional dictionary, but Wiktionary already has entries for ღ and ツ.

Ioaxxere (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitter isn't by itself a durably archived source, and even then most of the search results aren't using it to carry any meaning; it's mostly just used as a punchline. The few uses that can be found don't mean "a representation of ..." either. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the original definition was probably not precise enough. Here is the amended proposal:

1. A representation of the crewmate character from the video game Among Us
2. An amogus; a crewmate character from the video game Among Us or something resembling one.
   1. An imposter, especially in reference to the video game Among Us.
   2. Sus; suspicious or questionable, especially in reference to the video game Among Us.

It might be a bit lengthy but this seems to cover everything.

Ioaxxere (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Now the two definitions are redundant to each other. I'd still RFV whatever comes out of this, though, because I still don't think it's really used that often with any kind of meaning, more of a punchline, because it's "so random", therefore funny. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The first definition refers to the "graffiti" usage, and the second one is its use as an actual part of a sentence.

I can verify these senses if you agree to count tweets.

Ioaxxere (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The graffiti sense is not conveying meaning. It's graffiti. As for whether tweets should count, the community should decide that. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've started a discussion in the Tea Room. We'll see if there's a consensus after two weeks.

Ioaxxere (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I should add that this doesn't fall under Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Fictional_universes since it has been used independent of that video game. Ioaxxere (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi I want my word back please

I did see warning about triple curly baces when submitting is that what this is about. I don't know the proper wikitext syntax, so I would like to just change it and get my word back if that's the case.

Otherwise, I would just like my word back thanks. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illucirate#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illucirated

71.225.161.57 18:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No. We aren't a repository of protologisms (made-up words). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not made up. I discovered it. 71.225.161.57 18:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, but in any case, all words must be attestable by our standards. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No.

Seems unlikely

It's perfectly likely new things and words are discovered all the time. You didn't specify other standards violations than protogoltisum, which is a word I just learned existed. So what makes you so special as to have God like power to grant to say that what I've discovered is more unlikely then what you have discovered? 71.225.161.57 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make up the criteria for inclusion. It's a well-agreed policy on this site, and for good reason. We can't and shouldn't document every single whim. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No. You've decided that it 'seems unlikely', which is just you treating poorly with social verbal violence. Hiding behind the policy is not appropriate and cowardly. 71.225.161.57 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"seems unlikely" was a reference to "I discovered it". To me it is more likely that you coined it rather than discovered it, considering I tried my hardest finding anyone using this word but could not find a single use. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused: this is a word some people that speak specific dialects like me use everyday, I was interested in the discussion displayed below, but anyway 179.228.225.86 18:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

below* = below the below below the below 179.228.225.86 18:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Rollback is an error: You’ve never seen the quotation

Do not revert, otherwise I will move the quotation to the citations section. 176.88.83.205 17:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an error, but considering your chronic incompetence at English reading comprehension (and sometimes just common sense: you know that quotes can have misspellings, right?), letting you edit increasingly looks like one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

See the quotation at Citations:creater. I can’t find the definition outside of misspellings, due to this quotation. 176.88.83.205 17:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

rw nw prt m hrw (Book of the Dead) reversion

Wondering why my edit was reverted? Ygdflgdflop (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

See the summary: "unsourced egy-IPA-R" — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Mandraic Pseudoscience" is a neologism not a "protologism or creative invent"

Notes: Certain papers use it (achademics), protoligisms are not accepted in an achademic situation, which is confirmed by a quick google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=mandraic+pseudoscience). For the good of the people, be more responsible with what you do on Wikipedia. (Please, if possible restore the page) 179.228.225.86 17:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A protologism used on an article is still a protologism. There are a grand total of zero results on any search engine, and I cannot access the full text of the article in question to confirm that it's used even there. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the providing an incorrect etymollogy, it is actually from "mandrake" (from the Vitorian term) (A portuguese term) + ic + science (as an insult), the 'pseudo' was added (later) for clarification. It is common on the obscure* post-LGBT or MOGAI community 179.228.225.86 18:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(to clarify it is used everywhre (specially anti-pseudoscientific and skeptic discourse) but much more rarely) 179.228.225.86 18:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"much more rarely" is an understatement when there are zero uses outside of one article that possibly uses it (and probably coined it if that is the case). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There probably isn't enough usage to justify an English entry for "mandraic", let alone for this phrase (not to mention the weird capitalization). Of course, they're obviously not serious about actually proving their point. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverts

Please see the etymology of the Sardinian at abba; do you think this needs to be reverted as well as at apă (already reverted there)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Serial killer van

I added some historical context on where the term came from. Any reason for the revert? Kimberly Leach (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether that particular instance is the origin of the term, but I doubt it is (rather the term is not referring to a specific murder or probably not even a specific serial killer, but is more of a generalization). Even if it were, our etymology sections are not some kind of true crime podcast, where we retell a murder in excruciating detail. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert on gigachad

I've restored the definition with some improvements and citations.

Ioaxxere (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with Module:et-verbs

Hello! I have recently tried to tackle the problem with Estonian compound verbs and how to add conjugation tables for them. Essentially, Estonian compound verbs function similarly to German separable verbs, with the difference being that the infinitive forms of those German verbs are spelt as one word, whereas it's two words in Estonian. For example: lahti laskma (“to fire, terminate employment”) has the adposition lahti (“open [?]”) before the verb laskma (“to let, to allow”), but when conjugating the verb, the adposition comes after the verb: ma lasen su lahti (“I am firing you”) (note here that the compound verb can be split). Similarly in German, auffallen (“to stand out”) is separated in the inflected forms - es fällt mir auf (“I notice, [literally: it is noticed by me]”).

The problem is, that Wiktionary currently has no way of displaying this in Estonian. The few compound verb articles that we have usually just point back to the base verb's conjugation. Upon comparing different languages a bit, I decided it was easiest to add a parameter to Module:et-verbs, like the sep parameter in Dutch or the qual parameter in Finnish. However, I myself don't know how to code and I don't know Lua, so I was wondering if you could help me out and add a function like that to the module?

Thank you! Joonas07 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Which forms have the qualifier before and which ones have it after? In Finnish, only the participle forms have the qualifier/adposition/particle/whatever come before the verb, and in all other forms it comes after. I'm not entirely sure whether it's really that bad to have soft redirects ("see laskma") to the main verb either. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Like in German and Dutch, the position of the adposition depends on the clause. In the main clause, all plain conjugated forms, both positive and negative, have the adposition after the base verbs, the perfect and pluperfect forms with olema have the adposition between the base verb and the conjugated form of olema, and the nominal forms have it after, like in Finnish. In the subordinate clause however, the adposition is always before the main verb (note that the nominal forms and imperative forms are not applicable in the subordinate clause).

By the way, there's two other things I've noticed should be corrected in Module:et-verbs, namely:

• The 1st person plural negative imperative present form is currently just ärgem + 1st person plural positive imperative form of the verb, ex. ärgem laskem, however that form is quite dated and somewhat poetic. Most Estonians would use the parallel form instead: ärme + 1pl indicative present OR + 2sg imperative: ärme laseme or ärme lase.
• The conditional perfect positive passive form should also have a parallel form: lastuks alongside oleks lastud (just change d in the passive past participle to ks)

Joonas07 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Which of the two (before or after) should be shown for the main forms (or both)? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the adposition goes after in the main clause and before in the subordinate clause, although I am not sure how to display the subordinate clause. Joonas07 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not like the conjugation table can know whether the reader is going to use the verb in a main clause or a subordinate one. It has to show either one or both of them (possibly with labels or hints of some kind). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes and I don't know if and how should we fit a separate subordinate clause table. The main forms should of course be the main clause but maybe that should be marked somehow? Joonas07 (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt there's enough space in the conjugation table to have a separate table for subordinate clauses. Ultimately though it's your and the Estonian editor's choice at large to see how this best should be done. I don't know whether there are any existing grammar books or other sources that would show a full inflectional paradigm that could serve as an example for how to best represent something like this. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Maybe, if the new parameter is used, there should be a note explaining that. Something like "these forms are only for the main clause, in the subordinate clause the adposition comes before the base verb" or something like that. Joonas07 (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll see if I have time to work on it tomorrow. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "nominal forms" (for instance, I don't know what you mean by "the nominal forms have it after, like in Finnish", since to me nominal forms sounds like participles and participles are indeed listed under nominal forms, but those have the adposition before in Finnish). Could you simply tell me out of the following categories whether the adposition comes before everything else, after everything else, before/after on main/subordinate clauses, between two words, etc.:

• indicative present/past
• indicative perfect/pluperfect
• conditional present
• conditional perfect
• imperative present
• imperative perfect
• quotative present
• quotative perfect
• ma-infinitive forms
• da-infinitive forms
• participle forms

Do active/passive forms have it different for any of these? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• indicative present/past – in the main clause after everything else, in the subordinate clause before everything else: ma lasen / lasin lahti ("I am firing / I fired", main clause); ... et ma lahti lasen / lasin ("... that I am firing / I fired", subordinate clause)
• indicative perfect/pluperfect – between the participle and the form of olema: ma olen / olin lahti lasknud
• conditional present – the same as with the indicative present
• conditional perfect – the same as with the indicative perfect regarding the forms with olema, same as indicative present regarding the forms consisting of one word e.g. lasknuks, with the same main/subordinate clause difference
• imperative present – the same as with the indicative present (no subordinate clause here though)
• imperative perfect – the same as with the indicative perfect
• quotative present – the same as with the indicative present (no subordinate clause here)
• quotative perfect – the same as with the indicative perfect
• ma-infinitive forms – before everything else
• da-infinitive forms – before everything else (again between olla/olles and the participle regarding the past da-infinitives)
• participle forms – before

Nothing here comes from any grammar book or research by the way. Joonas07 (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you please check User:Surjection/sandbox and see if it looks good for you? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that's because it's in your sandbox, but in general the words should have one link, so like [lasen lahti] not [lasen] [lahti]. Grammar-wise, looking great! Joonas07 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not due to the sandbox. Do we really want to link those kinds of multiword forms? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not? If the infinitive has a multiword article, why shouldn't the conjugated forms? Joonas07 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed testing it out (and I don't know whether you can do anything about this), is that many of these compound verbs are in the Category:Estonian entries with inflection not matching pagename and even when using the qual parameter, they remain in this category. Joonas07 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The multitude of inflected forms for multiword terms feels wrong (then again English has it too...) But, if Estonian editors agree, I can make the module link those forms as well. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Virus rollbacks

Can you please explain your reversions of my edits on the China virus and Wuhan virus pages? As I explained in one of my edits the entries do not provide the requisite background information to explain how and why the terms came to be associated with Trump administration. The current versions appear to make the implied argument that Trump used the terms in order to minimize the threat from the coronavirus, but (leaving aside the neutrality and veracity issues stemming from that argument) it still doesn’t explain how the terms came to be associated with Trump administration in the first place. This is especially problematic as there were officials in other countries (notably Brazil) who also used the terms in order to “minimize the threat from the coronavirus”

In addition the extant descriptions do not clearly explain why the terms came to be associated with Trump administration. No explicit reason is given for the creation of the terms and implicit reason is defective as it comes solely from the perspective of Trump’s critics, lacks attribution and, ironically, isn’t comprehensive enough: Trump didn’t just minimize the threat from the coronavirus, he did that to divert attention from his mishandling of the coronavirus. The minimization was just a way for him to draw attention away from his failure to manage the situation. In light of the above comments I’d respectfully ask that my edits be restored or at least we reach a compromise formulation that addresses some of the concerns I’ve highlighted Stormandfury (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edits stated that Trump coined the term "Chinese virus" to describe COVID-19. This is patently not true, something that you were already told. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasnt notified or aware of that edit until you brought it up so apologies for not taking that correction into account prior to the publication of my initial comment to you. That said although Trump didn’t coin the term he certainly popularized it and the wording could easily be changed to reflect that.

Are there any further comments you have? Stormandfury (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverted Edit discussion - ‘औरत,aurat’

Hi

Made and edit which was reverted.

Details as under :-

औरत (edit) Revision as of 11:09, 2 September 2022

14 BYTES ADDED ,  8 HOURS AGO

→‎Persian-Arabic-Urdu: Replaced Incorrect and Misleading Header. The corrected one is etymologically coherent.

==Persian-Arabic-Urdu==
==Hindi==
{{wikipedia|lang=hi|नारी}}
[[File:Indian woman smiles.jpg|thumb|{{lang|hi|औरत}}]]

If possible, Please shed some light on why the edit was reverted ?

Thanks 2A04:EE41:82:B3C6:9CC8:E60E:5550:DF86 19:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it's complete nonsense. औरत (aurat) is a word in Hindi regardless of where it came from, and "‎Persian-Arabic-Urdu" is not a language anyway. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Javanese language

Ngomong is Indonesian borrowed from Javanese language. Udashaff (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it can't be Malay, too. You can't just replace an entry in one language with an unformatted, misspelled entry in another one (see WT:CFI). The Malay entry would need to be posted at WT:RFVN and go through the process to verify whether it's used in Malay before it could be deleted. In the meanwhile, you would need to create a separate Javanese entry and learn how to format it (see WT:EL). Also, if it really is Indonesian, there could also be an Indonesian entry, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

jäisit mun luokseni

Hello friend. Here are missing words from possibly the best song ever*. Probably a mixture of slang, boring grammatical case forms, and misspellings, which is why I don't dump them on the Requested Entries page. You do what you want with 'em.

ilmoituksen keltaiseen kusivat vuoteeseeni löivät vemppasin koulussakin jäisitpä murhettani toistakaan kätes kädessäin pohjantähteä huusit haaveita kauniista vitsini

• Possibly the best song ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aOtbdadkrw

Equinox ◑ 05:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These are all non-lemma forms, most standard but some poetic or colloquial. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox

• ilmoituksen – genitive singular of ilmoitus
• keltaiseen – illative singular of keltainen
• kusivat – 3rd person plural past tense of kusta
• vuoteeseeni – illative singular of vuode * -ni
• löivät – 3rd person plural past tense of lyödä
• vemppasin – 1st person singular past tense of vempata
• koulussakin – inessive singular of koulu + -kin
• jäisitpä – 2nd person singular conditional present tense of jäädä + -pa
• murhettani – partitive singular of murhe + -ni
• toistakaan – partitive singular of toinen + -kaan
• kätes – variant of käsi + -si
• kädessäin – variant of the inessive singular of käsi + -ni
• pohjantähteä – partitive singular of pohjantähti
• huusit – 2nd person singular past tense of huutaa
• haaveita – partitive plural of haave
• kauniista – elative singular of kaunis
• vitsini – vitsi + -ni

brittletheories (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Brittletheories: Thank you very much! Unfortunately, I'm not learning Finnish (although I love the country and culture). I just thought I found some cool words. I guess it's not interesting to add these forms, because Finnish is very highly inflected. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

鬼神 reversion

Hello, I'm wondering why you reverted my edit to 鬼神, and how I might make it better. I think it's valid trivia, although I wasn't able to find detailed guidelines on wiktionary for trivia. Thanks. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR RETRIEVING OUR CONTENT

sorry for the inconvenience but you deleted our content and it is for an assessment, however we are not yet assessed… is it possible to undo, unblock the content we posted … we will delete it after we get marks please .

Thank you Annastasia Erkius (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to post random YouTube links on talk pages. Please contact the teacher or whoever else is running the course. There is no centralized structure that supports running educational coursework projects here. I can provide you with the contents of your deleted user talk page, however. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is it not a cognate?

There's no other known root 164.215.242.40 12:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither it nor that comment makes any sense. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of words with no known root. Most of the history of the languages of the world has been lost. The likelihood of coincidence from random variation is much higher than that of any connection between pre-Columbian American languages and Indo-European ones. I'm sure similar "explanations" could be found for terms in your own language deriving them from random east-Asian, African, even Australian aboriginal languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

serendipinen

This is an adjective, not a noun isn't it? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 18:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed - I didn't notice that... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Pajeet definition

Hi, I have made some edits with the correct changes made on the Pajeet definition page.

Hopefully, you can see that the definition i gave is correct and the most accurate.

Thanks. MT111222 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert me?

Why did you revert my addition of Fijian and Fijian English audio files on pages the pages bula, vinaka, Fiji and Fijians and my addition of an Icelandic English audio file on Iceland? Collager (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You know full well it is not acceptable to clip various audio sources and claim them to be your "own work". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know, sorry. I will add IPA though. 149.167.31.112 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Request a pernament ban on FacebookVNHoang Anh Kiệt

Hi, i am Vanhdeeptryy - a rollbacker of Viwiki. I want to notice you that account FacebookVNHoang Anh Kiệt is a sockpuppet of FacebookVN, and it was created for spamming same content ("Facebook Vy Hoang Anh Kiet"). See Special:Contributions/FaecbookVNHoang Anh Kiệt and Special:CentralAuth/FacebookVN for more info. Vanhdeeptryy (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Please re-configure this ban to pernament. Thanks. Vanhdeeptryy (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

{{fi-conj-muistaa-muistaa}}

Is it possible to create these two-head word verbal templates like nominal ones? It seems fi-verbs doesn't allow me to automatically invoke one like I would when creating a nominal template. I'm asking this for elää ja hengittää. brittletheories (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not possible right now. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

lambas

Sorry to have wasted your time by understandably reverting my punctuation mark. However, the etymology is quite wrong - the Proto-Germanic form is a substrate from the Proto-Uralic and not the other way round! This should be pretty obvious to qualified etymologists in the historical records field of ancient European languages. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Andrew H. Gray 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely you know better than the linguists who write etymology articles that actually get published somewhere. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

About "Alcantar"

Hi, I'm the person behind the revision on the surname "Alcantar".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alcantar

After knowing about a person named "<redacted>", I have decided to update on the article by adding a some translations and using it in a particular example: "<redacted>."

Okay, that example might be irrelevant, but why revert the translations, too? 173 Ascension 257 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do not post personal information of any particular person on any page. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Flattard and Globetard

What was wrong with my edits? Username142857 (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Username142857: WT:NPOV does not mean being equally abusive to both sides. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Punjab

I made the page neutral by removing the flag of Pakistani Punjab as already the maps of both Indian and Pakistani Punjab were present, so I thought adding flags was unnecessary as it would be needed to add Indian Punjab's flag also for making it look neutral, but it would make the page look ugly with lots of images. also in the Etymology the definition says the Punjab(in English) is derived from Punjab itself(written in different script), so I removed that part also. I think the reverts made by you were done by mistake, of if it was intentional then pls give me reasoning behind it. 103.155.73.126 12:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You should rather give reasoning for why you changed the etymology the way you did. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I adready gave the reasoning above, here it is given translation of a word in a different script which was written in the inital wordings as "From Punjabi پنجاب‎ (Panjāb)" (the part I removed) as later the definition says that it is derived from Persian word پنجاب(Panjāb) (that I kept intact).

also what about the Flag part? 103.155.73.126 15:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not in a "different script", it's a different language. Unless you have good reason to suspect Punjab entered English from Persian and not through Punjabi, you should not change the etymology. As for the flags, I don't care either way. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ok, I got it now. Earier I was thinking about the general usage of the term, not the usage in Enlish world. 103.155.73.126 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Rollback Error

Hello Surjection, I saw you did rollback one off my edits and said in the summary that I should contact you if it was an error. It goes about this edit. What I did in this edit was deleting the useless word “Template:” in this template. Like I said in my summary of the edit: “Template contains useless word template:”. This is one of the “Check Wikipedia” codes that can be fixed. See here: checkwiki tool. I hope you now understand why I made this edit and believe rolling it back is an error. Greetz Followertje (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That tool obviously has a bug. {{Template:User:foo/bar}} is not the same as {{User:foo/bar}}. The former transcludes Template:User:foo/bar, while the latter transcludes User:foo/bar. There shouldn't be any userspace templates in mainspace entries to begin with, but that is a separate issue. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

spinner

"probably a protologism; a fbcdn link is definitely not a reference!" -Surjection

A protologism is still a valid term, how else do words "catch on". Besides, I'd argue that spinner in the sense used, is not a protologism. If you want a better reference, I could quote directly from the television series, Lazor Wulf, if that'd be more to your liking. This show has been seen by over 8.841 million viewers, adding up the amounts on the Wikipedia page; that's a significant number of impressions, so I'd make the case that the word is attested, especially in comparison to some of the other pages on Wiktionary. And regarding the fbcdn link, this was the most direct connection to the source. Moreover, it's a slang term! I don't think censoring newly coined words is the way to go, especially considering that this one has been acknowledged by, again, at least 8.841 million spectators; it's not something that I pulled out of thin air. Likewise, ethically speaking, it's probably best that there be non-racist alternative to the n-word. In short, the addition of this definition is reasonable and undoing these edits, quite frankly, is a disservice to Wiktionary and its curators.

P.S. Where're the sources for all the other 18 definitions listed under spinner? Wordbookeeper (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Where do I start...

1. "A protologism is still a valid term": no, we don't document protologisms, i.e. words made up by someone in the hope they will catch on. We only document established terms.
2. A word used only in a single fictional series is not an "established term", regardless of how many people have watched it.
3. A fbcdn link is still not a reference.
4. "I don't think censoring newly coined words is the way to go"; refer to the above. We're not "censoring" terms. We're not including terms that have not become established.
5. "the addition of this definition is reasonable and undoing these edits, quite frankly, is a disservice to Wiktionary and its curators" no it isn't, see the preivous points.
6. "Where're the sources for all the other 18 definitions listed under spinner?" There aren't any, since that is not how Wiktionary works.

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Yes, I saw the entry on protologism, too. I clearly contested that this term has likely evolved from the protologism stage, despite being a "new word", given its reach.
2. Yes it is. Even if protologisms are not to be added, Wiktionary defines a term as, "A word or phrase". Spinner is a word or phrase, hence spinner is indeed a VALID term. Invalid terms are those that are not words / phrases.
3. Yes it is. Something is established if it's explicitly defined, and has been in existence for a long time, and generally accepted. Wiktionary spells out that an attestable term is one that's at least a year old, that checks off having existed for a long time. The reference I added EXPLICITLY DEFINES the term 'spinner'. Generally accepted doesn't need to include every member of society, in that case many pedantic terms would not likely be considered established. The term I laid out is generally accepted given its widespread broadcast.
4. Again, yes it is. A reference is synonymous with a source, it's just a piece of information. I get what you're saying, it's not the most scholarly of sources, but again, as I said, this is a slang term and, if it pleases you, I can find a more appropriate direct reference from the TV show. In all honesty though, it was generous of me to even leave a source considering how none of the preceding definitions have sources, which's apparently in conflict with Wiktionary's standards.
5. When you undo postings and refuse to add terms that are attested by definition, but too newfangled in your eyes, then you are in fact censoring and removing / suppressing content (that's what it means to censor).
6. Yes it is, "see the previous points". (Can't believe you even added this. If your point was previously made, then why are you recapitulating?) By the way, thanks for addressing my other points such as 'spinner' being a slang term and serving as a raceless alternative to the n-word /s.
7. Clearly that's not how Wiktionary works which is why is unbelievable that you complain over a measly little fbcdn link; it's more of a contribution than you see on the other definitions. Interestingly, you say that citing references isn't how Wiktionary works. First off, then why are you judging mine. Two, ...

For languages well documented on the Internet [naturally this would include the majority of English words which are highly documented on the internet], three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary". 🤯

What this boils down too is that Wiktionary's arbitrary and inconsistent standards dictate that I need more sources to further substantiate that 'spinner' has surpassed the protologism stage. (This is part of the disservice I was referring to in my original post. Words only need to be substantiated if the moderator doesn't like them, otherwise there wouldn't be so many other, significantly newer coined, completely un-attestable words on Wiktionary). That being said, I'll play by the rules; the ball's in my court to compile more references, in which case I would then undo the rollbacks you made, being in accordance with Wiktionary standards. All things considered though, almost everything you said is untrue, objectively speaking. On previous threads, you shared Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. That would've settled things a lot quicker than your piously self-assured rant. I should've known better though. Wiktionary is a place for admins to collectively validate their own ideas and encourage hive, groupthink behavior. No wonder the overwhelming majority of replies you give to topics on your talk page are pernicious and unproductive. — This unsigned comment was added by Wordbookeeper (talk • contribs) at 14:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC).

No, a term is not established if it is only used in the context of a single fictional television series. It's clear you didn't even try to bother to read the link (other than to cherry-pick parts to quote here), where all of this is clearly laid out. You should read WT:CFI in general, since you don't seem to understand what our criteria are (and you seem to come across as someone who isn't even going to try to understand them either, rather choosing to rant about admin abuse or whatever). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This spinnuh 🙄. You're dense af. How many times do we no repeat this. I know it's very hard for you to wrap you are simple-minded head around, but denotatively, 'spinner' is an established term. You would know that if you had actually bother to read my post. I know I'm not getting a lecture from you about reading the Wiktionary criteria. You're a joke of a mod / admin. The mere fact that it took a newb like me to spell it out for you is incredible. I'll do it again since evidently you didn't read the criteria for yourself. Otherwise you would've known that, "for languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary". Furthermore, you come across as someone who LITERALLY can't understand the WT:CFI, rather choosing to rant about something you know nothing about. "It's not established because Wiktionary and myself arbitrarily say so! Our random inconsistent standards state that it can't be single fictional television series!" You'd rather spew the same regurgitated lines instead of actually reading what I have to say. You're a pathetic excuse for an admin and lack the capacity to decode the most basic of messages. Wordbookeeper (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If all you got was that "three citations" are enough, then yes, you clearly didn't read the CFI and still do not understand what I meant by "established term". You're still working with a fundamentally wrong assumption that a term is immediately worth including because it is used once in a television show that appears to have high ratings.

There have been countless attempts to add made-up terms or terms that have only ever been used in a single source. It gets tiresome after the same few arguments get repeated when such protologisms get reverted: "it exists", "you're censoring me", "this is admin abuse", "inconsistent standards" etc. When things go down this path, the end result is always the same - an open-and-shut case where it is clearly proven that the term indeed is not established.

I still do not understand how you think a random picture someone posted on Facebook could be considered a reference. It wouldn't be considered a reference on any reputable wiki site, much less here where references for senses are rarely used to begin with. There is no way for me to even be sure that it wasn't posted by you, or that you didn't straight up make up the quote (just a series, not even an episode, is very vague sourcing). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wordbookeeper: when you run out of things to say, bang the table and call people names... You sound like a beef salesman who walks into a vegetarian market and demands to know why they won't carry his line of merchandise. If you want to introduce new words, go to Urban Dictionary. You have your own criteria for inclusion, which is fine- but they aren't Wiktionary's criteria.

Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary based on usage. That means actual people have to use the term to convey meaning- not fictional people. What you've given so far is evidence that people have been exposed to it- that's all. Show some evidence that real people are using it- not mentioning it- and you might get somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Chuck. Clearly you lack basic literary comprehension skills, yourself. If you bothered to read any of my previous posts, you would see that I plainly said that the ball was in my court under wiktionary's criteria to supply further references. Again though, this doesn't mean that the word is not in usage. Fictional characters are still voiced by real people, smart ass. And if folks are exposed to a word, who's to say they won't use it? Furthermore, I know you're not lecturing me on adding an established word when you opposed a user's request to delete the page 'Mestizean', a clearly unattested term. You just love butting into conversations that have nothing to do with you, and yet you're no more than a hypocrite. If the vegetarian market is selling meat, then you're the vendor oblivious to reality.

As for Surjection, spinnuh, this is an extension of Wikipedia, barely even credible. Shit, colleges won't accept anything here as a source. I'm not gonna repeat myself. I proved that the term is legitimate and you have no reason to believe I posted that picture aside from a straw man argument. Like I said, but you can't read, I never claimed it was a reputable reference, not sure how many truly exist for slang terms, surely a few, still this was the most streamlined reference I could provide. I don't care if you revert my edits, your rollback is valid, but your explanation explaining why you did what you did if utter crap because you've clearly never read the Wiktionary Criteria. Luckily, I, not you, identified it because you're unfit to be an admin. Same goes for Chuck. If you care so much about upholding wiktionary's policies, then why don't you crack down on completely made up, unattested, unestablished, unexposed terms? Wait, that's right, because you don't care. Why don't you and Chuck add sources as required by the criteria? Because you don't care. Why don't you remove far-fetched words like 'Mestizean'? Because you don't care. You spinnuhs are nothing more than a joke, bloody hypocrites. I can do this all day. Wordbookeeper (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"I can do this all day." Yes, I can imagine writing diatribes in which you regurgitate the same two arguments that everyone on this site has seen a hundred times isn't that difficult. If that's all this is going to be, I won't see the need to keep responding. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I know you're not lecturing me on regurgitation when that's literally all you've been doing this entire time. You better not respond. You haven't contributed jack squat to this conversation because, again, you're a joke of an admin. You have no way of defending yourself because you know I'm right and you know you don't give two f*cks about standards/procedures/criteria. Also, I imagine you have no f*cking clue what my arguments are since you haven't been able to decode a single message this entire time. You can't comprehend the basic points I'm making, have me repeat myself, and still spew out the same sh*t you said before. Why don't you speak upon the fact that you cherry-pick Wiktionary Criteria? You say protologisms are tiresome, why don't you and Chuck work to get rid of those that are completely unestablished, like 'Mestizean'. (I'm almost certain you would respond with something like, "well, that's exactly why we've rolledback yours", even I've proven that 'spinner' is denotatively established, unlike words created in Chuck's basement that have yet to see the light of day. And again, I said the ball's in my court to look for more references. It'd be easier if I didn't have to school those who should be helping me. You fools couldn't even provide evidence for a rollback and couldn't justify your claims. Clearly, I was the first to introduce Wiktionary's Criteria; that should definitely be the other way around, but y'guys suck. That still doesn't change the fact y'all struggle to understand when a term is objectively established, and transcends Wiktionary's inconsistent standards). But we know you're not gonna respond. Surjection rather circle-jerk it with Chuck and send him to lick up the discharge. WHY DON'T YOU AND CHUCK ADHERE TO THE WIKTIONARY POLICY stating that three citations is the minimum number for words well documented on the Internet?! Because you'd rather weasel out with a hypocritical comment like, "Yes, I can imagine writing diatribes in which you regurgitate the same two arguments that everyone on this site has seen a hundred times isn't that difficult". Spinnuh, someone's outta set you straight, ya numskull. You keep on repeating that I haven't read Wiktionary's Criteria and yet I'm the only one who's actually referenced it! Do you care to contribute anything beyond that? Because honestly you're proving to be incapable at doing your job and the most basic of things. "You seem to come across as someone who isn't even going to try to understand" anything that's been said, rather choosing to change the subject to "admin abuse or whatever", further demonstrating that you have no clue what's going on, you senile putz.