User talk:Surjection/archive/2024

---

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

Add a new topic

---

magneettidipoli

This has been in CAT:E for a couple of days, but at the time it was hidden among hundreds of other entries. Now that we've cleared those, it's sticking out like a sore thumb. It looks like a simple matter of adding a couple of empty parameter slots, but I know nothing about Finnish declension so I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed, and sorry - should have caught that myself. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Is someone gonna look at the word request article?

??? TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A few etymologies that discredit the etymology section of Wiktionary

Greetings: I hope that you are paid for the hard work in keeping Wiktionary protected from vandalism. My policy had been to make minimal adjustments to etymologies that are plainly wrong and so a few comments on those that downgrade Wiktionary are necessary. Firstly, my addition of Gaelic CRAOBH (branch) as a cognate was a breach of rule 6, that states: "Do not be tempted to pioneer etymologies and ....". Although I believe it to be true to be derived from the same P.I.E. root as that previously presented, I know of no back up source to confirm this; so my due apologies, and that was block worthy. True, some of my initial edits eight years ago had to be reverted on three counts: 1/ no reliable source was available to back them; 2/ the edit formatting was either absent or deplorably inadequate and 3/ no steps were provided in their etymological paths. Although you have no control over what users/editors may do about Wiktionary during extended periods of blocking, I did not take advantage of that and pursue my original plan to form my own etymological dictionary, including a point system for each word, to maximise confidence in the readers. I am spending time typing all this for the health of Wiktionary's etymological sections. It is plainly evident that some of the etymologies were copied at face value from normally very reliable dictionaries, without scrutinising the roots and only adding those that are logical.

To illustrate this we have: Proto-Finnic *lambas, borrowed from Proto-Germanic *lambaz. Now, if applying the etymologist's knowledge that the Germanic peoples settled peacefully in their area, whereas their invasion was as conquests in Britain, they would know that while the English form is certainly from Proto-Germanic *lambaz, but this P.G. form is a substrate, because the Proto-Finnic form is derive in two parts, the first syllable of the older Proto-Finnic *lambas (as a bi-form is likely to be from a root meaning 'to skip, to jump' (found in the Cornish substrate LAMM (leap, bound) and the latter BAS from VAS of an ancient stock in that area akin to Proto-North Caucasian *ɫVmbagV ‘sheep’ (only in Avaro-Andian and Lezghian), (according to the Academia education - but, with no other reliable evidence as to the origin of the components parts of this bi-form and not a root in itself - it cannot be added to the main page). That the grotesquely fabricated reconstruction Proto-Indo-European *h₁l̥h₁onbʰos is a combination of two roots and never even existed is glaringly obvious to any qualified etymologist who has studied the acceptable P.I.E. reconstructions. The earliest root presented is logical however, as the root of the Greek and Celtic forms. When you have been into etymologies for 50 years you readily recognise those that are wildly inaccurate; and it is not just myself, but a woman at a conference with considerable more weight stated that a number Wiktionary etymologies are wrong. The next one is: Welsh AELWYD (fireplace), borrowed from Old English ǣled (whence also Cornish oles, Breton oaled), from Proto-Germanic *ailidaz.

However, that is better than when I last saw it, where it stated that the Welsh form was from Proto-Germanic 'ailą́' and began with a false conclusion and went down hill from there. The Proto-Germanic form is not listed under the P.I.E. root, *h₂eydʰ- (“to burn”). The Old English forms (three of them) may be derived from the Proto-Germanic substrate or else be substrates themselves as cognates with the Scandinavian forms: ILDE and ELDE; but the Breton form cannot be from P.G. or from Anglo-Saxon, because the Celts moved over there from Cornwall in the sixth century, before there could be any chance of P.G. or Anglo-Saxon influence! A Proto-Celtic reconstruction has been formulated, but although logical, this appears rather fabricated. The Cornish word ELVEN probably originally meant 'flint' - literally 'fire stone'. With the considerable variation of the spellings of the forms in the Celtic dialects, they are most likely to be derived from some pre-Celtic stock. Kroonen is clearly biased towards P.G. roots.

Although there are other etymologies that defy the necessary logic required to present them on the main pages, there is just one other I need to remark about and that is: Old English adesa, eadesa (compare adosa, adosan), from Proto-Germanic *adisô. Had you left the edit as it was it would not have been so obvious that the P.G. form is wrong, but now it is completely obvious to a fully fledged etymologist that it is so. The forms adosa and adosan are older than adesa, eadesa, according to the Oxford Online Dictionary that traces lexemes back to their earliest available written forms (the older volumes of which are the most reliable of all).

Wiktionary, in addition to all the helpful reconstructions, has a few gems like that of, 'dog' and 'loop'; but it is a shame that generally it only ranks in the upper third for reliability, so I just point out those etymologies that I know discredit the reliability of Wiktionary. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is in the interests of Wiktionary. Happy new year and Regards: Andrew H. Gray 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Andrew H. Gray 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Latest edit 20:55, 5 June 2024 Andrew (Talk)

I'm not even going to comment on most of this, but since you're still hung up on this particular case which I feel at least somewhat qualified to comment on: your etymology for the Proto-Finnic term is complete nonsense. You're basically making up parts of words and trying to explain actual words as somehow deriving from them. That isn't how etymology works, no matter how you try to force it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Devanagari articles should redirect to other articles written in Devanagari and not articles that are written in Roman Alphabet

This is about the दशरथ page. 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. This is the English Wiktionary and definitions have to be in English. If you insist on having links, add them in parentheses after the term instead of inserting completely avoidable non-English text in the middle of a definition. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rama redirects to रमा sir and not Rāma राम. 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also going by you saying this is the English wiktionary, why are there articles in other languages. E.g. दशरथ, राम, कृष्ण etc? 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 10:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the English Wiktionary documents words from all languages, but they are still documented in English. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way for adding a redirect to the page written in Hindi/Sanskrit alongside the page written in English? 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:5484:439D:2758:243 08:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No point in 'redirects'. If you want to have both links, write the non-English link after the English one, in parentheses. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You people deserve nothing but hell for trying to erase every instance of Indic Culture, Indic Scripts and Hinduism. There is "We are xenophobic" written all over you assholes' head. You westerners will always be the most disrespectful people in this world. 2400:1A00:BD20:CB11:6DD5:D193:B437:B4F9 07:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot understand the simple concept that the English Wiktionary is supposed to document words in English, then maybe you just shouldn't edit here. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry

Sorry for lashing out about that whole Dasharatha article. I was in a really bad mood when I wrote the last reply, and since I've calmed down a lot, I realised I wasted both of our times and I really feel bad about it. Sorry again. 2400:1A00:BD11:8085:1D4E:9A82:A2DD:2DC7 09:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyka blyat!

I don't want that page to be deleted. 88.227.46.108 16:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You're free to vote (once) on the RFD. Removing the template isn't going to get you anywhere. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Range block

Hi Surjection, I tried to ping you on my talk page, User_talk:Polypz, but didn't hear back. It looks like you've blocked me from making edits when using my phone as a WiFi access point, even when logged in. I can't remember which page I was trying to edit, is there a way to find that out? Polypz (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The block is set to allow logged-in users to edit and to allow user creation. If you are not able to log in or edit even while logged in, that would be a software bug. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I was logged in at the time. Polypz (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the baby entry

Recently the baby word had its first English noun entry changed by someone politically motivated. The previous entry before today's edits included "conception or" before "birth", and it was edited sloppily, removing the link to birth as well. The entry with "conception or" was standing for at least months before it was removed earlier today. I tried to revert it but it was reverted back. mineben256 Mineben256 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The "from conception..." part is already encompassed by def 3. Nobody is going to argue that the conception is the same thing as birth. A baby is still unborn from conception until it is actually born. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that in a way it is encompassed by definition 3, but the definition had contained "from conception" for a long time before today. Additionally, entry 3 is also not entirely appropriately encompassing the former entry 1, as it includes all animal unborn young, whereas people use "baby" to speak of human unborn young in a more affectionate way that is uncommon when it comes to animal unborn young. Mineben256 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That it had something "for a long time before today" means relatively little. The sense you use would best be added as a subsense of 3 or by adding additional wording to the end of the definition. But perhaps the best idea is to open a discussion about it on the Tea Room. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The qualifier "particularly" means that what follows is merely the core of the meaning, not all of it. While people can and do refer to an unborn human as a baby, that's not the first thing one thinks of when one hears the word without context. The only reason the reference to conception keeps getting added is the focus of the anti-abortion movement on emphasizing the humanity of the unborn. As a descriptive dictionary, we don't take sides on such matters of belief and/or morality. The part about conception isn't central to the meaning, so it's best to leave it out. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It was there for at least many months before it was removed. Mineben256 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The conception should be left out because you can’t do or don’t regularly have to do much with the issue if it is not delivered yet. If anything is done for it then it is with respect to the future result, most sentences about it can be interpreted in the sense from birth: “A baby is still unborn” Surjection says, depending on how you emphasize it you negate that there is a baby before birth and could write an ontology paper, the same applies for our single usage example of sense three “When is your baby due?” – expected to be only later? I am not necessarily convinced that it is not the first sense, how can one distinguish? Also an egg is a chicken and from it chicks hatch – which sense of chicks?

That the shorter view is the basic one and the other a later stretch is firm in a diachronic outlook, since the human ovum was only found by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827, whereafter the abortion laws got adjusted. Before that one believed in ensoulment 90 days after conception, quickening, delayed animation, which nowadays means something in Javascript, but a rigid thing even then if “early statutes of English common law presumed that a child was born dead in spirit”, Romans waited seven days and in general “for some early cultures a child was not fully human until age seven and thus could be disposed of at any time up until that age” (written by psychotherapist rather than jurist, thus my desire for historical detail was not satisfied); following the thought lines fashionable with demographic transition.

If you look into other dictionaries they dance around the mines, like OED defining as “a very young child”, “formerly also: †a child of any age”: big if true for Wiktionary, but I must claim Wiktionary’s glosses are better anyways. There was some intent of humans in the last two centuries settling on a specific short time frame.

The intent of the present definition was to demarcate the life stages of man when his life is clocked at all, i.e. 0–1 baby, 1–3 toddler, 1–11 child and the like. Because you only indirectly see the unborn human when he “ages”. Babies being unborns is a fringe view that has little merit towards the main definition. I do know about East Asian age reckoning but this has not influenced English, and other languages where the word baby or similar has been acquired. It does not mean the word does not “have the definition”. I could have spoken about “the baby when it ages in the womb” which very much appears like the third sense intuitively, because we are unwont to ascribe processes to subjects which have not yet developed. Yet breviloquence is normal language, normal language breaks down the actual order of things to convey the main points, the biological realities of the mother’s organism nurturing the fetus, the genes making it accept its destiny etc. What to do if it is just an offset? At least one should give appropriate space to the observation that it is an offset, an analogy, additive inverses to the practically positive, because pragmatics. Here we try to untangle how much the human language capacity fools us into generalizing the subject—predicate structure of language into the order of nature: it is not even what humans typically know or typically think even when they employ language. Fay Freak (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz You're right that it isn't our job to take sides, and I think we should acknowledge that some people use it to refer to that, but I suspect these pages will continually get edited by people trying to push this agenda. For example, I just reverted infant, and I cannot in my life ever remember anyone using that word to refer to a baby before it's born. Theknightwho (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I think the current setup with sense 1 being "young human, particularly from birth..." and sense 3 being "unborn young; a fetus" is not right, but I think it's sense 3 which has a problem. Many people use "baby" to refer to a young human from birth to an early age, and sense 1 reflects this. Other people use "baby" in a way that includes not only newborns but also fetuses. But AFAIK no-one uses baby to refer to a fetus alone to the exclusion of a newborn: no-one thinks that a fetus is a baby but stops being a baby once it's born, and that a one-month old is not a baby: i.e. no-one uses sense 3 as written. It's sense 3 we should be revising, to something like "A young creature from conception, through gestation as a fetus, birth, and the earliest period of its life" or some better wording (I'm sure we can think of smoother wording!).

We had the same problem a while ago with prostitute, and before that with marriage: when a word may refer specifically to X, or may include both X and Y, sometimes people try to handle this being having one sense "X" and another sense "Y", even though the term never means "Y" (just Y alone to the exclusion of X), it always means either "X" or "X+Y". (Prostitute has sometimes exclusively meant a female sex worker — at various times, law and culture simply did not consider men who had sex for money to be prostitutes — and at other times, prostitute can encompass male sex workers. So someone saw "female sex worker" as sense 1, and added "male sex worker" as a separate sense. But the term never refers exclusively to male sex workers: it either refers specifically to a female sex worker, or it refers to any sex worker. So I initially folded the "female sex worker" and "male sex worker" senses together into a gender-nonspecific "sex worker" sense, but when Widsith pointed out that in many cases it's only women, now the entry is set up as you see it today.

- -sche (discuss) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

pääomanpalautus ja värähtelyttää

Kiitos virheeni korjaamisesta :) Auringonlasku (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Arabic terms derived from Turkish

Why were my changes on the page above reverted? These words are words transferred from Turkish to Arabic, and dictionaries accept them as such. Is the category wrong? Can you explain? H493 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@H493 This category is added automatically by templates in the etymology sections, but we don't put those templates in entries for inflected and other secondary forms. Look at the conjugation or declension tables: imagine seeing every single one of those forms in the category, then multiply it by every term for the same language. I think most people can figure out that the first person singular of a given word has the same etymology as the second person singular of the same word without having the entire paradigm listed in the category.

So, basically, what you were doing was adding useless clutter to the category by unnecessarily hard-coding things best handled by templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Arabic terms derived from Turkish" is for lemmas (not inflected or alternative forms) in al-fusha deriving from modern Turkish. We categorize Ottoman Turkish terms in their own category (Category:Arabic terms derived from Ottoman Turkish) and furthermore many of the Arabic varieties into their own categories as well. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Luzon

Hello, concerning your rollback of my edits on Luzon. I was removing erroneous and unsourced claims that the name of the island of Luzon in the Philippines is from Spanish. It is not from Spanish at all, it's a word that's native to the language of the Philippines, which was referenced in Japanese & Chinese sources before the arrival of the Spanish. Chris S. (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. The etymology says the name came from native languages by way of Spanish. That's quite common in Filipino etymologies of names: the Spanish would adapt the pronunciation to their phonotactics and adopt a spelling to match, and the Filipinos would pick it up because the Spanish were in charge and they had to deal with them. I'm sure the education system had something to do with it, as well. See, for instance, Category:Tagalog terms borrowed back into Tagalog. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Mani stone in Finnish

Could and would the term "mani stone" be "manikivi" in Finnish?

Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

mani-kivi methinks. But I doubt it's attestable either way. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagalog "kalatas" is from Malay

Evidenced by accentuation and meaning.

Comparison:

• kertas -> kalatás
• cermin -> salamín
• percaya -> palatáyà

Malay "kertas" and its variants in Tausug, Maguindanao, and Maranao (relatively un-Christianized and un-Hispanized) all mean paper. The Tausug variant is particularly similar to Tagalog where there is just an elision but the accentuation is the same: kātas, and in Maranao there is only the l-r allophony, giving karatas, while the Maguindanao variant is in between. Brunei Malay, much more recently historically affiliated with Tagalog, has similar accentuation and breaking of consonant clusters with "keratas". The Spanish word "cartas" doesn't just mean "paper", it means "letters" or "epistles". All the Southeast Asian languages mentioned have their variants of "kertas" meaning "paper". So the etymology should point to a Malay origin rather than a Spanish origin. Myrnamyers (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You're the one edit warring to remove all other theories than your own and also apparently haven't even read Wiktionary:About Tagalog#About the language. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Myrnamyers Also please use the discussion module first. Other Tagalog editors and I use the module if we have points of contention. I even reached out to you before in your talk page but I get ignored and you can only be communicated through edit logs. We're open to discuss if it really is Malayic but unfortunately there are a lot of sources pointing to Spanish and Malay is just a cognate of the shared origin. Semantic shifts also happen even if the Spanish word meant letters or epistles. Please ping me or other editors that made the entry if you like. Thanks! Also, Tagalog does the same independent of Malay. Example is alakos, from Spanish arcos. Same concept of consonant declustering, r-l correspondence, and a move of stress in the accent.

Ysrael214 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It was me

I was the one who vandalized Parody about it meaning "Zarathrustian dogwhistle for 'truth'" or something. That IP is for my little brother's iPad. Long story long: While he was playing Splatoon (Wii U children's* shooter game) I told my little brother to try COD (Call of Duty) mode. Because it wasn't real, he asked what is was. I was acting like I was suprised that he had never heard of COD mode, as if everybody knows it. I eventually explained it to him: There is a one in one billion chance that when you speak to Judd, he will ask "Would it please you to seize you?". If you say "Yes", you will be put in a Ranked Battle with COD sound effects and voice chat (Splatoon and COD are the same game, the only difference are the sound effects). He said he didn't believe me and I said that I saw it in a video. I showed him "Top 10 Pplatoon tips (parody)" from Erikson Gaming. He said that the video was a joke 'cause it said "parody" in the title. I said that parody has two definitions: the one he was thinking of; and the one used by the ancient secret society of robots on the dark web known as "Zarathrusta", of which I am a member. He looked up the definition of parody on google and noted that there was no such definition. I told him that my definition could only be found on the "truth dictionary" on the dark web. After some boring arguing, he gave me his iPad and told me to show him the truth dictionary. Upon realizing that Google Chrome iOS doesn't have Inspect Element, I had to vandalize the page to make it look even remotely like the Truth Dictionary wasn't just made up.

Question

Can you look at this talk page? It seems that a user wants something added and I think it's a good addition but an admin needs to do it. 110.150.52.252 06:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to say "a user" when it's evidently yourself. Bring them up at a centralized forum. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Crapitalism

Why the rollback? 76.107.163.183 22:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm rolling back the rollback for now. You may feel my edit is not NPOV, but the term itself is not NPOV, so I think my edit fits. Happy to discuss further :-) 76.107.163.183 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitions of NPOV terms are still supposed to be worded without a point of view. Yours wasn't. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Example Sentences on Wiktionary Pages

Hello, I mainly use Wiktionary to submit pronunciation audios, but there have been a couple of times when I've wanted to add example sentences for pages on Wiktionary. For example, there was once a time when I wanted to write example sentences for "let oneself go." I typed two sentences because I couldn't decide which would be a better example: "My grandma's wife let herself go; Daddy told me she fell down the tree of ugly and hit multiple branches." and "My big brother claims he knew some pretty girls in high school that really let themselves go and got fat in the last 7 years." I thought these were helpful examples, but somebody deleted them shortly after I submitted them. What can I do to improve my example sentences on Wiktionary so they don't get deleted? Thank you Post Script, I am not an OG on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I don't edit as frequently, and I've been editing on Wiktionary again after a month of being idle. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Example sentences#Writing good examples may be of assistance. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

why did you roll back my change, it was useful

On Sapristi, I provided a very useful link... a cultural usage. You just blanked it out with no explanation?! 2607:FEA8:3C81:3AD0:6958:FBA:FA3F:78A6 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a dictionary. We don't do "Cultural references". If you want to provide a quote (in French) to show usage, you would put it on the line after the definition, with #* as the first two characters of the line, and use a template such as {{cite-av}} to format it (If your "quote" is just someone saying "sapristi!", or someone talking about the word, don't bother.) I have it protected for now, but either I or Surjection can unprotect it if it looks like you're going to have something actually worthwile to add. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Plus the film is Kaleidoscope, not Kaleidoscopes... Theknightwho (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my spekking of Kaleidoscopes. That's a correction you could have made yourself to the actual source instead of deleting my content and then copy protecting the page so that other users can't edit it anymore. Authoritarian much?

You seem to be under the impression we are some kind of hivemind; it's very strange. Theknightwho (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of Angzarr Citations

Hello... could you tell me why you reverted my citations update? The information to which you reverted is incorrect. My update had the latest info. Wshallwshall (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think it is acceptable to have an encyclopedic entry under the Citations page? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I am new to Wiktionary, so was trying to address the inaccuracy of the current citation page content.

Could you offer advice on how to do that? Wshallwshall (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Since citation pages aren't really supposed to have anything other than a short definition (enough to figure out what kind of term is being meant), I personally wouldn't mind too much if you just removed it (but leave the citations template, character info and the quote). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the best I can, but would appreciate any improvements you can make. Wshallwshall (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The main entry has earlier failed a request for verification, so it cannot be re-added without the quotes required by the criteria for inclusion (i.e. three quotes, spanning at least one year, and they must be uses of the term, not mentions). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Module:et-nominals#L-997

What am I doing wrong here? Joonas07 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on the code, get_params seems to only provide .strong and .weak when the gradation parameter is set to true. Since you do not pass it to get_params, it isn't. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is length gradation though Joonas07 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But you don't tell get_params about that. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks Joonas07 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Referencing Episode Names in Quotations

hello, last week I submitted a new Wiktionary page for the phrase put the boom down as in "confront a person or problem or intervene." I tried to add a quotation from that phrase being used on an episode of Hoarders. I was able to write that this phrase was mentioned on an episode of Hoarders in the year 2012, but I don't know how to specify that it was from the episode Mary/Annie when Mary was talking. do you know how to add what episode this quote was from? Thank you Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 19:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please try using {{quote-av}}. It should provide the necessary features. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent revert

Did you even read my edit summary? A word being included in a major dictionary pretty much means it's attested no?

Even if you like Word's edits in general, you have to admit in this case they're clearly in the wrong. 178.120.2.213 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFDs aren't simply a matter of "attestation", and indeed they basically never should be (that is what RFVs are for). However, the RFD discussion is still open, and removing the template isn't going to magically make it go away. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird Sanskrit articles

Some time ago, I noticed that we have a bunch of articles on personal names of characters from Hindu mythology. The definitions are often undeciferable for a foreigner and obviously encyclopedic. I edited a few, and promptly had my edits reverted [1] by a new user that focuses on Sanskrit. What do you think about this? I don't know anything about Indian culture, but those articles don't seem to fit the Wiktionary style. brittletheories (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brittletheories They're copy-pastes from Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, and should either be corrected into a comprehensible format or removed entirely. @Rau6590 - please do not blindly revert these, because the definitions you've been restoring are not in an acceptable state for Wiktionary. Theknightwho (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Template:pl-pronunciation

I recently noticed that this template does not produce the correct rhyme categories if the stress is anything other than penultimate (such as here: Jujuy). Could you fix this? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 15:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't worked on that module code in a long time - I'd recommend asking for help at WT:GP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

PIE pronunication

Why did you revert my request for a pronunication chart? HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We customarily do not list pronunciations for reconstructed languages. Besides, any pronunciation request should be made using the correct template ({{rfp}}), anyway, not by adding ad hoc text in the middle of an entry. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry im new to editing on wiktionary, could you add it using the correct template? It would be very helpful HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, we don't customarily give pronunciations for reconstructed languages, because there is no way to know for sure. In addition, there is a lot of disagreement about the phonetics of PIE, and so we'd have to list several pronunciations. In the end it's just not helpful. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no way for sure i was thinking of adding charts with sections of all posible phonetic values like *e, *ǵ, *h₂ etc. Would that work? HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That was one of my points - that any chart like that is not going to be useful due to how large and filled with uncertainty it is. And even then all of its data is still probably going to be "wrong" in the sense that none of it is how it would've been pronounced in reality. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it was worth a shot HistorienCanadien (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it just custom that it has not been done, or has consensus been made that it should not be done? There are tens of thousands of IPA entries for dead languages such as Proto-Germanic, Gothic, Old English, and Latin; should all of these also be removed as reconstructions, despite of a high degree of confidence in their correctness? I was very surprised to see you cite this rule when deleting the pronunciation for PGmc *kōz, again despite the precedent of thousands of entries arguing in favor of its retention. Apologies if my tone seems out of line; I would genuinely like to know where this decision was made, because I've never heard of it and have certainly found no evidence of its implementation. Wiljahelmaz (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My comment said reconstructed languages specifically. I don't think there is a formal policy on it, but the general agreement seems to be that they do more harm than good. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. Don't know why your reply didn't appear in my notifications. Wiljahelmaz (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hindia

When you are really sure my edit is not correct, then you should add correct etymology when you are reverting it.

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this notion. It is better to have no information than to have wrong information. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But attributing anything wrong is not fair untill you replace that with right!

If Hindustan became Indostan in greek,

Then term Hindiyyah became India

How I am wrong in etymological point of view?

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You've already been explained this in WT:ES - it doesn't become any more correct the more you repeat it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But your correction is out of facts, illogical and irrational! Abirtel (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Just drop it - you're not going to be able to convince anyone but yourself. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Snob Hill

Can you undelete Snob Hill? It was created by a blocked IP, but the entry looked valid, I just added a quotation and then it was gone. Jberkel 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversion

Thank you for reverting my edit if it distorted all the previous sections - I cannot think why it should have done this - that is why I reverted it a few minutes ago, assuming that the gross upset of the paragraphs (which would have amounted to gross vandalism!) was not actually due to my edit; so my sincere apologies for this! I was just trying to add the reference from Academa as to the Old Caucasion stem, Proto-North Caucasian *ɫVmbagV ‘sheep’ (only in Avaro-Andian and Lezghian), for the latter syllable, that may not be directly related to Proto-Finnic anyway.

From a linguistic point of view, you stated in your Babel list that English was almost your first language; it is my first language. Does that give me a slight advantage over you? Absolutely not! It is, or should be shameful that it is my first language; since, apart from self-glorification of Classical and Greek borrowings et cetera, it is now merely the dregs of one of the finest Germanic languages, Anglo-Saxon. It is the most irrational language I have ever come across, both in pronunciation and in its idioms, and, as for the long vowels their so-called pronunciation evolution makes them all stand out as oddities, unless you believe that the long 'A' Gallic sound be authentic as possibly used by servants and centuries ago accepted into Middle English as its basic sound. Kind Regards, Andrew 10:57, 29 March 2024 Andrew H. Gray 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

*lanci and Estonian

I'm not the same anonymous person whom did the edits, but I am native from the region (Läänemaa) and would like to give some comments.

I'm unaware of that "laas” in contemporary Estonian would mean anything as described at there. Nowadays it's synonym of "ürgmets” - it isn't associated with "swamp”, "bog”, "wetland" at all. As a forest, it is though of as type of "segamets" which typically may contain coniferous trees (okaspuu), but it's not granted - it isn't type of the "coniferous forest" (okasmets). This should be controllable from Estonian dictionaries, and I think also from "Estonian -> another language" dictionaries.

I know the lowland, which may get regularly flooded by tides, as "lans"/"lansi pealne”, while neither as "laan" or as "lontsik" - all of the three are distinct from oneanother for me.

As for "lontsik", yes it's a real term, and we do use it around here. I was highly surprised that the term doesn't seem to occur in most of the general dictionaries of Estonian and to this day had thought of the term as common and regular term throughout the Estonian (it occurs in the newspapers for instance). However, we associate it as "lontsima" + "-ik" (there's also alternations like "lantsik", "lõntsik, and all of those without the "-ik". As far as I know, "lontsik” is pushed aside all other accents by now.

The meaning behind the lontsik is ... well, it's a seasonal phenomena in relation to a patch of land, and perhaps closer to the concepts of quicksand and rasputitsa: highly soiled dirt on a particular patch ground which in certain periods throughout the year - for longer and more so than the surrounding land - thus "softer" ground in contrast to the rest which surrounds it. It has actually to do with composition of the dirt and underlying ground rather than the part of the land being any lower from it's surroundings.

That said, the "lontsik”, namely the "lonts” does appear suspiciously approximate to Livonian one here, and honestly, even though I'm no etymologist nor linguist, even for me there seems to be rather notable similarity between "lënc-i" and "lonts-ik" (ë > o , or a , or õ ; c ~> tš > ts), even if purely coincidental (interesting nonetheless). But then, we ourselves around here associate it with the stem that is present in "lonts-i-ma".

Perhaps some aspects which would deserve being explained in the respective articles, if not for more, than to avoid future confusions or confrontations. 91.129.111.224 04:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

EMS lists laas 4. as "vesine madal maa; veelomp" - something like that is probably what the etymological work I used for reference bases it on. As for lontsik, it simply cannot regularly derive from *lanci. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but EMS is lexicon of Estonian dialects - most of the dialects don't even have any speakers anymore, and a whole lot which is listed there have became absolute even among the respective dialect speakers.

Kihnu for instance indeed still have usage for it (arguably, usage with asterisks on it) - but that's also rather highly regional (and even I, being actually familiar with the dialect, by reading in text struggle to differ in cases of wether "Üese nda paelu satn, et luanõd muas" translate as "Öösel on nii palju sadanud, et laaned maas" or instead "Öösel on nii palju sadanud, et lained maas” — note that "sadas nii palju, et maa lainetab" is something fairly common to say in Estonian - Kihnu included).

Personally I find it rational for explaining the etymology and development history on how the shifts in the meaning within a particular language have developed over the time, but it would be as sensible to then give explanation that such definition is obsolete or regional for the modern usage of the language (arguably an usecase, for why explaining the etymology has relevant place at the word's respective section at for its particular language, and shouldn't be deleted that light handedly).

--------

------

But in parallel those meanings are obsolete in contemporary Estonian, which has become the native for the vast majority of the Estonian speakers - in terms of ekk, EKI itself recommends to use sõnaveeb as the main dict(ionary, considering othe)rs dated.

Personally I don't disagree over etymology of "lontsik" (nor couldn't really even if wanted do, for not having sufficient knowledge nor understanding of the discipline) - again, we ourselves whom use the word, associate it with the "lontsima” (to move slowly ~ hard/slow to move through) - sõnaveeb claim onomatopoeic origin to it (lontima), and so does ETY which additionally offers possible relationship with (dialectical) Finnish "lonsua" and "lonsia", as well as with additional stems in Estonian itself: "lentsima", "lõntse", "löntsima", "lontima" (and then there are dialects, accents, and regional vernaculars of those).

It because long again, hopefully I weren't overly annoying... 91.129.111.224 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

侗台, 侗臺

In simple and traditional chinease only 侗台。 2001:B011:9801:179F:3D:726E:3281:74AC 15:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert my edits of सुमित्रा (sumitrā) to the one by theknightwho, there is no reason to put (Mythological character), I don't see anyone calling Moses a mythological character, this is pure anti-hinduism. Rau6590 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you this same editor? Again, it's completely unhelpful to fill the definitions for entries with Sanskrit terms in Devanagari. This is the English Wiktionary which means that definitions are given in English. By the way, you don't "own" your pages just because you created them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am that same editor, but I created the page before you and I had that conversation and I never claimed to have owned the page, I just don't want (Mythological character), because as I just said, I don't see anyone calling Moses a Mythological character. Rau6590 (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Then remove or reword that part. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Finnish Declension template

The template does not seem to work for the kahdeksas-paperi -combination. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to ask you to fix that part.

{{fi-decl-kahdeksas-paperi|neljä|ä|tuomar|a|pos1=adj}} Hekaheka (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done These aren't actually too hard to create. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess they aren't, but I'm already 70 and learning the code would be too much trouble. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but I designed these 'combination' declension templates in such a way that one only has to copy the code from another template and change the list of classes in the source code. But I suppose any template code can seem too daunting to bother trying. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

unblock ⚦

could you unblock? the 3 characters covered there aren't demonstrated to mean the same thing and shouldn't be merged. kwami (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering the trouble you've been causing at single-character entries previously, I'd rather have someone review the changes you're planning to make. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove the info boxes for other symbols. Remove def [2], which has failed verification for years. Note that tilted ⛢ is an allograph in alchemical use. Add illustrations of the symbol in use, such as the flag hanging in the US Library of Congress. kwami (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I've downgraded it for now. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. kwami (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

“word in 100 different languages” entries

Hello, Surjection. Re this edit summary, what kind of entries do you object to? Am I responsible for any of them? 0DF (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. What I do know is I've seen editors try to create these entries that are supposed to exist in 20-25 different languages, and they create stubs in all of them. I have never liked that. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't think I do that. The page I've created that's nearest to that description I can think of is [[Debes]], which has entries in seven languages. How do you feel about those? 0DF (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked text

Please import the page "Template:Blocked text" from the English Wikipedia and then use it on MediaWiki:Blockedtext and MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. 134.199.113.124 19:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Luis Sousao block evasion

Hi there,

Luis Sousao that you blocked early April is evading his block with:

• Special:Contributions/2804:d51:44c2:d300::/64
• Special:Contributions/Haddarku
• Special:Contributions/Caffailo.

Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ერქემი

what you correctet is not correct because that megrelian word is not originated from turkish TomTom777Tom (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of Zarabi

The original entry wasn't formatted very well, but the information itself was correct and I was in the process of dramatically cleaning up the page. Binarystep (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Put the cleaned up version on the talk page first. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Binarystep (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of manticratic

Can I kindly request undeletion of the entry? As far as I can see, the main reason for deletion was the fact that it was previously deleted. However, the original deletion was done with the caveat that the word should not be re-entered without valid citations. I have added the citation along with other articles referring to or discussing the word. I myself set out to create this entry after reading T. E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and not being able to find the word on this site. The meaning is clear both from the word's etymology and the context of the added quotation. Wiktionary contains other hapax legomena (such as nortelrie) and this word is evidently not entirely obscure, as evidenced by articles linked in the deleted entry. Yes, T. E. Lawrence most likely invented the word, but nonetheless it's contained in a classic of English literature. I think its addition might be helpful to Wiktionary users (as it would have been to me when I tried to look it up). CaptainPermaban (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Our criteria for inclusion for 'well-documented languages', which includes English, states that words, if not in "clearly widespread use", must have 'use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year'. Any words that aren't understood to be likely to meet this criteria end up going through a request for verification, and once deleted, the entries can only be recreated if quotes are added to show that they clearly meet these criteria. Hapaxes therefore do not count, since they can only be cited to one source. The best place to document it is therefore probably Appendix:English nonces, but I'd ask on WT:TEA to be sure. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick, kind and comprehensive reply. I am a relative newcomer, so I was not aware of this specific rule. It's a shame though, I spent quite a lot of time formatting the entry (I guess it's a learning experience). I'll definitely ask on WT:TEA later about the potential addition to Appendix:English nonces. The problem is the words in the appendix do not show up in searches, so it's pretty useless to the average user. Wouldn't it be better to have these words as individual entries and clearly marked as nonces, or at least somehow make the Appendix itself visible when searching for the words contained therein? CaptainPermaban (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Displaying the Appendix directly under search results is tricky for technical reasons. On the other hand, allowing some nonces or hapaxes through would inevitably result in a conversation about just which of them are exactly notable enough to include and which ones aren't. For that reason it is a highly risky approach. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you want the formatting you wrote for the deleted version of the entry, I can provide it to you. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be very kind of you. As to your point regarding nonces and hapaxes, I can't say I necessarily agree, although I see your point. I think the discussion shouldn't really be led about the notability of individual words, but about the notability of their authors. I think every word contained, for example, in the works of James Joyce or Roald Dahl should be added, regardless of whether they were coined by the author and aren't used anywhere else. People read these books and try to look up the words, the information that they were invented by the author (maybe alongside basic etymology or other explanations) is IMHO immensely valuable and saves a lot of time searching elsewhere. CaptainPermaban (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are the page contents. Shifting the discussion to specific authors then will of course lead to a discussion about which authors are then notable. In any case, it's a discussion that, if it is had, is best had over at WT:BP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainPermaban, Surjection: How about adding the entry to Appendix:English nonces and adding {{no entry|en|{{in appendix|English nonces}}|because=unattested}} to [[manticratic]]? 0DF (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Added after positive reponse on Wiktionary:Tea_room#manticratic. CaptainPermaban (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainPermaban: I'm glad I could help. 0DF (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

what is wrong with you

Can't you read the amendments and the summary of the amendments before undoing them? Does the so-called Fay Freak come to you crying and say things without the slightest thought like a puppet? You just look at his amendments to know the amount of hatred he has for the Arabic word. Many sources talk about the Arabic origin of the word and its root, and because someone said that it is Aramaic without any logic, you removed the sources that talk about the origin of the word in Arabic even though it is basically Arabic! This is a disease 109.107.251.255 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No, what you're doing is removing a sourced etymology and replacing it with an unsourced one, because you cannot accept the idea that Arabic has borrowed words from other languages. If you actually had any sources to back up your claims, you would've added them, yet you didn't and you never will - because you do not have any. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

source ? Arthur Jeffrey's book became a source despite the great controversy over the errors in it?

The Arabic word عيد (ʿīd) means 'festival', 'celebration', 'feast day', or 'holiday'. It itself is a triliteral root ‏عيد‎ (ʕ-y-d) with associated root meanings of "to go back, to rescind, to accrue, to be accustomed, habits, to repeat, to be experienced; appointed time or place, anniversary, feast day"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF#

The articles contain sources. Not everything that the one who is angry about Arabic tells you, you submit to without thinking or logic.

and this https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF/ A page that collects the origin of the word Eid from many ancient and modern Arabic dictionaries

So be realistic and have some culture before acting in this oppressive manner 109.107.251.255 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Two of the three links are not sources for any of the etymology you added. The third doesn't appear to discuss the etymology, simply early instances of the word. So, as I said, it's clear you don't have any sources to back up your claims. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Early proverbs of the word?? Read the entire third link on the origin of the word from many dictionaries. It is now clear that you want sources based on your mood only. 109.107.251.255 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And, for the record, I'll gladly keep reverting your edits and blocking you for as long as you keep removing etymologies just because you do not like them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I don't like her?! Don't you notice that the so-called Fay Freak is the one who doesn't like the Arabic language? Don't you see his modifications and his desperation for this? Why did he not include the sources that talk about the origin and root of the word in Arabic? Rooster's answer: Or will you act childishly because you are wrong? 109.107.251.255 16:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That you accuse users of "hating" the Arabic language because we document its etymologies accurately, as sources state, shows that you're not here in any kind of good faith. Blocking you is therefore entirely justified. Stop wasting our time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not accurate documentation, but regardless of what I told you, look at its modifications, so do not accurately describe hatred as principles 109.107.251.255 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Where did you go? Rather, where did you escape? I provided you with sources and then you disappeared. Or do you prefer to stay silent because it turns out that you are wrong and without the slightest trick here? 109.107.251.255 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And you do not stop evading and start reading the sources, especially the third 91.186.231.244 12:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @109.107.251.255: You need to chill the heck out. You are not getting your point across at all persuasively with your accusations of hatred.
@Surjection: I can't read the Arabic links, but w:Eid al-Adha#Etymology does cite the Oxford Arabic Dictionary (2014) and the Arabic–English Dictionary of Qur'anic Usage (Badawi & Abdel Haleem 2008) in support of an Arabic etymology, with The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'ān (Jeffery 2007) cited in support of a Syriac or Targumic Aramaic etymology. Perhaps both should be given with the etymology marked as contested.
0DF (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother responding to the IP - it's clear they only care about their own feelings. If there are sources to suggest some other etymology than the one currently on the page, then the etymology can of course be amended as appropriate. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I can't say I care. I was just trying to resolve the conflict. 0DF (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I gave you links and you ran away instead of reading, even though dictionaries talk about the root of the word and its origin, and say feelings? Don't you notice that you and the other young man I spoke about before are possessed by feelings? 109.107.251.255 18:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not accusing, but this is what is clear from looking at many of the articles and seeing its amendments and summaries of the amendments and the third link. You can use the translation to read. What you consider to be sources now in the article claim that there is no root for the word in Arabic, and this is the reason for saying that it is not Arabic. Where is the logic in a claim like this, that they do not even know whether there is a root or not, and they denied it without thorough research? 109.107.251.255 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Two observations: first of all, you keep making minor variations on your arguments and demanding they be refuted, point by point. This strikes me as throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Second, you need to accept that this is far more important to you than to anyone else. Apparently unlike you, Surjection has better things to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He also basically evaded when I gave him the site of dictionaries in the Arabic language with the meaning and origin of the word. He basically refused to be gentle and chose to disappear instead of admitting his mistake. This young man does not even have a life until you say he has better things to do, so stop this childish behavior. They spoke to me realistically and logically 109.107.251.255 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, apart from being less patrolled by those knowledgeable in the language arts, writes contradictory information, or fake controversies, due to forbidding synthesis of references, which Wiktionary in contrast has to consider, and yet, due to Wikipedia’s refusal to interpret or even understand (→ reading comprehension) sources, Badawi-Haleem 2008 (pp. 651–652) does not say what they pretend it says. It does not list عِيد (ʕīd) under ع ي د (ʕ-y-d) with said associated root meanings but ع و د (ʕ-w-d). Which is not even an etymology statement because Arabic dictionaries are sorted by root, and roots are not etymologies, as we use to say on Wiktionary now.

Now, عِيد (ʕīd, “festive day”) being derived from ع و د (ʕ-w-d), you mean the verb عَادَ (ʕāda) which has the said associated meanings, is formally possible, as the closing sequence iw in *ʕiwd is disallowed in Arabic, so that it would have to become *ʕīd. However this transfix is not likely for semantic reasons; I notice because I like Arabic and feel its morphology due to exposure. You have to be open to the idea of borrowing to feel a morphology though. This weak argument, which is still an argument to be put into the balance collectively with others, is joined by the much more important observation that it is highly untrustworthy for two languages separated by around five millennia (Proto-West Semitic or Proto-Central Semitic if this is a thing) to share a word as specific as to mean “festive day, a day at which religious celebration is customary”. So one language has borrowed, and guess what, if the term is attested in Aramaic lects in the centuries before Islam, even in Palmyrene Aramaic as referenced by CAL via DNWSI, on which link surprise, surprise, you read Loan into Arabic عِيد, then it is almost certainly not borrowed from Arabic into Aramaic, which is also formally impossible due to the vowel ē, not ī, there.

I have done this thousands of times by now. Such easy etymologies are not even referenced much, only passed by. But as already recognized, IP does not care about logics nor sources and forces to the lips of the Arabic language a poisoned chalice. Don’t get yourself baited, @0DF, I am not partisan, in fact I am engaged in purism myself for epistemological interest, a fan of Eduard Engel from youth, so I am sensitive to the fact that Arabic is still one of the purest of all languages, in spite of her great extension. And somehow to have the language pure you should know which words are foreignisms! Only not strike them out OCPD-style. Fay Freak (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: If those two citations for the Arabic etymology in w:Eid al-Adha#Etymology don’t say what is claimed of them, could you remove them from that article, please? 0DF (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@0DF: I allow you to turn to account my insight. I am not a Wikipedia editor. If I give off reasonable thoughts too much then I get reverted. You can mask better 🤡, I find it hard to do something sufficiently dumb that they swallow it. Have you looked at my meagre German Wikipedia contributions? Some foodstuff where the unreadably confused etymology section was mended by me and I suppressed the matter to deal with more fruitful work. Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: In the light of the acrimony in this section, I think I'll steer clear of “turning your insight to good account”. Re “If I give off reasonable thoughts too much then I get reverted.” I – alas! – experienced just that lately, with this ignorant reversion of a correction I made. Of course, I subsequently reasserted my correction and castigated the reversor, but it was depressing to witness such cocksure ineptitude. 0DF (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Is it according to your mood that roots are not origins of words? This means that you do not know anything in Arabic, so why do you have such enormous hatred towards it, and there is a difference between the idea of borrowing and an original word in the language being illogically attached to another language? The sources’ owners did not even know about the southern language, and that neutrality exists in everyone. Therefore, it is natural that there is a unique word in every language. Even Eid is not in Aramaic or has the same meaning. The reason for the claim is that he thought that the word Eid has no root in Arabic, and this strongly demonstrates the weakness of the writer. So your claim that it is a metaphor is ridiculous. You made your argument from Inspire your imagination to try to remove suspicions about you and your actions. Arabic is also one of the oldest Semitic languages, if you do not know, and I strongly believe this is the case after seeing your actions and words in your responses to people in many articles. And do not blame others for what you suffer from. We all know that you You are the one who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder here, and you explained why before. An Arabic word that has been used in Arabic for thousands of years removes its Arabic origin from Arabic dictionaries and makes an illogical claim from a person whose statements are suspicious and many of which have been refuted. This is ridiculous and shows that you are not... Hating for Arabic, even if you deny it, is an attempt to cover up your actions 109.107.251.255 20:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot suffer from obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. One doesn’t get it diagnosed even when fulfilling the criteria, which I probably don’t as of now, if one already has Asperger's syndrome. If you want to see how it looks if one has OCPD, I would now point to the userspace of User:Dan Polansky, who has cleanly listed his subpages, always busy with making strict rules which others would have to adhere to even if he knew that they have weighty reasons not to. Maybe appreciate the reasons I have put forward? I have been much more generous with providing explanations than anyone else.

Individual obsessive-compulsive disorder (note the lack of personal) can be diagnosed and is something unrelated and unrelatable. Maybe learn what they can be, what forms they can take and how they come about. But especially consider whether you fulfil the criteria of paranoid personality disorder. Because, from the limited information we have about you, a lot of boxes are ticked. These illnesses all have equal prevalence, look it up too, you could be surprised, with nosognosia. Luckily identities can change, in spite of the name suggesting otherwise.

We have previously written many etymologies claiming Arabic words from roots, including thousands by me. It is useful to relate Arabic words to roots; we all learn Arabic by it, as beginners. This is why we have {{ar-rootbox}} now. But our Arabic editing community has realized that words are derived from individual words (though sometimes it is difficult to say which specific words), not roots, because the roots do not bear meaning, actually we claim them to have meanings because there are words belonging to them. So أَعَادَ (ʔaʕāda) is from the specific word عَادَ (ʕāda), because of the meanings there, made causative by a derivational transfix. Saying أَعَادَ (ʔaʕāda) is “from the root ع و د (ʕ-w-d)” is a half-truth. If it were loaned from Aramaic, like أَفْتَى (ʔaftā) is, it would be a quarter-truth. Understood? Neuroplasticity, get more of it. I hope I have not shocked you too much—wish you all the best in your studies! Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

A disgusting and disgusting philosophy that shows your weakness at the beginning of the response regarding obsessive-compulsive disorder, and here you are introducing a new word whose origin you yourself have modified and made it from classical Syriac. Like every time I look at your amendments, I feel laughing and ashamed at the same time because there are people like you, and seriously, you are the one who needs to study, as you have clarified. Before you got sick of something that is called Arabic, you remove the infinitives regarding Arabic words and just put them as borrowed because it terrifies you, and again you speak from your head and say the roots have no meaning. How can someone with this ignorance be edited here?

كلمة عيد في الُّلغة العَربيّة تعني (عود) حُذِفَ حرفُ الواو وحلَّ محِلَّهُ (الياء) فأصبح عيد

On what basis was the derivation made from the root? ع و د Is it half true? You literally classify facts according to your mood

For example, the word أفتى This word is from a well-known root, barley, in the Arabic language, and its meaning is clear, and it is also mentioned strongly in Arabic dictionaries. Originally, the Arabic language is older than Syriac, which in turn is older than classical Syriac, so what are you talking about? You only confirm my statements towards you and your extreme hatred for Arabic, and literally this is clear in all the articles.

It is funny when you make a Western man's assumptions about a difficult language like Arabic. These assumptions are centuries old 109.107.251.255 21:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Confirm is the keyword here. Confirmation bias. Because of your mood, everything is from Arabic, and “mentioned strongly” – a classification by your emotion! The expression “mentioned strongly” is so insane that nobody ever said this on the internet. Valid arguments there are none from your side, only petitio principii. It must be because you decided so, that everyone of a different perspective is just terrified, hateful, moody and suchlike. And yet I score high on alexithymia, such that it is impossible for me to be guided by mood. How does it fit together? You speak from your head and I suggest to check yourself for PPD, instead of your surroundings for a conspiracy towards you, your tribe or family. I am Arabic-friendly. It does not follow I will lie about it and write preconceived conclusions devoid of balance. Conversely it follows not if you assume that I hate it. There are different sections of the brain at work here: One that affects you, motivates you, another intellectual integrity. It means making judgments independently of your personal disposition towards the parties, such as Arabic and Aramaic. Doesn’t matter who is older. The question is what happened back in the day? Can you imagine it? The process of acquiring a new word, in real people of antiquity? Fay Freak (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you always describe to others what you suffer from? You are the one who edits the articles based on emotion, no one else. I have said before and provided a source regarding the word in the Arabic language and the aforementioned dictionaries. You insist on the speculations of Arthur Jeffrey, which are doubted by everyone in the first place, and who based his word on the fact that there is no root for the word. In Arabic, it is said that it is borrowed! He doesn't know about the root at all, and because of this setback, you started making excuses about this matter and started lying that the roots have nothing to do with the language in the first place? Are you laughing at yourself or at whom exactly? On what basis is the statement that it is mentioned with the force of a crazy statement? Is it a fact that bothers you or because it is not in your mood? Man, if the one who says crazy things is literally you, and what is this childish way of responding? Or do you have a response? I spoke about your hatred and hate when I saw your edits in many of the articles and your responses to... People in it and now you are acting like you are an oppressed person and made it about viewpoints! Confront me with reality and logic, and forget about these shameful actions, and do not say that you are a friend of the Arabic language, for you are clear as the sun and have spoken about the matter several times before, and you are actually lying and writing phrases that are devoid of balance, so do not try to lie, for example, the article “مسكين” was written verbatim. Your own claim, when you saw the history of amendments and the article about which we were arguing, despite the existence of a root, you denied that there is a relationship to the root in the language at all! Even though the explanation for the word is found in dictionaries as well, you deny it and now say that you do not write expressions that are devoid of balance? Do not try to act smart in front of me because you will fail, and say what is important is what happened that day, so what basis did Arthur Jeffrey say to her that she is not an Arab? Even though he has Arabic origin? Will you again deny the root issue?

Take this from an Arabic dictionary that also talks about the origin of the word

المعجم: الغني

عِيدٌ

جمع: أَعْيَادٌ. [ع و د].

1. :-حَلَّ يَوْمُ الْعِيدِ :- : يَوْمٌ لِلاحْتِفَالِ وَالتَّذْكَارِ بِحَادِثٍ دِينِيٍّ أَوْ تَارِيخِيٍّ مُهِمٍّ. :-عِيدُ الأَضْحَى :- :-عِيدُ الْمِيلاَدِ :- :-عِيدُ الْفِطْرِ :- :-عِيدُ الْمَوْلِدِ النَّبَوِيِّ :- :-عِيدُ الاسْتِقْلاَلِ.

2. :-أَدْعُوكَ لِحُضُورِ عِيدِ مِيلاَدِي :- : ذِكْرَى يَوْمَ وُلِدْتُ.

3. :-أَمْرُهُ عِيدٌ :- : مَا يُعُودُ الإِنْسَانَ مِنْ هَمٍّ أَوْ مَرَضٍ أَوْ شَوْقٍ وَ مَا إِلَى ذَلِكَ. :-عِيدٌ بِأَيَّةِ حَالٍ عُدْتَ يَا عِيدُ. (المتنبي).

For the writer عبد الغني أبو العزم 109.107.251.255 22:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you always describe to others what you suffer from?. Likewise ;) . This is not about people hating or loving languages. It's about reading and interpreting evidence. Fay Freak is a very strange person and sometimes writes some very strange things. Anti-Arabic bigotry is not one of their problems. Ignorance of how any Semitic language is put together is also not one of their problems- they may be wrong, but they aren't ignorant. Anyway, derivation from a root doesn't eliminate the possibility of borrowing from a related language that has the basically the same roots. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Very nice. This person takes basically questionable sources and leaves other sources, so don’t tell me to read and explain, because what is happening here is the opposite, and how can derivation from fragments not negate borrowing from another language? Does no one speak Arabic here??? Literally everyone is speaking based on their own lapses here now. If you read the responses, you will know that the source that this person relies on says that he thought it would come because the word does not have a root. This is the argument! Although it has a root, this shows the lack of knowledge of the writer of the source, and Net tells me to read the sources and interpret them. If you do not know anything about what is going on here, do not interfere, dear America. 109.107.251.255 06:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

And don't tell me that the issue has nothing to do with hating the Arabic language if you don't see the amendments, summaries of the amendments, and people's responses to it, literally in all the articles. 109.107.251.255 06:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

IP, the so-called Fay Freak is obviously on the payroll of the Aramaic lobby. Stop wasting your time. Vahag (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

So this explains the intensity of his hatred towards Arabic and his illogical bias towards Aramaic 91.186.231.244 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@91.186.231.244: I'm fairly sure that Vahagn Petrosyan is trolling you here. 0DF (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

About Zarabi surname

Hello. My grandfather's surname is Zarabi and his ancestors' surname was also Zarabi. Many of them migrated from Iran before the Islamic revolution and some migrated after that event. If they stayed in Iran, they could not survive.

They were scattered in different countries. And they are grateful to the host countries for the security and everything they received.

So I know how their last name is pronounced in their native language.

Yours faithfully

@Binarystep EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zarabi&diff=prev&oldid=1221419891&title=Zarabi&diffonly=1 EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@EncyclopedistMachine: this is a dictionary. It's about words and phrases as words and phrases. In other words, it's about the word "Zarabi", not about the Zarabi family and their history. We also have a very specific format (see WT:EL), in order to keep consistency among our 8 million entries. We also have different policies regarding authoritative references from Wikipedia (See WT:CFI). Most of the content you've added is irrelevant here, and your formatting doesn't work here. The references you've added are unnecessary. Aside from a few basic facts provided at the beginning that have been incorporated using the correct formatting and templates, your edits have just made things worse. It's not that you're trying to damage things or make a mess, but that's the effect of most of what you've done with this entry. Please take some time to learn how Wiktionary does things before making more changes. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

☺️ 👋🏻 Hello.

This is all I have written in the dictionary:

Zarabi in Persian means "Master of the Mint" and "Minter" or "Coin-maker."

@Chuck Entz

🙏🏻 EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This was a list of people who have such surnames.

I accepted the removal of the names of people like Moluk Zarrabi and did not edit the page again.

They are not my relatives.

This last name is related to occupation.

@Chuck Entz EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

In Iran, this surname is written in two ways: Zarabi ضرابی/زرابی and Zarrabi ضرّابی

wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moluk_Zarabi EncyclopedistMachine (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

my talk page

Hi. Might I enquire why you deleted my talk page. Morwen (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It was just vandalism. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Samic/te̮mpe̮l

Thanx for sorting out the page! I notice your rfe etymology, I am working on some ideas for it. 24.108.18.81 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If the etymology you first added was any indication, please don't. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, you win. But may I at least link Tampere to tempel? 24.108.18.81 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to do so? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a major city, people might be interested to know what the name means. 24.108.18.81 15:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we really not expecting users to be able to click through some links? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It makes things convenient, and it is more helpful for occasional users. 24.108.18.81 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

For one, the English didn't get the word directly from Proto-Samic; for another, the etymology isn't simply Proto-Samic > Finnish > English, but there are additional changes within the Finnish phase. I don't see the point. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Block me forever

Just block me for good. I have did lots of damage as User:Rosela Avancena. Block params: (logged-in users blocked, account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) 143.44.165.165 10:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want to be blocked, and why are you openly admitting to sockpuppetry?

P.S. @Surjection, may you please explain to me how sockpuppetry can be enforced without blatant admissions of it? Username142857 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting nothing

have a good day sir:) — This unsigned comment was added by Mckidz1 (talk • contribs) at 08:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC).

R:KTSK

Both encodeurl and PAGENAME seemingly HTML encode certain special characters (including hyphens), so on e.g. "-nönnönnöö" it looks up "-nönnönnöö". PAGENAME is the culprit: if you set 1=-nönnönnöö, there's no problem. Do you have a quick fix for this? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

smear

This looks to be a about a real person. Can you hide the edit and the one after it? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hidden, thanks. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Rollback of edit on quarter-pounder page

Hi @Surjection You reverted the edits I made on the quarter-pounder page and I respectfully request that you undo this rollback. I deleted "Now sometimes used as a genericized trademark, although the trademark remains active in many countries." As the trademark is very widely registered (in over 60 countries), it ought not be referred to as a genericized trademark as this risks users believing they can use the mark in a generic way, exposing them to trademark infringement action. Further, Quarter Pounder is not on the list of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms  List of generic and genericized trademarks and the Wikipedia Quarter Pounder page cited in the definition also makes it clear this is McDonald's brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_Pounder). The definition is more accurate without this sentence which could mislead users. Many thanks IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@IntangibleAssetEnthusiast We report language as it is used, not as you or McDonald's would like it to be used. If it is used as a generic trademark then that is a matter of fact, not law, and it is plainly justified by the five quotations under the first sense which show that it has been used that way. It is trivial to find more examples with only a cursory Google search. The Wikipedia pages that you link are not relevant, because they do not change the fact that the statement has evidential basis, and is therefore justified. Theknightwho (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

TKW, this user never learns. I don't think they can be reasoned with in any way, and I realistically do not see a reason to let them keep editing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right - I didn't realise this was StobbsOBE under a different name. We've said what needs to be said, and we've already gone out of our way to ensure the entry complies with the law by noting the trademark is still registered in many jurisdictions, so I agree there's litte point in engaging further.

I know that I said we should be open to discussion about legal issues when this first came up last year, but that doesn't extend to someone who repeatedly raises the same points over and over, as that's just a waste of everyone's time. Theknightwho (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@IntangibleAssetEnthusiast: It is bizarre that you believe that removing the sentences protects the brand. You, or your clients, attempt to avert the sign becoming (more) genericized, by removing the statement that it is sometimes, contextually, genericized, whereas the same sentence, which you attempted to remove, avers that the trademark remains, from which a competitor would conclude that he can’t legally use it, whereas without the sentence the present law fact cannot be deduced from the entry. Overall the entry gave greater impression of genericization after your edit. We also told your law firm already that genericization in a linguistic instance is distinct from the language situation, which is a legal requirement for the legal consequence of trademark protection being lost, as a whole, which is also evident from the circumstance that we claim the trademark being protected while at the same time genericized, a statement which cannot be read by a reasonable (i.e. logically-thinking) person in your shunned legally relevant sense without contradiction. Fay Freak (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Block and reverts

This revert looks wrong to me. "The most Sino-Indonesian" doesn't sound right, does it? And I reckon this was a misunderstanding. You mention "multiple accounts/block evasion" in your blocking comment, though, so perhaps I'm missing something. Denazz (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's correct, then it's fine to reinstate them. But with this particular editor, sifting out any potential good edits from the many bad ones would mean they'd be able to waste more of our time than they already do. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll go through them. Denazz (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna just undo all your recent reverts, as I reckon the IP made improvements. Will you consider unblocking? Denazz (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No. This editor is known for adding made-up terms and removing RFV templates from their entries (and sometimes others too) out of process. Any good edits they make are not balanced out by that disruption. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, suit yourself. I must admit, I got a mighty thrill from mass-reverting an admin of your standing. Doesn't happen often (neither the thrill nor the mass-reversion) Denazz (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to poke my nose in (I wonder what the etymology of that phrase is), but what's an RFV template? Username142857 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WT:RFV — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Centicameral

I have found the above word in a Wikipedia article. What counts as sufficient attestation for inclusion? Username142857 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The way the Wikipedia article is worded makes it fairly clear that it's not a word in actual use. The criteria for inclusion are documented here. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad... I know that I don't have the best track record. Also, the filters don't really seem to be fair since people wouldn't read over a hundred filter descriptions and might not know to put blank lines before headings, or that adding blank sections, or not adding references will result in your edit being reverted. I mean, if I didn't read (three of) the filters, I may have added blank sections (for others to complete) and/or not add references, since it takes a lot of work to write sections and find references, and I may have not known to put blank lines before headings Username142857 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You blocked a user, now protect a page.

You blocked User:Dontaskquestionsplz, now protect sloshball for 1 week (as a way to defeat vandalism and spamming by IPs and very new/unconfirmed users). Mihai Popa 😃📃 ^{Talk to me! 💬} 『My contributions! 🕔🕖』 06:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That term is truly existing on Chinese internet.

What should I do to prevent you from deleting my page? Gyogatsu (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

They were not formatted correctly at all. They lacked the definition and the appropriate labels, and "Esenihc" is not a valid L2 heading. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Nion LFN

Name for Japan MohammedFergana (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfair block

What you did here is unacceptable: bridge. You blocked me for adding a request for cleanup because of an incorrect/missing pronunciation. But then you went ahead and added the missing pronunciation yourself proving that the cleanup was actually needed. Kinda ridiculous, don't you think? Protegmatic (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What you did was assert that the existing pronunciation was wrong (it's not), despite not speaking that language, and simply readd the claim once a native speaker removed it. This is just another case of someone who thinks they know every language playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. A partial block from that page to ensure you simply wouldn't add that request again is completely reasonable. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely don't think I can speak Finnish, otherwise I would've added the pronunciation myself. But you know what, just go ahead and perma block me. I'm sick and tired of devoting hours of my day to editing and improving Wiktionary and still being treated like shit by little bitches like you who think they own this website Protegmatic (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Protegmatic has a history of working in languages they have no knowledge in and causing problems. I would support a longer block on their account. -- Sokkjō 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

dogoir

Please take care to do a bare minimum of searching before deleting an entry as a "Creative invention or protologism". Ioaxxere (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Kunci is Hausa

Kunci means cheek and distress MoHmMohsNRaf (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't delete entries in languages just because "the word is the same in another language". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i think i make a wiktionary page with Kunci word in hausa , please??

I will make hausa word for kater MoHmMohsNRaf (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@MoHmMohsNRaf Add a Hausa entry if you think it is correct, but do not remove entries for other languages. Theknightwho (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

finnish forms bot

hi sir when creat finnish forms with your bot 5.219.53.34 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Valdemar

It is a mistake that you reverted my edits. Valdemar is a Germanic name and I described it in detail but that didn't prevent you from just reverting it. The first person to bear the name was Valdemar I of Kiev, who was of Swedish Viking descent. He ruled over Kiev Rus, a slavic territory, but his original name was Valdemar, not Vladimir. I provided the germanic etymology but you removed it. In fact the first slavic transcriptions of Valdemar were something like Volodimer/u or Voldemaru. Vladimir is a relatively recent adaptation from the Germanic name. All the descendants of Vladimir I of Kiev who bore the name, including all the Kings of Denmark and Sweden were also Germanic. The fact that they sometimes ruled over slavic territories means nothing since Germanics ruled over Poland, Baltics, Russia etc. for centuries. So in conclusion, it is certainly a Germanic name adapted into slavic, popularised by many rulers who bore the name. The name in modern ukranian is still Volodimeru which further supports the germanic origin theory. If you still have doubts check the german, dutch, swedish etc. wikipedia articles on this, or at least put that there are two origin hypotheses. But it cannot say "ultimately from Slavic" because that is 100% not true, especially not in the case of the germanic languages. 62.4.55.104 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The linked Slavic entry goes over the likely Germanic origin. Saying that all of the languages got the name from Germanic without any intermediate Slavic influence would simply be wrong in the vast majority of the cases. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go over it. In most cases it simply says: "ultimately from Proto-Slavic" which is 100% wrong. It's a germanic name popularised because the Germanic people who carried it ruled over Slavs, as I thoroughly explained to you. But if you feel you have the authority to correct my improvements without any linguistic and historic knowledge on your behalf, go for it. I'm not going to go back and forth with a Wikipedia user. The main fault with Wikipedia is precisely this, that facts matter nothing when you have people without knowledge like yourself who can simply delete/revert all improvements with one click. 62.4.55.104 14:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does: Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/Voldiměrъ. You simply didn't read what I wrote. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

No good deed deletion

What is the reason for the deletion? I was adding context because there is a very important reason for this reality 107.204.73.89 18:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to a dictionary, nor does it follow the current formatting. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My talk page

Hi, I noticed you deleted a thread from my user talk page. I was just wondering what the IP said, was it a death threst or something?

Also, do you know if it is possible for me to back to a normal discussion format on my talk page, I am better suited to the traditional ways. Thanks. Commander Keane (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was. I'm afraid I don't know enough about LiquidThreads to say how to disable it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Mud shark

Curious why it was deleted? Mud shark is derogatory, and almost always used in context with the word nigger.

Also, it alludes to the fact that women who engage with black men are extremely promiscuous. 206.84.247.108 15:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No respectable dictionary can use derogatory terminology to define terms. This isn't a hard concept to understand. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification. 206.84.247.108 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Woodwright

Roy Underhill himself admitted to coining the term himself in this source. --18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 2600:6C5D:5B00:A84D:EDF2:27F3:E688:F374 18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If so, it's nonsense - it's easy to find quotes older than the date you added on the entry, and there already even is one on the entry. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking me for “disruptive editing” after completely disregarding the misbehavior of a fellow admin which I had brought up in a talk where you did not even care to intervene. Judging by this and the absolute inaction of the few who spent some words, now I know you are all part of the same mob. That is not going to deter me. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 09:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Dare I say, a cabal? A cabal who will not let an honest editor freely make a pig's ear of entries in numerous languages? Bah! The horror! — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I would ask you to point out where I was “making a pig’s ear” out of any entry before you blocked me, but I don’t want to waste more time trying to make you see the obvious fact that I was merely aligning the wording within the page. Keep up the mess! Bye. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 10:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is your attitude after all this, I don't think the community is going to tolerate your editing for much longer. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Since when is editing a language one is not familiar with against the rules? From gleaning this talk page it seems that you edit pages in Hausa and Georgian, which you according to your user page are not familiar with? 79.147.122.134 15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi 'inconspicuous' IP. Reverting vandalism or disruptive edits is nowhere near the same thing as making bold edits on a wide variety of languages, arguing against reputable editors who work on those languages, and edit warring to restore one's changes. Equating the two is ludicrous. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What is ludicrous is judging this “vandalism or disruptive edits”. It’s none of that. Disingenuously masking your abuses of power will not encourage people to collaborate to the project. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 15:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My bad. The essence is the same though. No one in their sane mind would consider rewording a sentence a “bold edit against reputable editors”. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 16:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You are intentionally leaving out the fact that you were edit warring against the same editor over something bold. Being intellectually dishonest isn't going to help your case in the slightest. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

that page i made was all i had

that was all i had left

i have nothing anymore

thank you 92.54.254.53 17:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "vampyyri"

We seem to have different opinion of how the word vampyyri is pronounced. You seem to think it is ˈʋɑmp(ː)yːriˌ whereas I hear it as ˈʋɑmpyːri. I think ˈʋɑmp(ː)yːri, if anything, is colloquial, just like ˈolymp(ː)iɑlɑi̯set. I don't know, however, how to prove it either way. My only "proof" is Kielitoimiston verkkosanakirja. If a word is pronounced differently from its written form, they tend to make a note of it. In case of olympialaiset and vampyyri they don't do it. Hekaheka (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's likely that it is at least informal, but that is how I've heard it pronounced most of the time. Searching for "vamppyyri" gives plenty of examples of the pronunciation spelling, showing that it's definitely not just me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, KTSK doesn't give any pronunciation guide for sekunti, but the pronunciation with an ungeminated -t- is much more rare in my experience (most people say sekuntti). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Language redirection

The only reason I am changing the language to a different language is because the original language doesn't exist on that page, and linking to a nonexistent language causes preview definitions to break. Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You weren't watching what you were doing, and started changing language codes to wrong ones, such as those in headword templates. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Bulgarian translation rolled back

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/afterpeak So what is wrong with translation? Pl71 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Never replace existing language sections with another language. If this is a Bulgarian term, then add a new section for it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've just copied it from another language, since words are identical. And edited later. OK, I will try again. Pl71 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Independent?

Are you a “Disinformation Specialist”? Followtheconstitution (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a political battleground. Go take your soapboxing elsewhere. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert this?

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=war_su_gai&oldid=prev&diff=81319346 Yrotarobal (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reasons: there is no reason for us to care about some random claim, the inventor of the dish is practicaly irrelevant to the term's etymology, a YouTube video isn't a proper source, and so on. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If someone interviews the suspected inventor(s) of the dish and then puts the information in a local paper, then would that be a more trusted source to put on Wiktionary? Yrotarobal (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but it does nothing to address the fact that it's irrelevant to a dictionary (this isn't an encyclopedia of world cuisine). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

But even a dictionary like Merriam-Webster and Oxford will include examples pulled from sources--examples where the word is in use. Yrotarobal (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have quotations too. Speculation on who invented a dish or even confirmed information about that is still irrelevant to the goals of a dictionary and so does not belong in the main text. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Orpous-like pages

I don't understand why you've rollbacked the edits. According to the entry, Orpous comes from orpo plus the suffix -uus. Orpo comes from the PIE word *h₃órbʰos as a loanword. So why can't Orpoushave the category for the words coming from *h₃órbʰos? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Because by this token, we'd have to list every single derivative and compound. That is simply not productive, for the same reason it'd be counter-productive to add "derived from Proto-Finnic" whatever into every single entry too. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'vem made multiple edits like these. So what should I do? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, clean up after yourself. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you erase my notes?

Who are you and why do you oppose sciente corrections? CSousa26 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are you? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you erase my notes on "coroa" and "peixe" and "quão" and "bispo" and "rei"? CSousa26 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Because this site is not a place for you to promote your "puristic" conlang. Stop adding them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not mine. I want to promote verbal sciente but you want to promote verbal rudeness.

What is the meaning of "conlag"? Do you want to wirte "constructed language"?

What is "puristic"? Can you recone the radice of that word?

And what is radice of "promote"? CSousa26 (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@CSousa26: first of all, this is English Wiktionary, so all definitions, notes, etc. must be in English. You obviously don't know English well enough to write much of anything without errors. Secondly, please read WT:NOT: Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, so we describe language as people actually use it, not how you would like them to. Also, talking about words being "corruptions" of Latin makes no sense in a descendant language such as Portuguese, since the same logic could be used to describe the whole language as a "corruption" of Latin (what's the ablative plural of Portuguese casa?). If you wanted to be really consistent, you would have written "corruptio" instead of "corrupção", and you would have referred to Latin rex instead of its accusative singular form regem, which was mentioned in the etymology because Portuguese nouns generally came from the Latin accusative (that's why the plurals end in "s"). From that, I can only conclude that you know very little about Latin, as well. So, basically, you don't know very much about anything you're writing about, but you want to believe that you know more than the people who wrote those entries, who are mostly native speakers of Portuguese. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of "etc." and "obviously" and "don't (do not)" and "English" and "much" and "anything (any thing)" and "without (with out)" and "actually" and "what's (what is)" and "really" and "consistent (com sistent)" and "that's (that is)" and "basically" and "you're (you are)"?

I am Portuguese and i study these verbs all days.

What do you fear? And why do you use of all those ","? It is an error.

Go study verbs and grammatic art. CSousa26 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You are either trolling or too incompetent to contribute here. Nobody here is going to stop reverting and blocking you, so you might as well stop trying. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you answer my interrogations?

Do you know the meaning of "either" or "incompetent" or "contribute" or "nobody (no nody)" or "reverting" or "blocking" or "trying"?

Do you know the meaning of this sub fixe "-ing"? CSousa26 (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• (no body) CSousa26 (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Our people used to say "Savachão" in stead of "Sebastião" and "nombro" in stead of "número" and "sepolo" in stead of "discipulo" and "hun" in stead of "um" and "Oméé" in stead of "Homem".

Should we say "Savachão" and "nombro" and "sepolo" and "hun" and "Oméé"? Those were popular forms. CSousa26 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverting interwiki links to cy

Hi, @Surjection! You reverted a number of interwiki links that I created with the note "this isn't how wikilinks work." Could you tell me the best way of going about adding the translations? Or is it that the Welsh wiktionary needs, for example, the English "covendom" explained on the Welsh version? Cheers! Xxglennxx (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See WT:Translations. On Wiktionary, interlanguage links are used to link to the same term on other language editions, not to the translations of a term. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Surjection! I *think* I've worked it out! Thank you, also, for the interwiki comment - I didn't realise they were handled automatically. Thank you for your help (and clean-ups!). Xxglennxx (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I did the edit ever.

Sorry About That For Reverting. Gusss35 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Add Category:English 4chan slang to coal

As some of the etymologies state that the word coal is used on soyjak.party and 4chan as slang, the page should be updated to include the category English 4chan slang. I cannot edit it myself to add the category and I noticed you were the one to lock the page, so I would like to request that this category be added (it is already supported by some of the page content). Additionally, to the noun sense of the word please add #: Antonym: gem and to the adjective sense please add #: Antonym: gemmy. 129.97.16.82 20:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits in question

Hi, I was wondering if some of the edits I make aren't accurate to the topic or if the reverts I receive in some of my edits are a result of my misunderstanding of a definition. 47.149.89.167 00:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

All of the examples you add are bad. They're overly contrived and do not sound natural at all. Please stop trying to add them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

exmuslimophobia/kafirophobia

exmuslimophobia is not in common use, but "kafirophobia" does seem to be. Would kafirophobia be an acceptable term then? 2607:FEA8:3242:AB00:B571:5379:74E9:C5A2 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(regarding https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exmuslimophobia) 2607:FEA8:3242:AB00:B571:5379:74E9:C5A2 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Terms need to meet the criteria for inclusion. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

North Africa

Hi, sorry I make modification in the page, I don't saw your message on the talkpage. Just to informe you that Sudan not a part of North Africa. Best regards. --2A01:E0A:AB6:900:1D14:8459:7A4A:2D7A 10:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I see exactly what you are doing - you are going wiki to wiki and changing sourced statements to say something different than what they say to push your own personal opinion. That is not going to work here. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

gay agenda

Hey. Can you add gay agenda to Derived terms of gay? It's protected Denazz (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Gapazoid blocked for pedophilia advocacy

Can we please talk about this on my talk page? I am a reasonable person. If unblocked, I will not try any pedo-related edits ever again.

I was not advocating for changing age of consent laws. I was not advocating for child abuse. I was not advocating for any actions that would victimize a minor. I am fundamentally against these things.

I am also did the edits on brain fever and mouse-colored under the IP 206.180.38.20. I've done useful edits.

I recognize that using an alternate ip to contact you can be considered ban evasion, but no one has responded to my block appeal. I swear to you, I am not a bad faith actor. 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:A4 22:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Your edits are against Wikimedia policy, per meta:Child protection and meta:User talk:Tyciol#Policy and effects. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Then could you please change the stated reason for my block from "pedophilia advocacy" to "self-identifying as a pedophile" 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:A4 10:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No, promoting the idea that there are "non-offending" pedophiles counts as "pedophilia advocacy". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So you don't believe that there are non-offending pedophiles? 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:A4 21:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter what she believes. You made a pedophilia-related entry less correct, attempting to make readers confused, and you are mentally preoccupied with pedophilia. This counts as advocacy. Whether or not you or a representative of your group “offends” is polysemic, but you are playing with this idea and thereby normalize the presence of a pedophile as an identity instead of deconstructing it, which counts as advocacy.

The issue is the attention: “promoting the idea” … not “that there are non-offending pedophiles”. A dynamical understanding of knowledge. Of course you can also not violate laws or rights of persons or their health, be legally and ethically impeccable by not doing anything to them at all, if that’s what you are trying to say. But we did not say otherwise. We are also reasonable persons, but verbalizing reason has constraints in society. The likelihood is that contextually we are more reasonable than you, given that you are pedophile, or associate yourself with them.

The issue remains that you are wrong, by being, or identifying as, what ever the difference is, a pedophile. So do everyone a favour and redirect your attention; affects can in fact go away, or be suppressed, by personality changes, because what you contend about yourself influences the apperceptions that you remember, the so-called autobiographical memory, and if that is shifted the feelings you recognize are different. Don’t listen so much to confirmation bias in the guise of logics, man is not made not to contradict himself. Obviously crowdworked pages on such a matter, what man is and can be, only have superficial coherence. People are insecure about it due to their untamed drives, and they already write assumed truths by dint of their procedural memory, before conscience or self-aware thinking allows them a balanced summary of their knowledge of the world.

In fact Wikipedia’s plank of stating neutral points of view backed by distilled majority opinions dumbs the editors and readers down, when it should be the platform to enable people to have a POV by their amassed information. People are confused enough by the internet and become more so insomuch as they don’t see examples of someone choicefully having a slanted stance, to integrate the chaos that is otherwise unseen in its entirety. Their statement “sexual orientation is not a choice” and “sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy” is false as well as, though not as much as, true at the same time. The issue is that if you believe you can’t do anything about your situation then you will not, because of this belief that you will fail anyway, so your self does not expend the resources for it, even if there was a chance. On some level there is no fundamental difference between what you are, i.e. what you define yourself as, and what you do, or are eventually going to do given opportunity. Reformulating it, if you believe it is just okay to maintain this identity, it is strengthened by repetition, forging its memory in your individual person as well as cultural memory thereof, and thereby you support what you are fundamentally against. Fay Freak (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The binding section of Wiktionary:Blocking policy states,

• It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed.

This was one edit. Not a reoccuring issue. You could have given me a stern warning, letting me know that if I persist, I will be blocked.

The meta:Child protection page lists the following as grounds for being blocked per Wikimedia TOS:

• Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography or child sexual abuse material, or encouraging, grooming, or advocating for others to create or share such material
• Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 years, or under the age of majority where you are if higher than 18 years, for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors.

It also gives the following paraphrasing of several local policies. Note that Wiktionary is not listed as having one of these local policies.

• Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.

I have not done any of these things, except identifying myself as a pedophile. None of these policies include text to the effect that promoting the idea that pedophiles can be against inappropriate adult-minor relationships is grounds for being blocked.

"Pedophilia advocacy" makes it sound like I was advocating for inappropriate adult-minor relationships, which is not true. Could you please change the stated reason for my block to "promoting the idea that there are non-offending pedophiles"? 181.215.172.124 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Pedophilia advocacy" makes it sound like I was advocating for inappropriate adult-minor relationships, which is not true. Could you please change the stated reason for my block to "promoting the idea that there are non-offending pedophiles"? 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:BB 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No, promoting the idea that there are "non-offending" pedophiles counts as "pedophilia advocacy". And I'm going to repeat myself only so many times. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hi. Despite the fact that we don't interact much, you're probably the most active and regular reverter-patroller on the site. It seems that we have only one active CU right now (as opposed to two), who is User:Chuck Entz. It would surely be helpful for yourself and everyone else if you are nominated to become a check-user, seeing the quantity of vandalism you deal with everyday and the most active poster at WT:CU. Svartava (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

CU rights require me to hand over personal contact information to the WMF for legal reasons. I am not willing to do so. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing my admin tools

Yeah, when I saw this a fortnight or so ago, I sulked for a few minutes, but quickly realised it was appropriate -- I do little Recent Changes patrolling, and the reason I haven't used the tools in so long is that Undo is easy enough, so I've used that rather than re-learn the more sophisticated methods that were available. And if I find anyone who needs to be blocked, which clearly I have not done for over 5 years, I can now request someone else to do it, probably faster than re-reading how to do it myself! And I don't think I ever used any other admin tools, so while my account is fairly secure, it wasn't worth the risk of leaving me with them. I supported the 5 yr rule when we introduced it, and the fact I had forgotten how to use the tools demonstrates that it is quite long enough. As you said, if the way I work on Wikt changes in a way which would make the tools useful to me, I can ask for them back, but they're not required for my usual work in adding cites, minor corrections, new senses and occasional new words. --Enginear 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Fielden

The Oxford Artisan distillery has rebranded to Fielden and moved to Yorkshire, I am in the process of creating a new article please see Wikipedia:Draft:Fielden Distillery for cites and information.ChefBear01 (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not relevant to a dictionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is an example of the word Fielden and it’s definition being used as part of name.ChefBear01 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Still not relevant. The same principle could be used to add basically anything. It's not a dictionary's job to list every company or institution that uses a specific word in its name. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Gapazoid continued

sorry, trying to reply with literally any text in the previous topic prompted an "auto personal attack detector" 76.35.75.228 23:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

let me see if i can move this to my talk page 76.35.75.228 23:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

An informal declension paradigm for -ing nouns

Hi,

there's quite a few -ing final loan words in Finnish (as well as some -ong/-onki final ones like medaljonki). These generally get adapted to one of two paradigms – risti with -ng(i) or -nk(i).

Anecdotally, converting the first type to the second is common in informal speech. For instance "curlinkia" and "kurlinkia" give quite a few ghits, even from newspapers and curling.fi. [2][3].

I think this should be added as an optional parametre to {{fi-decl-risti}}, and it wouldn't take me long. The reason I'm running this by you is that informal inflection is a Pandora's pithos. However, this specific example seems consistent and small in scale.

Best, brittletheories (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you want me to add. If foreign -ing nouns get adapted to -inki, that sounds like alternative forms to me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I would only change the oblique strong-grade stems, so for instance:

curling – curlingit

curlingin – curlingien, curlinkien (informal)

curlingia, curlinkia (informal) – curlingeja, curlinkeja (informal)

brittletheories (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think forms like curlinkia are any less attestable than curlinki as a nominative would be. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is the same phonemenon behind forms like pop ~ poppi > poppia. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

napukkõ

Voitko antaa tälle sanalle syvemmän etymologian? Auringonlasku (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Auringonlasku, Surjection, Maas555 Onko CäCVCCä > CaCVCCõ yleinenkin äännemuutos vatjassa, vai liittyisikö tuo ennemminkin germaaniseen knappi-sanaan? Ainakin suomen sana napukka vaikuttaisi tulevan ensisijassa ruotsin suunnasta,[4][5] joskin tämän tapaisissa äännesymbolisissa sanoissa on vaikea löytää mitään yhtä lähdettä. brittletheories (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

En todellakaan tiedä, miten vastata tähän, morfologia ei ole vahvuuteni. Auringonlasku (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sack (and timing of your rollback)

On 14:43, 5 August 2023 you have rejected my edit about "sack". I don't understand how have you managed to do that in less than two hours after my edit. Do you get paid to guard Wikipedia ;)

Wendish/Slovene language has a word "žakelj". Why should that not be mentioned on Wikipedia? Is it harmful or unscientific for some reason? Majcha (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The etymology you added is complete nonsense. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And why? Not just a nonsense but a complete nonsense. May I ask why?

It is a biased approach not to take into consideration any Slavic language. That's a complete nonsense. Majcha (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to even entertain it. This was complete nonsense and everyone here knows it. If you don't, then do not edit etymology sections, pure and simple. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You cannot dismiss someone by simply saying what he or she claims is a complete nonsense. There is a word In Wendisch/Slovene žaku/saku. What does not make sense here for you? Majcha (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The simplification (from the pronunciation point of view) of the word žaku is a word saku. Ž (same pronunciation as j in French) becomes s. What is a nonsense here? Majcha (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are not even going to entertain it as you put it, it means that you are not truly interested in etymology. A real researcher has his or her eyes and ears widely open even for sth that at first might look like nonsense to him or her. Majcha (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The sack side as possible origins mentions only Middle English, Old English, Proto-West Germanic, Proto-Germanic, Latin Ancient Greek, Semitic, Phoenician and Hebrew. And says that that the word sack is cognate with words in the following languages: Dutch, German, Swedish, Danish, Hebrew, Armanic, Classical Syriac, Ge'ez, Akkadian and Egyptian.

No mention of any Slavic language. Is that the scientific approach of Wikipedia? Majcha (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And by the way, you haven's answered the question how on earth is it possible for someone to have so much time in his or her day to be able to manage to roll back what someone has written in less than to hours. You are being paid to delete things that apparently are not to someone liking. Majcha (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Majcha: I'm not going to explain the entirety of historical linguistics to you, but it's all about finding the simplest solution and regularity. We know there was a previous word for "sack" in English, which can become the modern word by regular sound change, so why would it be borrowed? We also know how borrowings from Slovene into English works - you would not get "sack" by borrowing from "žakelj" or "žaku", you would have "zhack" or something of that sort. Not to mention the fact that "Wendish" is not a name we use for Sorbian.

I am going to suggest you not continue editing etymologies on this website without first familiarising yourself with what historical linguistics is and how it works. If you're interested, I could recommend some literature on that. Thadh (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thadh

1) Wendish was never used for Sorbian. Wendish was used for Slovene. Big difference. Can we first come at the same page on that?

2) Making a distinction between žaku and zhack. Is this even serious? Were words borrowed in the past in written or in oral form? In oral. So why bother with how the word is written? The pronunciation is what matters. Majcha (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you were true etymologists you would be eagerly interested in things beyond your books. But yeah, I understand. It is all nicely described and made logical for you in those books. English originates in Latin, Greek, Proto-Germanc (what ever Proto-Germanc means, as long as it is Germanic) It is a nice go to bed story for you all. No further research in-vivo needed. Why bother with Wendish/Slovene. Ore even Sorbian. Is that one and the same language. Well, who cares. I understand you guys, completely. Majcha (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Suomistan

Onko tämä mielestäsi loukkaavaa? Auringonlasku (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Block

You blocked me yesterday for supposedly doing "vandalism" when all I did was remove likely vandalistic edits on the pages Robert and Lulu where someone had added that the names Robert and Lulu mean "idoiot" (misspelled so it doesn't get marked as "harmful") in chinese. No materials available on the internet seem to support that these names mean that in Chinese. And on top of that, you added that I should tell you on the talk page if your rollbacks are a mistake but blocked me from doing so which wasn't very nice. 86.50.70.58 22:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You cannot simply delete senses you don't agree with as "vandalism". Again, you must use the proper procedure to dispute the existence of senses, which is WT:RFV. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

So you think Robert and Lulu mean "idioit" in Chinese and should be kept there when there are no sources to these? The person in question added a "reference" which is impossible to verify whether it actually says that and no other source on the internet seems to agree. Maybe remove it and bring about whether they should be added then? (and it will probably be agreed that they shouldn't because no reliable sources se to cite that) 86.50.70.58 23:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's not how any of this works. Use the proper procedure to dispute whether the senses exist, if you actually care about it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time actually editing anything on here and I have no idea how to do it. Since you are some kinda user with blocking abilities then maybe you do it? Since you have them you too are probably supposed to care if articles get vandalized instead of protecting a vandal as you're doing right now, without caring what gets added and if the sources are verifiable. 86.50.70.58 23:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, already did it. You are incredibly ignorant. 86.50.70.58 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have any knowledge of Chinese, which I strongly doubt, then you are in no position to say whether or not it's real. Throwing around insults like "ignorant" because you don't understand that Cantonese slang often borrows English terms with semantic shifts is going to get you nowhere. Theknightwho (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

ES6

I've noticed you've been writing gadgets mostly using "old-school" JavaScript, i.e. jQuery and no ES6 syntax. It's a stylistic difference to some extent but there are some things objectively better in ES6, like let having sane scoping rules or array.includes(item) being much more explicit than array.indexOf(item) !== -1. There's no compatibility difference because MediaWiki won't load any gadgets on old browsers that don't support ES6. It's not a huge difference but I'm just wondering whether you have a preference one way or the other. Ioaxxere (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it documented somewhere that gadgets don't load on browsers that don't support ES6? Does this also apply to CSS? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Surjection: See mw:Compatibility#Browsers. Here's the function which runs on every page load — note that ES6 arrow functions are specifically checked for. The page notes that "CSS can be assumed to succeed", and keep in mind that aside from template styles (sanitized CSS), there aren't any checks to stop you from using recent CSS features like :has(), so by all means keep being careful with that. It doesn't make sense to avoid stuff like flexbox and grid in 2024, though. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

why did u revert my edit?

i did nothing wrong, you reverted my edit no reason. there is no reason. 4.39.220.106 19:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't you have better things to do than complain about a revert of obvious vandalism 8 months ago? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Finnish reference template style

Hi, WT:STYLE doesn't enforce any particular reference style, but mixing word orders within-language looks silly (like at pruju). I think we should harmonize Category:Finnish reference templates. Do you have any preferences? brittletheories (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No. But it's probably a good idea to use the standardize cite templates. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User asking about your block

There is a note about your block here: ticket:2024092010009777 - may not require any action, up to you. Xaosflux (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I still cannot access whatever system that is. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

kuningatar

Hi, Where did you get this? ПростаРечь (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is both in SSA and Rapolan 1800-luvun sanasto. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Abuse filter problem

Your filter 32 ("various specific spammer habits") is preventing me from creating the WINS entry describing the Microsoft solution stack. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:309D:3FF3:B4F3:C8 18:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not really my filter, but I suspect it's being overly zealous about some of the words there. Could you try again now? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, worked. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:309D:3FF3:B4F3:C8 19:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-PagePreviews.js

The actual cause of the flash was that opacity was set on the child element whereas drop-shadow existed on the parent element. That meant that the shadow was being shown at full blast even as the element was fading in or out. I was able to fix that by reorganizing the CSS a little bit. Your edit completely disabled the shadow on dark mode, which isn't ideal, and doesn't account for users toggling dark mode while on the page, so I've had to revert it. Just a reminder that you can always ping me if you want to make changes, since there are a lot of interconnected systems in the code (and in CSS in general) so it's easy to cause problems if you're not careful. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

ゆっくり

I think the definition I added was accurate and can be confirmed; what was wrong with it that it was not acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Incorrect formatting, 2. it's doubtful whether that is dictionary material to begin with. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Twat

You're reversion is criminal hate speech. My changes are sourced and valid, you will be prosecuted if you don't disengage. I simply quoted the Wikipedia page. This Wiktionary entry is actually criminal with an accused sex offender (Puff Daddy) used as primary source. Inexcusable. PaddyAhern44 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. No, my reversion is not "criminal hate speech". You added an unsourced, likely folk etymology, broke the definition to mean something else than it does, and added information with completely incorrect formatting. You are free to discuss changes on WT:TEA or the talk page, but you must not restore them in the form they were. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reversion in caipira

Caipira is truly a people; it has all the characteristics of a people, such as its own culture (1), languages (2) (3), cultural region (4), etc. Historically, "Caipira" was a term used by indigenous people to refer to the Paulista bandeirantes, today can also be a synonym for 'Paulista,' in reference to the state of São Paulo (or Paulistania). There is no cultural or etymological connection between caipira, "hillbilly," and "yokel," and terms like rustic, jeca, jacu, interiorano and provincial are merely pejoratives or stereotypes. Danfosky (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not remove senses just because you do not like them. If the terms are used, we will document them. If you think they are not, you are free to start a WT:RFV. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hello! Could you be so kind and take a look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Thanks, TenWhile6 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there something specific to focus on? Too many people misuse {{delete}} which is why few admins these days want to bother with checking the category these days. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing specific, but it's getting more and more backlogged and sysops are the only ones who can reject deletion requests by removing the template or decide to delete them. Therefore, it would be nice if you have some time to look at parts of the category and maybe ask other colleagues (your wiki has 20+ sysops, wow) for help. Best regards, TenWhile6 10:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reorigimortis

Why delete this? It's a portmanteau. Goobysnack (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not add terms you came up with yourself. Terms must actually be in use; see WT:CFI. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

How do terms come into use if you don't define them? Goobysnack (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary is for defining terms in actual use, not proposing new terms to be used. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a chicken and egg problem. Goobysnack (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no chicken-and-egg problem unless you're trying to make something a word. This site isn't, again, for that. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary Rule Not Making Sense

So, Surjection, I have seen that you are going to delete my page for the word 'shitlip', when really, I was trying to document a slur. And that's when I saw a rule in Wiktionary saying that slurs cannot be documented, when really, the n word is literally on this page. I think that is kind of hypocritical. So, tell me: is documenting slurs here against the rules, or allowed? Tell me. Sondroop (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule that slurs cannot be documented. The rule is that slurs need to have three independent citations (per WT:CFI) added within two weeks or they will be deleted. This was put in place because too many people were making up random derogatory terms and adding them to Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sadly that is really common here Sondroop (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Rollbacked pages

Hello, Surjection. I have made some edits on the page ᠠᠪᡴᠠ, ᡩᡝᡵᡤᡳ ᠠᠪᡴᠠ, ᡤᡝᠩᡤᡳᠶᡝᠨ ᠠᠪᡴᠠ, ᠨᡳᠣᡥᠣᠨ ᠠᠪᡴᠠ, ᡥᡝᠯᠮᡝᠨ, ᡤᡝᡵᠰᡳ ᡶᡝᡵᠰᡳ, ᡠᠯᡩᡝ᠋ᠨ without logging in today, through the IP adress 43.230.11.110. Could you tell me the reasons of these rollbacks? Thanks. --MiiCii (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you should double-check the formatting. Many of the entries you created were also evidently sum-of-parts (how is "In autumn the sky is white or has no color" entry-worthy?) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Paldoxin

Hello Surjection, you reverted my edit. Are you sure you know enough about the modes of action of fungicides to do this? In my opinion it is not justified to coin a word and make such a large claim for its usage. Bosula (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you do not think the term has sufficient usage, you're free to use WT:RFV. The coiners of a term, even if the information is correct, do not belong in the definition. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

MAGAt page

Hello, sorry for bothering. I was looking at the MAGAt page in English, and since ai don't know where else to ask, raise a question about this, I came here. The page is https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/MAGAt

I was wondering if there's more sources, because I always understood that the word is not a blend of MAGA + maggot, but MAGA + hat, because the people called that use red hats that say MAGA. Is there a way to validate more indepth the origins of word?

Again, sorry for bothering. IslandOfH (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking in the Tea Room. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 00:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure I will because I just registered with this specific question, and I'm afraid to make a fool of myself.

But again, thank you :) IslandOfH (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to put audios on your page.

I'm a Burmese native speaker and I'm helping Burmese learners online to learn Burmese efficiently. I want to put my audio on your page I see someone removed it. I'm not good at technology and wiki stuff. I just asked ChatGPT how to do it. If you don't mind,I would like to add my work on your page to help my friends. Your page is very useful. Akari Hnin (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The template documentation is not the best place to put these. Appendix:Burmese pronunciation works better. I'd also use {{audio-mini}} (e.g. {{audio-mini|Burmese vowels.ogg}}) for these instead of {{audio}}. The file name also isn't ideal, because it doesn't tell you what vowel it is. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Rollback incorrect

My entry for "poopy" was something that is not good or not well. Please revert. Liamlalaliam (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Your edit was formatted incorrectly, was in the wrong place (that is not a noun) and is redundant with the information already on the page. It's your responsibility to read the page you're editing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No Liamlalaliam (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Surjection's rollback isn't incorrect. Sergiogriffiths (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I was banned for no reason for a bit. My edits were fine. Liamlalaliam (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I want my user page back

Thank you צבוע לבנה (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/karhu

may I ask why was this edit reverted? the only thing it had was adding {{etymon}}, not even adding the etymology inside it. Juwan (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if there were a point to adding {{etymon}} templates for every language (which I frankly do not see, and I'm fairly sure there was discussion specifically about not adding it everywhere without discussion), simply adding it as "uncertain" does a massive disservice to the etymology that is actually on the page. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Surjection even so, it is useful for helping categorise its descendants (which I did and you undid as well). if I read the documentation correctly, when there are two competing etymologies, both uncertain, one is not supposed to add either to etymon. the PIE bear etymon is available if needed, so it is up to someone who is smarter than me in this specific family to decide. Juwan (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

pizza

Oletko koskaan kuullut jonkun lausuvan pizza /pitsːɑ/? Kuulen vanhempieni ääntämisen (kuulokojeestani) tällä tavalla, ehkä se johtuu laitteessa olevasta epätarkkuudesta. Auringonlasku (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

En ole. Netistä löytyy jonkin verran "pitssaa" mutta enpä tiedä mitä sillä on haettu. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

👍 Auringonlasku (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryJumpTo.js

This has been in CAT:E since you created it. I'm guessing your method of preventing the template syntax from executing didn't work, though I have no clue why. You would know better than I would. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

oikea for 90 degree angle

I don't really understand why you think "suora" could be correct translation for "of an angle, 90 degrees". Even the finnish wiktionary only mentions "Sanan vanhin merkitys on ehkä ollut ’suora’" so "The oldest meaning of the word may have been 'straight'", but no young finnish person would understand it so. https://fi.wiktionary.org/wiki/oikea 217.78.200.114 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Kukaan ei kutsu 90 asteen kulmaa "oikeaksi kulmaksi", vaan se on "suora kulma". Puhutko oikeasti ollenkaan suomea? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Okei joo sori. Kyl sä oot oikeessa. Noi käännökset kyl näyttää tosi oudoilta kun niis ei ole sitä kontekstia. Esim tossakin vois olla just suorakulma käännöksenä. Samoin tuol oli joku käännös right:ille "täysi" mikä kuullostaa tosi oudolta ennen kuin tajuaa et se on osa sanaa täysijärkistä. Mut nää nyt tuntuu olevan yleisiä ongelmia wiktionarylle ja varmaan viel yleisemmin kaikille muillekkin sanakirjoille. 217.78.200.114 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Kyllä siinä on se konteksti. Siinä nimenomaan sanotaan että mikä on käännös termille "right" merkityksessä "of an angle, 90 degrees", joka on ilman muuta suora. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

When you delete

Remember to check "linked pages", and remove the incoming links. I just found a link to gasocrine. There might be more. If you don't remove red links, other users will see them and recreate the deleted entry. And it will be just as awful. Thank you. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D5D3:367:202:F5DE 17:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Term move

The term was moved to a page that discusses the given name (Robert) as a noun (robert). There is nothing wrong with that, and also it makes no sense to list it under Chinese as the term is Cantonese. There was no real reason for you to do what you did, except perhaps that you personally did not like my edit for some reason and personally really want the term to be in the page about name rather than its usage as a noun. What exactly is wrong to list it in the article about the names usage as a noun rather than a given name? Please use common sense and put stuff back. 86.50.70.58 12:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Chinese does not normally use the Latin script and thus normal capitalization rules like "it is a common noun, therefore it is not capitalized" do not apply. Regarding the heading, all Chinese lemmas are subsumed under the Chinese heading, as is clearly described on WT:AZH. Do not ascribe any motives to me - I have plenty of edits on this site, and your edits are all about these two pages and trying to get the entries removed. Just drop it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If you dont want people to ascribe motives to you then dont act like you have them, thats common sense. As for my edits, I atleast had a reasonable explanation. It is used as a noun so adding it there makes more sense since th page seems to discuss the noun as well as it obviously wont always be spelled with the capital letter when people use it as a noun but you probably didnt even think about it. Distinguishing the pages between the names usage in different languages and usage of it as a noun in different languages makes sense. 86.50.70.58 13:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I as easily as anyone else can easily ascribe a motive to you, because it is completely obvious to anyone who looks over your edits. As I said, all of them have been focused on trying to get these definitions removed from Robert and Lulu (especially the former) in one way or another. It is clear to anyone that it is all you care about and that you try to find any reason to justify doing so. So far you haven't been able to give a single one that was even somewhat convincing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

hi

Dear Surjection, could you please send me a mail, so that i can send you one back? Thanks, --Ghilt (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I do not have any interest in revealing my email address. Is there a reason you cannot use the email functionality? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Same to me, i sent you a wikimail, best regards, --Ghilt (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

*ämȣ̈nȣ̈

i created and edited those two pages mainly because i thought that, since the etymologies of ugric words in hungarian are on uralonet, i thought that maybe it was a correct etymology. i didn't even know it was outdated. JustASurvWol (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Uralonet is definitely outdated in many respects when it comes to Proto-Uralic. I don't know too much about how up-to-date its Ugric coverage is, but I would suspect there are probably issues on that side too. The bigger issues, though, is that (1) you completely removed the other etymologies in favor of the one you found, and (2) you created an entry in a proto-language that we do not have coverage for (also with the wrong title; reconstruction pages are in their own namespace). The existing source in the etymology for Hungarian én is admittedly older, and a newer source may shed more light on the etymology, but I don't think replacing something outdated with something marginally less outdated (unless it is really the newest source for this, which I highly doubt) is all that helpful. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I'm definitely not opposed to adding the etymology that UEW mentions on the page, but doing so while removing everything else that's already there seems quite careless. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

ah. i can see that now. thanks anyway. JustASurvWol (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

I found out that I was blocked by you from editing wiktionary pages for some alleged connection to this Honest Yusuf Cricket guy involved in vandalism or something, and since I'm too lost and confused when looking up unblock appeals and related, I wanted to ask directly to you for it; I don't have any relations with this case and never vandalized any page on this site. IlleScrutator (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The block should not affect logged-in users. It's an unfortunate side effect of trying to prevent someone who has pestered wikis for years from editing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

There is something that can be done to solve it? From what I saw, the expiration is until the summer of 2026. IlleScrutator (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid there might not be a better solution than to log in. Collateral is unfortunate, but some people simply cannot be allowed to edit again. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the thing I don't understand, I'm logged in and still blocked; either it's an anomaly or I'm missing something, and not being tech savvy, I really don't know where to put my hands. IlleScrutator (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you try again now? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Solved! Thank you for your help and time! IlleScrutator (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Contains the suffix ...

There's quite a few articles on internationalisms that end in "Contains the suffix {{m|fi|-...}}", and probably some with prefixes too. The problem is that the entry doesn't get added to the relevant category. This can be easily fixed by changing {{m}} to {{af}}. The print remains the same (e.g. -metria vs -metria) with the added benefit of categorisation. Could you get a your bot to to do the conversion? brittletheories (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is rather easy to do with a bot. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps {{surf}} would be better, since some of them might have acquired the suffix before the term was borrowed (with some adaptations in spelling) as a whole word. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Practically all of the entries with "contains the suffix ..." are internationalisms for which the difference is largely meaningless with languages like Finnish. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking to non-existing pages/sections

Hi, you reverted my edit on Weider. I deleted the 'bor' template in the etymology section, since it creates a link to a supposed German section, but it doesn't exist, it's a problem because it creates a motivation to click on the link if you want to find out more, unlike in Wikipedia the link is not red, can you explain why you reverted that Samcvp (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not practice here to delink red links or 'orange links' (links that lead to nonexistent sections). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I get it that that's not practice but there should be a better reason than 'practice', don't you think? if a practice is not logical than maybe we should not follow it, I'm speaking from my personal experience, it's really frustrating to look for something that doesn't exist Samcvp (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The alternative is much worse. Imagine an editor creates the entry and now has to manually find all the instances that had their links removed just to readd them. It'd make contributions an absolute pain. Readers can enable orange links from the preferences to inform them when an entry is missing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know about the orange links thing, I just changed it, thank you for pointing it out, it's a shame it's not the default Samcvp (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the etymology templates do a lot more than just linking. You not only removed the link, you also removed the entry from at least two categories, and in languages that use other scripts, they help format the text. Besides which, there are ways that the presence of the template with a link to a non-existent language section can be used to let editors in that language know that there's a missing entry. There's usually a lot more behind our practices than just habit, and changing an entry here and there makes them inconsistent with thousands of others that you don't know about. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

aragonite Removal at punia

Hey mr, for a sack of god you just need to cognates why did you remove my assertion over this the article, which were insensitive towards an surname which already provisioned by the Indian usage there without any furthermore i want conclude if there any conditional standard, I will eagerly to embedded all of the appropriate sources to log-backmy old summary thanks for your unpleasant welcome @Surjection 2409:40D6:E2:BB84:5DBB:CAA4:6058:3A07 12:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a dictionary. We document languages. "Indian" is not a language. Details about the clans and locations in which a surname appears is not relevant to a dictionary either. In addition, surnames are capitalized. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok it might be fair enough but anyway for couple of instances if there's any issue, I should try to entangle around for Hindi this time

thanks again 2409:40D6:E2:BB84:5DBB:CAA4:6058:3A07 12:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

your edit seems to have broken Appendix:Glossary

Appendix:Glossary is full of Lua errors after your update to Module:anchors, could you please investigate and fix? Torzsmokus (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed That was a stupid mistake, sorry about that. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Bakur

the (northern) kurdish word kurr also has the meaning of cold, I'm sure it would be helpful to add it to the page. 91.141.32.98 12:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Numbered etymologies are used for different words, not alternative etymologies of the same word. The existing etymology also kind of mentions this, though. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

but it says the word is connected to xurt (strong), which is false.

Whereas kurr (cold) is synonymous to sar (cold), compared to the gurani sard in wasard (north). 91.141.32.98 17:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think it should be pointed out, then please modify the existing etymology section instead of creating a new one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Night

The etymology of night is from the Greek word νυχτα, νυξ 2A04:7F80:2033:7100:D892:568D:9143:3131 15:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Atong (India)

Hello! Can I ask on why my edit on the Atong entry was reverted? Thanks. 3461x (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Because headings have to align with the canonical name of the corresponding language, which is Atong (India), not just "Atong" (to distinguish it from Atong (Cameroon)). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 00:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Niom

Why are you reverting the meaning of such a beautiful word related to Hindu mythology to something bad or evil. Doesn't make any sense to connect it with something in Romania and you will find this word rooting from Mythological scripts from Hindu religion. 2409:40C0:77:4C58:60C8:8BFF:FE82:1DD2 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to change the description of an actual word in another language because you don't like what it means. That is not how things work. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi I looked up the word in other language it's Neom not Niom. There is a difference right.'OM' is start of prayers of Lord Shiva, "NIOM" is remembering him in prayers. Hi please consider changing the meaning because previously few users have tried compelling you on your talk page and it's my humble request since it's my son's name.

Thank you Jay297 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't remove the Aromanian entry, that is completely unrelated.

Also, to add the meaning you think in the page, you need to find 3 citations of the name in durably archived works (in Google Books or archive.org for example) such as published books or texts. This word doesn't occur in Sanskrit literature, so you are making a wrong claim. – Svārtava (tɕ) 04:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1) https://hamariweb.com/names/hindu/hindi/boy/niom-meaning_90116/

2)

https://www.moonastro.com/babyname/baby%20name%20niom%20meaning.aspx

3)

https://namesfolder.com/hindu-boy-name/niom

4)

https://www.babynamesdirect.com/boy/niom

5)

https://babynameseasy.com/language/meaning/hindi-name/boy/niom

Is this links enough to change the meaning back to orginal meaning. Jay297 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no "original meaning". You're trying to remove a meaning in another language because, again, you don't like it. That is not going to fly here, no matter how many sources you have. At best those can be used to add a new entry for the name. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm being polite here and let's not be adamant. As far as I know the word you trying to protect is "Neom" and I am asking you for "Niom". Or Please help me out here to make new entry for the word "Niom". Jay297 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't change the Aromanian word- there are no doubt lots of Aromanians who have never heard of Shiva but use the word as we document it. That would be like changing शिव out of respect to the Judaic mourning custom of shiva/שִׁבְעָה (see also sit shiva- it's from the Hebrew word for 7). There are lots of false friends like Malay air (“water”), so changing words in one language because they sound like or are spelled like words in another language would be completely insane. Without looking at your examples, you would have to show that people use it in the script, spelling and capitalization and in the language of the new entry. Since it's in the Latin script, it would probably be an English entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already given examples before, its not a Latin word, it's a noun. All I am asking to make a new entry or add a second meaning to the present word. With this I rest my case. 🙏🏻 Jay297 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Devane

Hi @Surjection I think your rollback of [6] was a mistake, can we please discuss it here? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Marathi is not written in the Latin script, at least not on the English Wiktionary; 2. please read WT:EL or look at existing entries for formatting. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

cool. I read it. Can I make the entry again? Its a noun. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't readd it to the same page. I already told you why. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Surjection, you are an experienced editor on wiktionary, can you please help me. I want to add an entry. How can I do it? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@PerspicazHistorian: I added it at capitalized Devane. – Svārtava (tɕ) 13:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava thanks a lot. This helped. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Surjection pronunciation

Is this how your username is pronounced?

• Audio (US):

  (file)

Thank you Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's pronounced the same as the mathematical term. That sounds correct to me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

good Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 12:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Private filter 159 set to both warn and disallow

I don’t think it needs to be set to both warn and disallow, as just disallowing only works fine. And BTW, I am a GAFH who can view all filters on all projects. If you want, I can help with that filter's logic (conditions) if necessary by emailing me only. Codename Noreste (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Block?

Why on earth would you block my diligent amendments to the definitions of indoctrination?

Explicitly:

1. The process or resultant condition of indoctrinating.
2. Ostensible instruction, or the intended condition thereof, generally constrained to bare, unqualified, and often-misrepresented rudiments of the principal, subject propositions, and intended to prevail in unquestioned assimilation, rather than actual understanding.
3. The dissemination of purposed disinformation, or the intended condition thereof, inherently comprising a tainted body of intentionally deceptive, inherently unqualified assertions, obfuscations, inferences, and/or omissions, intended to avert a truly comprehensive and rightful prevalence of understanding — most especially therefore, where some contest or revelation is thus made the target of clandestine betrayal.

   The reason that dogma relating to the negative connotation of indoctrination is signaled by mere assertion with an attendant lack of proof, is simply that it is impossible to prove intended deceptions. Thus, as the further entanglements of fraudulent proof would provide further evidence of the faults of intended deceptions, fraudulence is generally no more than asserted in generally over-simplified terms, and with so much pretended confidence, that a lack of diligence and critical evaluation will tend to assimilate the intended deception verbatim. Thus, indoctrination is distinguished from legitimate teaching, information, and influence by the pattern of presentation, because our understandings of legitimate information require proof in the form of conclusive, demonstrative arguments. Demonstrative proof therefore, is indispensable to all legitimate narratives, presenting material which may not be confidently deemed to be self-evident.

4. The means or consequence of ostensible brainwashing.

   We may fear or complain of the damages of indoctrination. Yet mediocrity assimilates brainwashing, merely because it routinely fails to exercise the diligence and critical thinking which produce actual understanding. Because legitimate information is professed with the purpose of endowing veritable understanding, legitimate propositions which are not self-evident are routinely proven by all proper presentations, including faithful repetitions. Thus a lack of proof, either exposes poor evaluation, presentation, and respect for the importance of sufficient demonstrative proof; or it raises some likelihood of ulterior motive(s) and purposed deception — in which the both tend to explain why the deceiver failed so conspicuously to demonstrate a worthy case.

Montagne 1952 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors reverted your changes. Editors, like you, are not allowed to simply keep reverting them in return and keep readding your changes, also known as edit warring, in an attempt to keep your version of the page as the current one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but for the most part, reviewing a preview to make necessarily fine adjustments to nuanced definitions which have even been further requested by discussion, hardly reflects any such intention. As a software engineer who has produced tens of thousands of html documents, I instead assure you that the idea of "edit warring" is preposterous for any reasonably worthy such efforts, for the prevailing side of such stuporous "wars," must outlast the defeated side. A very stupid person could literally never log off the intended pages to prevail in such a stupid idea, for the moment they do, the alternate parties might simply repost their original work. Poof. All your time is just wasted.

Obviously, you have presumed I am that stupid; and that this was my purpose. But your accusation can never have been the purpose of any reasonable person, if in fact each subsequent posting applies amendments which any reasonable reflection at all would recognize deserved to be made.

Would it please you instead then, to go over them? I don't believe that should be necessary.

In the case of the term indoctrination for example, the only discussion topic for the term pled for further definitions, revisions, or amendments, reflecting the negative (disinformative) connotation for which the term is so regularly used. I would never for example substitute indoctrination for teaching for example, if I were teaching for example, a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, even as merely stating the same theorem might be deemed more akin to indoctrination. The subtle difference in proper usage relates to coarse, rudimentary substance implied by indoctrination, as opposed to teaching.

Thus as the over-simplifications of one of the previous definitions failed to explicitly reflect the leeway in the term indoctrination for disinformation, but did however reflect the general rudimentary condition of indoctrination (which comprises the leeway for disinformation), I took it upon myself to carefully revise the early form of the definition to reflect why indoctrination so often has the reasonable connotation of intentional disinformation.

Similarly, as a software engineer versant in obfuscation, I was particularly offended by the neophytical idea and poor sentence structure, which provided an example which advised that we had to turn on obfuscation when compiling certain classes. Reasonably skilled practitioners would instead use the term enable (or conversely, enable). But I found much more awry with the definition, and so, while intending to preserve its deserved spirit, I made the intentions which I saw fit — and which I merely assert because the distinguishing amendments are deserving on their obvious merits.

As to your idea that fine touch after fine touch reflects that I was merely engaging in some sort of war by which I somehow hoped my amendments would prevail (despite so well understanding otherwise), obviously then, your reasonably careful scrutiny failed to recognize any such wrongly presumed merit.

It happens then, that because I have been comparing numerous dictionaries for such important nuances as I immediately found so inappropriately lacking in yours, I was particularly and immediately disappointed with your definitions of three of the first few terms I evaluated. As you ought to be well aware however, such writing as will carefully produce comprehensive nuances, regularly involves careful re-consideration and revision. If you are so inclined to consider that reflection and revision "war," then perhaps your website might better advise us not to publish our revisions until at least we somehow become far more confident that they are "final." But even so (as you also ought well know), tomorrow morning, whatever seemed to communicate what we intended, is found to exhibit some awkwardness which deserves further attention.

Well, so it is indeed good to know that you have rejected all my careful work on three deserving terms. Perhaps since you haven't submitted any of the further complaints which you may harbor, nonetheless, you might recognize at least out of some modicum of mutual respect, that if you have any further objections than my incomprehensible and inherently futile "war" against previous definitions, it would at least be somewhat decent to raise them now.

As you express your title as editor, you might be further consoled to recognize that I have no objection whatsoever to any amendment you might make to my work, which actually improves upon it in any deserving way.

But otherwise, am I to understand that I might eventually post my exhaustive work after a few days' spanking?

Because I recognize how inappropriate it has already been, to waste so much of my time on a dictionary which otherwise, certainly fails to meet my own standards. Even of course, as this seems to be the way of the present world — where indoctrination is just somehow no more than innocent information, and obfuscation has to be turned on for classes (rather than the containing executable).

I really wouldn't worry about your prospective war, if I were you. Your actual challenge, is to invoke standards by which deserving amendments will prevail. Montagne 1952 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

'Edit warring' is a well-defined and well-understood concept on wikis. Again, you cannot simply keep readding your changes if someone reverts them. You can discuss your proposed changes in the Tea Room. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I might be compelled to do so if for some good reason, I might be compelled to anticipate that all that further time of engaging instead in your war, might not be wasted. To anticipate any such thing, I would expect instead that you might explain how my amendments were unwarranted. This site's own alerts, instead thank me for making my edits. Never once was any kind of warning raised to any other effect. But neither have you justified your reservation, that I'm simply reviewing my work to prevent others from reverting it. You haven't even provided a good (better) reason why anyone would even do so. And frankly, I would argue instead that if your pages make it possible for users to revert amendments to original work, that should be disallowed without conclusive arguments why their original post should prevail over the amendment. I mean, do you expect to produce ever-more-refined definitions without such rigors? Is it not instead, so obvious what amendments should prevail, that no temptation to engage in such futile edit-warring should exist? I'm ready to throw in the towel on this site, already. Montagne 1952 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

And I suppose you have also rescinded my careful related work on obfuscate and obfuscation?

obfuscate

1. To shadow, darken, blur, or otherwise obscure, as to defeat or impair capacities to distinguish or perceive.

   Parts of mages are often obfuscated, to protect the identities of innocents.

2. (subversion, propaganda, indoctrination) To deliberately confuse, obscure, and/or misrepresent actual functions, meanings, and/or implications, typically by incongruous or intentionally-confounding reorganization, omission, and/or misrepresentation of vital considerations, usually with the purpose of making particularly crucial implications either impossible or at least terribly difficult to distinguish or perceive.

   to obfuscate the promissory obligations of the people to each other, into a fraudulent, legally unenforceable, and terminal obfuscation of their currency

3. (computer science, software engineering) To alter usually the order or sequence and/or symbolism of computer code with such clandestine technologies as preserve the original functional capacities, while substantially concealing the underlying technological functionality.

   We need to obfuscate these classes before we ship the final release.

   These proprietary methods are so valuable, that every derived implementation must be obfuscated before release.

obfuscation

1. The consequence of shadowing, darkening, blurring, or otherwise obscuring, as to defeat or impair capacities to distinguish or perceive.

   The obfuscations within this image are meant to protect the identities of innocents.

2. (subversion, propaganda, indoctrination) The process or result of deliberately confusing, obscuring, and/or misrepresenting actual functions, meanings, and/or implications, typically by incongruous or intentionally-confounding reorganization, omission, and/or misrepresentation of vital considerations, usually with the purpose of making particularly crucial implications either impossible or at least terribly difficult to distinguish or perceive.

   to obfuscate the promissory obligations of the people to each other, into a fraudulent, legally unenforceable, and terminal obfuscation of their currency

3. (computer science, software engineering) The altered order, sequence, and/or symbolism of computer code with such clandestine technologies as preserve the original functional capacities, while substantially concealing the underlying technological functionality.

   We need to obfuscate these classes before we ship the final release.

   Obfuscation must be enabled for all compilations of these classes.

   These proprietary methods are so valuable, that no implementations may be released without obfuscation.

Montagne 1952 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not reverted any of your changes. That was done by other editors. You have to discuss that either on the Tea Room or directly with the editors that reverted you. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no notifications or alerts whatsoever but that you blocked me.

Furthermore, in searching for prospective notifications which might provide such identities, I find none, but a mere one alert from yesterday (amidst so many revisions as you allege made war), which reads explicitly and in its entirety:

"You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!"

So, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide links and corroborating evidence that other editors have blocked me or reverted my thanked work for nought, for your pages certainly fail to make it obvious or convenient to approach any such person for any such purpose. Montagne 1952 (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this is visible in the page histories: indoctrination, obfuscate, obfuscation. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not quite.

|

Here is the history entry for the reversion (deletion) of my contributions to the term obfuscation:

|

22:16, 27 December 2024 2a00:23c5:fe1c:3701:c5a0:b76a:b066:39a1 talk 3,614 bytes +21 revert for same reason as obfuscate (deliberate joke of obfuscating the entry?) -- also, this entry is "obfuscation" not "obfuscate", and you mixed up the 2 words undo Tags: Manual revert added link

|

However pathetically feeble-minded I find these assertions, anyone will find from your pages furthermore, that the "talk" link for the IP sends us to an explanation at the bottom of a nearly empty page:

|

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

|

So your site thanks me for making the edits I did, and even pleas that I make more; and yet, evidently with the authority of the site, you block me from making edits, ostensibly because I am merely waging an edit-war to preserve my contributions. Yet the most casual examination of the posts would find instead (if it were your purpose to distinguish an editing war), that deserved improvements have been made. So, obviously, your inference that an undeclared many edits over an undeclared period of time (which could hardly convey any useful meaning — and most especially, which such obscure claims fail to reflect the necessary specifics of an actual rule) poses a blatant contradiction with (poor?) site programming, which on the contrary, is not only thanking me for contributing the work you have blocked, but is even encouraging yours truly to further violate the rule you infer exists. If your suspect inferred rule actually exists then, I'm sure your software development team will be compelled not only to rescind or revise the algorithms which beg for more contributions; likewise, they will also be compelled by embarrassment over the present pollution to make it obvious to anyone who may not yet have been apprised of your suspect rule, that exceeding exactly so many edits in exactly some specific time is indeed forbidden as you appear to contend. So frankly, I find the mystery to be quite incredibly inept, in either case.

|

Nonetheless, as I have already sufficiently explained, only a fool would attempt the war you allege (however ostensibly documented so purportedly well), for a person can never even leave the page, if they truly intend to prevail in your suggested intention. After all, as soon as I was finished, you trashed my several hours of work. And now you are advising me that I can find the person I need to appeal to, when, if you were familiar at all with blatant site anomalies, you would know that ostensibly legitimate "editors" may well not even provide such an identity. Well, you're probably laughing, "that stupid ass is going to come unglued when he finds I've gotten rid of him with a dead end." In other words, furthermore then, you don't give a damn how much of my time you waste; and neither do you have a more credible excuse for your own foibles, then to send a prospective contributor in circles. Your defense is ostensibly that offenders, guilty of the crime you allege compels you to block me, will keep a page in editing mode forever (if they are to prevail in your purported ruse), merely to block even what you contend are legitimate editors (without even user names) from reverting the entirety of the contributions which you certainly haven't (either) duly criticized as they ought to have duly criticized. But even if prospective offenders were so stupid as to waste so much time on a ruse that would immediately be defeated as soon they gave up your asserted permanent control of the page, still then, better software engineering standards would make your asserted ruse impossible. I know, because I am the author of exactly such technology.

|

Nonetheless, even if the weaknesses of your software engineering technology/techniques make it possible to succeed in your asserted ruse, no one in their right mind is going to try to keep pages in editing mode forever, because no such control whatsoever is even prospectively permanent. You can fraudulently inform me that your pages suffer this ruse all day, every day. But you have already mis-stated the prospective ruse in terms which reveal you are incapable of detecting it, because the prospective offender can only prevail in your asserted goal by keeping the page in an editing mode which obviously lacks the capacity to cooperate with any other power or authority. This does not require making changes in the page. Neither is the ruse reflected then by ostensibly repeated posts. Neither is it reasonable to expect that a sequence of posts reflects the purported ruse, for a person prevails in the ruse (far more reasonably) by simply never posting to a record they have found they may lock in an uncooperable editing state, by simply accessing the editing controls. That's how it works, buddy.

|

So I understand why you offer no apology; and that isn't because you understand the facts at hand. In fact on the contrary, your original response stands as proof you don't give a hoot whether legitimate work was being posted or not. Which is also why there is no admission of inconsistency between your mere inferred rule and the fact the site is not only praising the same contributions, but even asking for more. So I get it. You're actually proud of your several incongruities, even as you haven't even answered my first question — which does not relate to the number of edits, but rather their necessary diligence.

|

Sure, you'll have a great hoot over the fact one edit inserts a mere comma in the prior edit. But as every definition in your amateurish wictionary ought to withstand all the scrutiny of time if your wictionary is to be worth a hoot, that comma belongs there, if it makes the vital material more readable.

|

But understand that I'm well aware of how folks like yourself "think."

|

So your position rests then, upon the dubious proposition that your pages must reject some undeclared amount or undeclared number of instances of work, posted over an undeclared time constraint — while the very programming of the same site is commending the amount or instances, and even asking for more. Thus your inferred, extremely suspect, incongruous, and contradictory rule (the inherent blaspheme of which you have also yet to refer myself to), inherently asserts that the quality of submitted material is inherently disqualified by the number of instance over which its sequential refinements were rendered. That's a good one. But you're absolutely right. After all, that's why we elect Presidents who have never conjured, much less presented, actual solution. I thank you for teaching my stupidity, that the work they might have done to refine proof of an actual solution would mean the solution couldn't possibly be worthy. After all, the tedium would merely reflect an editing war which should always block the candidate who develops solution, most especially if it is before our very eyes that they do so.

|

Which of course, is why the world works so well as it does.

|

|

Now, as to the fine work of the fellow editor (?) whom your pages report to have neither an account nor an identity, I ask you to decipher for me their preposterous notation.

|

So far as I can see (but do correct me if I am possibly wrong), they ever so poorly offer just two points of justification; the first being:

|

"revert for same reason as obfuscate (deliberate joke of obfuscating the entry?)" (In other words, first of all, rather than many editors deleting my work, we have one.)

|

But do you actually see any reasonable possibility of a "deliberate joke" here?

|

Pray tell, exactly how?

|

Do you mean to tell me that anyone who would offer such a pathetic and contradictory editing war excuse, somehow actually realizes that I am so stupid that I didn't even realize my careful work, reasonably ought to be presumed to vandalize your material with such a joke — which evidently is so blatantly obvious, that the unidentified editor is not even compelled to give the slightest hint what the presumed joke is?.

|

Well I'm here to tell you that if this freak's concern is actually somehow justified, I am exactly so stupid as to be without a clue yet, as to exactly what the joke is supposed to be. Being fraternal to the unidentified editor therefore, perhaps you will show us what could possibly be construed as a "deliberate joke" here.

|

The putrefied purported analysis actually alleges intentional vandalism. And this person is destroying my contributions to your site?

|

Which is which then? In other words, which is the actual vandalism; and who is the actual vandal? Being fraternal to what is otherwise pathetically pretentious, tell us why I am your vandal. In other words, explain to a fool why you blocked the fool and not the unidentified editor?

|

I'm flabbergasted. Either your freak editor, or myself, or the both of us, should be banned from your pages... and because, at this point, I have to consider it an extremely excessive waste of good time (already) to wrestle with you in your war against my best intentions and contributions... I am hereby volunteering to leave your site permanently myself. You are the joke. Do you actually mean to pretend such worthy authority, without even any respect to its prospective offenses? Evidently so. And so, after the following parting words, I WILL NOT be back — and good for you, champ.

|

You have my post to obfuscation in the preceding, almost immediately above. Surely you see the intended joke, for otherwise, you would already have made it clear that the purported editor be reprimanded. Nonetheless, on the alternate hand, if there is an editing war here, your unidentified editor is the perpetrator; and you are the brunt of his "joke" — for no reasonable person would waste a further second, to prevail in so much well-intended work. So I understand as well, why so many definitions beg so much better attention — to receive so much obstruction instead. Which is exactly why your wictionary isn't worth a hoot. You actually believe that any reasonable person would be advised to rely upon this trash over the far more credible resources available?

|

Evidently so. If I were you fine folks, I wouldn't even bother fixing the site functionality so that it concurs with your inferred mandatory rule. I mean, it wouldn't even be common sense to automatically invoke your inferred rule (if it exists), would it? Of course, not. Which is exactly why things will stay exactly as they are. You already have the perfect underlying implementation of the perfect underlying concept. You're so proud of that fact that you won't even go to your superiors, saying, "Hey, we're screwing up here." Not feeling that you've made any error, you'll probably delete this post, to save your wonderful reputation.

|

In any case, your fellow savant's only further purported point is, "also, this entry is "obfuscation" not "obfuscate", and you mixed up the 2 words."

|

Really?

|

I suppose then that it is also "confusing" or otherwise inappropriate somehow in the definition itself, to distinguish the root term from the derivatives — ostensibly because the author(s) of the definition would only do so, if they were confusing the derived definition with the root definition?

|

Well, that happens instead to be standard practice, champ. But of course, it's a perfectly legitimate reason to nullify my work — even as I do note as well, that your unidentified savant somehow absolved himself of explaining how an example which properly distinguished both cases somehow reflects that I was confused which term I was defining.

|

Speaking of sick.

|

Or maybe your spectacular fraternity has instead demonstrated that it doesn't serve the end user to see both forms of the same defined idea as properly used? Your guess is as good as mine. But I'm sure integrity will compel you to clarify the dire dangers of clarifying the proper usages and relationships between the root and derivative all at once, with such brevity.

|

And the person who is authorized to do this by your website doesn't even have a legitimate identity?

|

I suppose its mere delusion to suppose I might see an exceedingly unpromising and profuse pattern here. I haven't been taking my medication lately. Either.

|

Whatever supreme authority you imagine you have earned to pull rank on a term which my life's work has carefully depended upon for almost 60 years, I have no idea. But I would be glad to tell you what the joke is, if it weren't that I understand the inherent futility in attempting to elevate dogged confidence in incongruity. As I have already informed you, your prospective problem isn't your erroneously prophesied edit-warring... for your incongruous fear would itself be eradicated by such simple, straightforward, and often even automateable procedures, as would ensure that legitimate material prevails in the face of all the stupidity you have allowed instead to obstruct development of a quality dictionary.

|

Which of course, given the pathological difficulties of bringing your dictionary to reasonable standards, is all the more reason never to return.

|

Plainly, your previous definitions were far too amateurish to serve competent usages. You might for example, compare the work I revised to Merriam-Websters 1970 Collegiate Dictionary — which of course, is far more faithful to indispensable nuances than your surviving definitions. The fact we get some compromise in the contemporary online version, is the very reason a realistically optimistic person might hope that worthy improvements might survive in the notorious wiki format. But of course, this would be impossible without proper and duly effective rules.

|

So the real question here, is whether proper rules will continue to sustain ideal material. Of course, the idea of continuation presumes a confirmable pre-existence of such a fact. So, if you think your presumed edit-war assumptions accomplish that purpose... then frankly, the proof of that pudding would be the definitions which your sanctimonious unidentified editor preserved in a war they too have yet to answer for.

|

|

Bye.

|

|

|

|

| Montagne 1952 (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You're not addressing anything I wrote. That you are calling other editors "freaks" doesn't bode well for you in any case. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I think they were referring to User:Fay Freak. Still, the fact remains that @Montagne 1952 is basically asserting that they should be allowed carte blanche because they're self-evidently better at this than everyone else. Of course, every serious editor believes that their edits are an improvement, or they wouldn't make them. Yes, reverting an edit removes one editor's efforts, but it also restores the product of other editors' efforts. A wiki is a cooperative enterprise, and only accomplishes anything if individual editors work toward consensus. If anyone wants their version to prevail 100%, they will just have to get a blog somewhere else. Otherwise they will have to make their case to the [ignorant peasants] other editors and abide by whatever compromise is arrived at. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Hi. Why you rollback my edits? MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not mass-add translations in languages you do not speak. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? Are you doubting the accuracy of translations? MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am. And basically everyone else seeing them would doubt them too. Again, if you don't speak those languages, don't add translations in them. You're almost certainly making mistakes you aren't even aware of and helping errors propagate. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking

Stop blocking people just because you don't agree with them. Do you think you're higher authority on Polish language than the Council for the Polish Language, which I put as the source? 89.64.9.29 20:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You're trying to mess with an entry because you don't like the word. Go find something better to do, like contributing new entries. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That's your private opinion which is completely wrong. You shouldn't be blocking people or reverting their changes based on your personal likes or dislikes. I gave clear source for the change I made - the most recent (to my knowledge) statement by the Council for the Polish Language on feminine forms of some words, which is the highest authority in this case. In that statement they said that words like "ministra", "doktora" etc. are "atypical for the Polish language" and that such forms are generally used in "clearly colloquial" way. While the Council recognized and encouraged usage of feminine forms of the words in this specific case they suggested conservative approach.

If I used a label incorrectly you should have corrected it - I may not know how to do it correctly as this is technical stuff. But that's hardly a reason to revert a valid and clearly sourced change or to block a person. That's abuse of power. 89.64.9.29 20:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

First you removed the entry because you don't like the word, then added a completely subjective label "corruption" because you don't like the word. You don't need to lie to me about your motives. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Again - that's your personal opinion and not the fact. I'm not responsible for your imagination. You abused the power and blocked a person only because you disagree with them.

The "corruption" is clearly defined in glossary - the fact that I have no idea how to use it correctly doesn't prove anything. Like I said - it is technicality. The fact is that the highest authority on Polish language clearly stated that the word "ministra" is "atypical" and "colloquial" and you have hard time accepting this.

It's worth noting, that the Council expressed their concerns about that form also in their earlier statement from 2012, in which they clearly stated that traditional use of the word "minister" is enough as used correctly it leaves no doubt if it applies to a man or a woman. They also pointed out that forms like "ministra" don't follow the general rules of creating feminine forms of the nouns in Polish language. 89.64.9.29 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't even read the glossary entry you are talking about. Blocking you from editing one page where you have already clearly demonstrated that you're trying to find a way to proclaim to the world how you don't like the word is perfectly reasonable. That you're choosing to argue about it instead of contributing to other parts of the dictionary further demonstrates why you are here - and it's seemingly not to work on this dictionary in any contributive way. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, you know better what I did or didn't do. It's funny how from lack of factual arguments you try to so hard to use fallacious ones.

As I have no idea how this works - where or to whom can I report you for abuse of power? 89.64.9.29 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Your motive is so obvious that there is zero reason to not point it out. Nobody else would realistically complain this much about not being allowed to edit one page on this site.

If you insist on getting other people's opinion on this block, WT:BP is the venue for that. But you should very much be aware that everyone is able to see your edits and that your side of the story is not going to be the only one that is going to be presented. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Again fallacious arguments. You already claimed that you know what I did (or didn't do), what were my intentions, what I like or don't like etc. Zero facts and lots of assumptions.

In the meantime I went through some help pages and they have those interesting slogans like "never assume malevolence" and so on... I think you should read them - could do you good. 89.64.9.29 22:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Those policies are meant to be applied for people who are actually willing to contribute to the dictionary. There are plenty of those here. All of your actions have demonstrated the opposite. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Again: you should read those policies. Will do you good. Because you obviously forgot them. 89.64.9.29 22:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)