Archives

2020:2020 2021:2021 2022:2022 2023:2023 2024:2024

Hi, I want to understand these reverts a bit better, if that's ok with you. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding aspect.

My first change was to remove the sense ofto keep an eye out for sth/sb fromwypatrzyć. This jumped out to me as nonsensical asto keep an eye out is durative, atelic and, if I've understood correctly, imperfective. One can write "I kept an eye out for my friend for an hour" but, for contrast, not "I won the race for an hour". Therefore it seemed like a mistake that it was included.

I checked my intuition by looking inWSJP and two dictionaries local to my machine. (Oxford PWN Polish-English Dictionary / Wielki słownik polsko-angielski andUniwersalny słownik języka polskiego but I'm not sure they are the full versions or how dated they are). And subsequently nowPWN. They all have only one sense forwypatrzyć and it seems to correspond to thespot sense. So the removal there felt justified.

For the revert onwypatrywać, byThese actions can actually be imperfective or perfective in and of themselves, do you mean thatspot andfind in English can be both perfective and imperfective? I suspect you correctly caught me misunderstanding what imperfective means here but could you give an example to help?

If it adds to background, the change I made forwypatrywać was rooted in seeing that the definition inWSJP talks about trying/attempting,uważnie patrząc, starać się zobaczyć kogoś lub coś, and the definition fromUniwersalny słownik języka polskiego hasszukać in the brackets for the imperfective meaning, as opposed to sayznajdować.uważnie, bacznie patrząc, badając wzrokiem, znaleźć (szukać), odkryć (odkrywać) coś, kogoś for wypatrzyć and wypatrywać as a pair. I think I overlooked theodkrywać, which would contain the element of success that is not implied insearch.

I was planning to make another edit towypatrywać. I notice from the inflexion inTygrys wypatruje zdobyczy, thatwypatrywać takes the genitive. So I was thinking to add{{+obj|pl|gen}} to each sense. But I guess it makes sense to clarify these reverts first.Hietheehither (talk)16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! First of all, I want to thank you forassuming good faith, undos can sometimes lead to heat.

Getting to your current arguments, WSJP is probably my top trusted Polish dictionary, as they are far less normative, always provide quotes, and good labelling etc. USJP is also pretty good; I don't use PWN's Polish-English dictionary.

Finally getting to the meat of the matter - WSJP and PWN give a fairly solid analysis, in my opinion, i.e. thespot meaning as being biaspectual (many telic verbs, after all, can still happen over time!), and I wouldn't change the glosses, since lexical aspect (i.e. telic etc.) doesn't usually translate over Slavic "grammatical" aspect (compare the fact that "eat up" can also be in continuous, despite being more "perfective" than just eat, same with wyjeść/wyjadać), but the meaning ofwait as being monoaspectual. In this case, two headword templates onwypatrywać would be used, one linking towypatrzyć as the aspectual equivalent, and another without any aspectual equivalent (comparemówić. Then, you could checkskładnia for either definition of wypatrywać at WSJP, which lists the genitive that you mentioned for the monoaspectual meaning.

I agree overall the entry isn't quite right,Vininn126 (talk)17:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ping @Hietheehither.Vininn126 (talk)17:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't quite understand this [revert]. The words listed as alternatives all have similar pronunciations... Did I misunderstand something about when to add such alternative words at the beginning of an article -- since any of them could in principle be the target the user was actually looking for when s/he ended up innagosz by mistake? --Pereru (talk)18:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pereru Please read the documentation on{{also}} - it's for characters, not pronunciation or different scripts.Vininn126 (talk)18:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK. (NB: <sz> is alphabetically treated as two letters rather than as a single digraph, unlike Spanish <ch> in earlier times, right?) --Pereru (talk)18:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pereru That depends on the language, but again, it's aboutcomputationalcharacters, notlinguisticletters.Vininn126 (talk)18:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... Looking again at the documentation you linked to, it starts with: "This template links to similar entries, especially those that differ only in capitalization, diacritics, or punctuation." I don't see a reference to computational characters here, and there's a reference to "similar entries" which suggests that even the number of computational characters and/or linguistic letters might differ. What gives? --Pereru (talk)18:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pereru Old wording, and the part about it being about characters etc. was left out.Vininn126 (talk)18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a more recent reference I can check? (I'm not doubting your word, I just wished to have something I could link to in case someone ever makes the opposite claim to me. I note there are also occurrences of{{also}} that would seem to violate the rules you posit, like inpir where one finds cyrillic forms similar only in pronunciation, orself, where one finds forms with added hyphens that have one extra computational character / linguistic letter not found in the page title.) --Pereru (talk)18:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

~@Pereru The usage of this template over time has been unregulated and misunderstood. This has resulted in many misuses, which leads to many people not understanding its intended application. As such, the template should probably be automated, and people have tried in the past; apparently dealing with all the characters is a headache, and also it's not a high priority at the moment. Perhaps some day it will be!Vininn126 (talk)18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK. Fair enough. No big deal anyway. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! --Pereru (talk)18:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pereru Thank you for asking! I honestly foresee a discussion at some point somewhere, perhaps the Beer parlour, about the usage of this template. Perhaps it will turn out my understanding of it is wrong, as well. Who knows.Vininn126 (talk)18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello

Concerning your [revert]

I'm not sure this is the way to respond and clarify why I made the edit; you'll tell me.

The reason for my edit is that as it stands this template, like many others, has hardcoded colors and thus is incomapatible with Dark Mode.I can do a large scale refactoring of this script myself, but before endeavoring this I wanted to try a harmless fix.Since the template has an edit restriction I didn't expect my edit to go through.

Please advise

RegardsPetros Adamopoulos (talk)17:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Petros Adamopoulos It gave the template a large, ugly, grey box. If the issue is darkmode, a different solution is advisable.Vininn126 (talk)18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it a change you committed?Petros Adamopoulos (talk)18:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Petros Adamopoulos Pardon? I don't understand. Your change introduced an ugly gray box.Vininn126 (talk)18:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry I missread.

That's quite surprising, considering I changed the foreground color and didn't touch the background.

Since the background was hardcoded bright, it made the text in Dark Mode invisible basically, so I changed the text color to what it is in Light Mode, basically to have no effect there.

What browser are you using ? In Chrome here, the change didn't do anything except fixing Dark Mode to be readable.Petros Adamopoulos (talk)09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was using Chrome.Vininn126 (talk)09:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and no. Why?Supevan (talk)20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Supevan I just found it to not be a crucial request. Most of your requests are relatively fine, but some of the surnames seem to be held by one person, and until further evidence I prefer not to add them.Vininn126 (talk)20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to add them right away, none of my requests are really crucial :D

That particular surname I got from the Musical Theatre of D. Baduszkowa in Gdansk, which I have visited - that's why I added it.Supevan (talk)21:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would seem practical to have the box transcluded on every page that it links to; it's not very obstructive either. Some of the entries had no reference totrzy whatsoever and it would help to compare the functional descriptions of the categories (potrójny is "multiplier", trojaki is called "multiplier qualitative"). The documentation of the template says "This template may be added to the entry of any number, whether a cardinal number, ordinal number or any other kind." Overall I find it hard to assume good faith for your rollbacks.Suryaratha03 (talk)Suryaratha03 (talk)13:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Suryaratha03 Many of those entries would be better off inCAT:pl:Three. If everything related to three were in the number box or had it linked it would definitely be too much.Vininn126 (talk)13:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I definitely think it's not in error. Why do you think it is?DCDuring (talk)18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring Check the history of the page.Vininn126 (talk)18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It gave me quite a fright, as I was in the middle of extensive changes. It is easy to get confused by that kind of thing and lose the plot.DCDuring (talk)18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I misclicked.Vininn126 (talk)18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't seem to grasp what a phonological merger is or how we (and most if not all dictionaries) transcribe words affected by one. Transcribing words in the LOTlexical set with both /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ would make them indistinguishable from THOUGHT.Nardog (talk)18:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nardog You don't seem to grasp what "non encompassing an entire area" means. See the Tea room discussion.Vininn126 (talk)18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I’m having a conflict with the user Наименее Полезное. I'm reaching to you as perHelp:Dispute resolution. I’ve chosen you from the list of the administartors and because you’ve previously commented on an issue in theWiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#сасновы — if that’s incorrect, please tell me.

We’ve had edit conflicts on pagesсасновы,ружавы andружа. A large part of the conflict is in the edit history,especially inружавы.

I believe I can’t follow the first given advice, “Ignore them, assume that they are eccentric and will thus never be able to see eye to eye with you. If they won’t ignore you, ask them to”, because Наименее Полезное thinks he has the right to set conventions for the whole Belarusian section (even when they contradict Style guide). After adding aсасновы request for verification, I’ve got involved in a similar conflict atружавы andружа, and I believe the standard of the conversation has fallen to a quite low level.

More context can be found on our talk pages.

I would be grateful if there were some way to resolve this. Thanks!Хтосьці (talk)14:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Хтосьці @User:Наименее Полезное I will look into this this evening.Vininn126 (talk)15:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Хтосьці @Наименее Полезное Before I start, you two need to stop edit warring. That's a bannable offense. So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is a dispute about whether these relational adjectives have one sense or multiple? I also see onружа a few other things, such as text within inherited terms, placement, full template names?

Unfortunately a lot of these issues come down to editing preferences and we're going to have to find compromises.

As for relational adjectives, I can also see that Belarusian sources often seem to list these as multiple senses. I can understand why. We often tend to keep these as a single sense, since "of or pertaining to" contains many of these. "Of" can denote belonging to as well as being made of. I am unsure of Belarusian has possessive adjectives, but if not, perhaps we can use a single sense here? However, I could also foresee having a BP discussion on this.

As for glosses within etymology templates, my personal preference is not to include it unless it is surprising in some way, i.e. there was a semantic shift along the way. I think many editors share this opinion.

As for the placement of templates, things such as pronunciation templates do have a specific order as perWT:Pronunciation and should be IPA > Recording (if present) > Rhymes > Syllabificaiton/Hyphenation (I will also remind everyone that there is an often forgotten distinction between the two).

As to whether shortcut templates should be used or not, this is entirely preferential. I tend to use shortcuts and prefer them, as the vast majority of entries have them. It is better to try and aim for homogeneity between entries.

Finally, as for the order of categories, alphabetical order is preferred and bots are somewhat regularly sent to change the order of these categories.Vininn126 (talk)18:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

“you two need to stop edit warring” — what is the recommended way to act when another user changes something I've written in a way that I think makes it worse?

I'm not forcing my preferred style on the articles he writes. I think they would be better by being more focused, but they're OK and I don't fix what, in the end, is not broken; I'm not a person who likes conflicts.

But I find it disheartening when my work gets changed for the worse.

Should I not add articles at all? Consult Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы before adding any article? (Наименее Полезное takes sub-sections from there, promoting second-level meanings into first-level meanings; so if I only add words not split in ТСБМ, or not present in ТСБМ, he won't split it here too)?

“That's a bannable offense” — in my defense, it was me who stopped edit wars in all these cases. (Although this doesn't seem fair, since this way Наименее Полезное's version remains every time.)

“we're going to have to find compromises” — I've tried. On сасновы I've first tried to make Наименее Полезное's meanings into subitems of the main meaning: so that people who need a quick meaning can read the single main meaning, and people who want a longer non-exhaustive list of meanings can see it, too (although I'm not convinced such people exist), to avoid deleting his work. He didn't appreciate my attempt at compromise, restoring his version.

I can't make a compromise with someone who is unwilling to compromise.Хтосьці (talk)19:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Хтосьці You leave it be and start this discussion way before it got to where it did.

How were some of these changes for the worse?

Please let him reply to my suggestions before throwing these accusations, as this is not de-escalating the situation.Vininn126 (talk)19:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

“How were some of these changes for the worse?” — change 1: inсасновы andружавы, the changed variant forces the reader to spend more time to get an overall understanding of the word. If all the meanings on the same level, it means you need to read them all.

Also, these meanings are not inherent toсасновы orружавы, they're inherent to the category of relative adjectives. I feel that describing them in an article for сасновы/ружавы is like describing meanings of cases in specific articles: e.g. as if page сястры has translations like '(1) to sister, (2) for sister, (3) (translated as subject with words expressing states and feelings, such as падабацца, холадна, etc.)', etc. I believe it makes much more sense to have a single place describing what relative adjectives, and not have this information scattered in random articles for specific instances of such adjectives.

Change 2: onружа, removing a gloss loses information: ружа is a doublet of рожа 'infection' and not of рожа 'face'. In printed dictionary, this would have a number (like 'doublet of рожа I'), but here it's not an option.

“Please let him reply to my suggestions before throwing these accusations” — I hope the answer above is not in violation of this. I've assumed that, since your message contained a question, it's OK to answer it.Хтосьці (talk)20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you look at my suggestions and other advice at all, or are you going only to assume bad faith on their part, instead ofWT:Assume good faith? I quite clearly mentions much of this isstylistic choice. You are assuming only making it worse overall, and not letting them respond to my suggestions. Go take a break.Vininn126 (talk)20:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 @Хтосьці Honestly, I give up, you're free to do whatever you want now, I don't care anymore, you can ruin my language at will, I'm indefinitely (or permanently) off Wiktionary. There's no point in me continuing to try to talk, there was already an agreement long before you showed up and fucked up everything I spent months building, I already had to face Insaneguy to make him stop messing around in Belarusian, but now I have to face you, I honestly don't have the patience to deal with this anymore, every time I remember that you don't even have the proficiency to deal with Belarusian, my head almost explodes with so much hate. Anyway, goodbye Wiktionary community, there will never be any evolution in the Belarusian language as long as there are such backward editors as you, you can block me if you want. Hugs and I wish you all the best Vininn126, the only sensible one here.Наименее Полезное (talk)14:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное Both of you are overreacting in my opinion. You're assuming too much bad faith on both ends and neither of you are willing to try compromise. Sad.Vininn126 (talk)14:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry how this situation is turning up. It was never my intention to drive you away.

I'm sorry, @Наименее Полезное, for my actions inсасновы,ружавы andружа.

If you need proof of my Belarusian knowledge, I’m open to scheduling a video call to prove it. Or I could show my documents from Belarusian school and university to you, or a person you trust.

I do make mistakes (like when I’ve copied a noncountable adjective’s article as a base for another article, and forgot to remove the mark), and thanks for fixing them. I didn't at first understand some conventions, and did indeed assume bad faith (which was yet another mistake).

Sorry.Хтосьці (talk)14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

From what I understand @Наименее Полезное's approach is to more or less copy the Skarnik dictionary, compare e.g.Skarnik's entry for сельскі with Wiktionaryсельскі. But there aren't many languages on Wiktionary (is there any?) that follow the same approach, so this is simply a general discussion having nothing to do with Belarusian specifically. Regarding the example ofсельскі, what 'rural' means should in principle be explained at Englishrural, so I personally don't see a need to have extensive definitions like those currently given.Exarchus (talk)15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tend to follow entries from WSJP fairly closely (and then supplement with other dictionaries), however not always. In many instances I break from their analysis.Vininn126 (talk)15:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Хтосьці: You don't need to feel sorry. This "leaving permanently" thing already happened before:Wiktionary_talk:Belarusian_entry_guidelines#General_Belarusian_entries

Back then it was a ridiculously insignificant matter. Or more specifically, the ({{inh+}}/{{bor+}} vs.{{inh}}/{{bor}} templates choice. Which was just pure cosmetics, even unrelated to the actual content and easily fixable by a bot. Nobody was really arguing against Наименее Полезное. I only asked Наименее Полезное to formulate his/her preferences as a written guideline for beginners. --Ssvb (talk)12:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vininn, I came to report a user (@Username1233219128). He keeps copying Czech entries ignoring langcodes, derived terms that don't exist in Slovak, links to Wikipedia that don't exist in Slovak, erroneous glosses, etc. I've warned him several times before in edit summaries and even on his talkpage, here are all the links so you can see:https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nosoro%C5%BEec&oldid=84325474 : nosorožčí is not a word in Slovak, he just copied it from the Czech entry

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=budova%C5%A5&oldid=84239297 he copied the etymology frombudovat, ignoring the true etymology.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=vzducholo%C4%8F&oldid=84223616 : it's literally the same coding with different langcodes

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Da%C5%A1n%C3%AD%C4%8Dka&oldid=84223578 : copy so blatant that he didn't even change the rhymes from the Czech page

Anyway, there are more examples of this, but this is enough; I have warned him several times to stop but he keeps insisting.F. V. Lorenz (talk)21:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SurjectionSorry for the ping but maybe Vininn is busyF. V. Lorenz (talk)21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@F. V. Lorenz I have issued a short block with an explanation. Perhaps the user will be more reponsive.Vininn126 (talk)21:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!F. V. Lorenz (talk)21:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

There have beentwoinstances where you imposed self-requested blocks. It is best to allow account creation and disable autoblocks for self-requested blocks.

I am NOT requesting to be blocked myself.

Thank youFlame, not lame (Don't talk to me.)22:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

You got it. We'll start with a temporary non-block and move to an indefinite block, then, the number 6 coming right up.Vininn126 (talk)08:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I dunno where to mention this because there is apaprently no Admin Noticeboard on wiktionary:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Circeus#Wiktionary

I actually did the edit, because he's right (I think maybe his edit got caught in an unrelated oversight action? since I obviously can't see the version, I can't be sure lol), but this feels like it ought to be noted because I'm fairly sure it's a form of pretty blatant ban evasion.

Still kinda stumped why he poked me on Commons of all place.Circeus (talk)14:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Circeus To be quite frank, I don't recall interacting with this user much, but clearly I banned them a few months ago. The edits don't even seem that bad, not sure why one is hidden. I'm not sure what happened here.Vininn126 (talk)17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: The hidden edit was right after the reversion of an edit by another user that added an inappropriate external link. Since the bad edit was in between two edits by VincentPH, it's possible you got the two accounts mixed up. That was the same entry (tata) where they requested the edit. They messed up the formatting a bit atWilkinson, which showed up in the abuse log, and their contributions atget it weren't that great, but they seem to have edited in good faith throughout.Chuck Entz (talk)18:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

~@Chuck Entz That is the impression I have no as well. Perhaps an unban while keeping an eye on the user.Vininn126 (talk)18:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask for your help as an administrator to adapt the colors of the Slovak noun inflection template? User TTO did a horrible job that completely broke the color paradigm that templates use, and the module that contains the template and table colors is protected so that only administrators can edit it.F. V. Lorenz (talk)15:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

By the way, can you check out the talk I pinged you? (it's about the pronunciation module and changing some phonemes)F. V. Lorenz (talk)15:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@F. V. Lorenz Hi. I'm not so good at visual stuff to be honest. Also as to pronunciation, I'm not an expert on Slovak. All I can say is that phonemic representations are always going to be more symbolic, but if those changes are closer to actual realization, why not. I also wonder if at some point in the future we'll want to make a Czech-Slovak combined IPA module, like we have for Lechitic and apparently soon Sorbian.Vininn126 (talk)18:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I just wanted to ask you if you could do something similar for Czech or even Polish because the template made by TTO is simply ugly and visually unpleasant. Well, I have advanced knowledge about almost every aspect involving Czech or Slovak, and speaking of Lechitic, I'm on a server that you're on too, in case you think it's better to talk there. Maybe in the near future we'll decide to "merge" everything to create a "Czechoslovak union" with templates and modules, but for now I don't think it's necessary since Czech is already well organized, only Slovak needs a bigger cleanup.F. V. Lorenz (talk)18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@F. V. Lorenz You might want to compare the Lechitic declension templates - but also I intend to update them in the near-ish future. Also, don't be afraid to ping me on the WiktinoaryWT:Discord.Vininn126 (talk)18:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

IMO, applying the current Polish template to the Slovak one is not a problem, and if you make any changes over time, I can update it as well in whatever way is most casual or best. I didn't know there was a Discord server, thanks for letting me know.F. V. Lorenz (talk)18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vininn126, I was not sure how to convert sè·ršeń from Lorentz (from page 1015, Volume 2, hornet) to the Wiktionary Slovincian orthography. I am not sure which of the e's to use specifically for either vowel. Could you please help me with this. I was going to add this word to the Proto-Slavic *sьrxy entry. Thanks again!ElkandAcquerne (talk)15:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne serszeńVininn126 (talk)15:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much again for your help as always!ElkandAcquerne (talk)15:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi – inthis edit you added a declension table formijany as a noun. It seems to me the locative plural should be mijanych instead of mijane?Joriki (talk)06:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Joriki Yep.Vininn126 (talk)06:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a reminder to clean up the Polish and Old Polish errors due to missing|1= in{{etydate}}, which is now an error. See alsowidzenie,postanowić,akroterion,zależeć,obfity,lipoproteina,cnota,aglutynina,akcyjnie,akordzik,akrolit, where I removed the empty{{etydate}} before realizing it would be better to let you fix them. Ping @Chuck Entz in case you're curious about the errors.Benwing2 (talk)07:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Am heading to bed now.Benwing2 (talk)07:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Thanks for the list. I'll see which need updating. Glad edydate got some updates.Vininn126 (talk)07:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain your decision to block2607:FB90:AD60:3B5B:AC39:BE92:6B2F:1ED8 for 3 months? I don't see how the sandbox edits would fall under disruptive editing, especially for it to be deserving of such a long punishment.PersiennePerson (talk)02:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would be able to say more if the links went to the right places.Vininn126 (talk)07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The user link works for me.PersiennePerson (talk)13:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I remember. The IP in question had been on a spree and had been blocked elsewhere and given the nature of repeated offences across multiple sites I issues a longterm preventative ban. If the range of the block is causing issues for a different user, I could perchance lessen it, but that is why I did that. @PersiennePersonVininn126 (talk)13:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that makes a bit more sense. I was the one temporarily using that IP on July 18th and didn't think repeatedly editing the sandbox would be an issue since it's a test page, but all activity on earlier dates and other sites weren't me. Shouldn't the nature of the edits have been taken into consideration, though?PersiennePerson (talk)13:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll just add the IP has been blocked after my block.Vininn126 (talk)13:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'd just like to verify if there's a strict limit to how much the sandbox can be edited in a short amount of time or if the main issue was the other blocks.PersiennePerson (talk)14:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you are reverting an edit, please give a reason, okay?IgnacyPL (talk)09:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@IgnacyPL 1) Formatting, it would be better to place it after the other translation, not after the gloss 2) I don't think we really need that additional translation. The current one covers it fine, and the one you gave is regional. There's no need for that.Vininn126 (talk)09:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you make a lot of entries for Polish dialectal words. Allthough you haven't made many pages for Księżak words yet, I'm actually really suprised by all the information on the near Masovian dialect's vocabulary you've found and I thought I should make a few remarks about the Księżak dialect (I've already started a topic with some importand info on theTalk:księzák page): 1. I think it's really important to note that the dialect is associated with the traditional region of the Duchy of Łowicz and the ethnic Księżaks, not with the town of Łowicz itself (contrary to what the [Category:Łowicz_Polish] page and all the entries in the category say); 2. The dialect is well documented in newer sources that use phonetic transcription and it's pretty consistent in it's phonetics and phonotactics; words likelimenta andcięgiem are written in a way that somewhat combines orthography with the 19th century dialectal pronunciation, although nasal vowels have shifted to nasal u and i/y sounds in the past 150 years. On the other hand,en almost doesn't occur in the dialect, as it shifted toin oryn depending on the consonant before it. These two entries are correct lexically, but phonetically it's actually beencingim andlymynta/limynta for at least 100 years now (seeBolimowska's poemŁowickimu Harmuniście; i think that Bogusława Drzewiecka who was born in Lipce just 20 kilometers away would say something like "ciyngiym", although I can't find a sample online). That's how Świderska's informants born in the 19th century (and also my grandparents) pronunced these words and how they are still pronunced by some Księżaks who retain much of the dialectal pronunciation; 3. the wordślachetcák is defined pretty badly. The Duchy of Łowicz doesn't and historically didn't have almost any nobility as it was a large land estate of the archbishops, that's why Księżaks reffer to the neighbouring groups with words derived fromślachta. The word doesn't reffer to a nobleman from the town of or region, but to a person from outside the region, where the noble population is(/was?) much denser. That's a 19th century form of the word, but words likepl:ślachciorz andślachetek are used today (unfortunately, no sources for the latter. It's used by Księżaks from Godzianów in my grandparents' area). Same remarks on phonetics apply to this one as well - if this was a word in modern Księżak dialect, it would be pronunced asślachetcok. I hope you find these few notes helpful, I'm very passionate about documenting the dialect and I'm semi-fluent at it so there's a good chance I'll be able to answer some questionsWojt Did (talk)22:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did Hi, I own both "Gwara - Księżaków "język ojczysty" and "Dialekt księstwa łowickiego". I haven't add much yet simply because there are so many dictionaries to get through, but they are in my pile of shame. IIRC, you and I worked together on thew:Łowicz dialect article on Wikipedia?Vininn126 (talk)08:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did As to the form which we document - I stick to the one in the source, despite things like later sound changes. If such a form is attested in one of the dictionaries, for example, why not. But dialects are often inconsistent, so documenting etymological forms can be somewhat misleading.Vininn126 (talk)09:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, except the source you referenced doesn't use phonetic transcription and the pronunciation in the entries is a bit off. The wordsślachetcák andksięzák are transcribed based on the orthography, which isn't right. The ending written orthographically as-ák was likely pronunced as /ɔwk/ at the time these words were written down by Łopaciński, and in a modern Księżak dialect it's /ɔk/. /ɒ/ doesn't exist in the Łowicz dialect since around 1800. It's hard to tell whether theá ando phonemes have completely merged by now (i think it depends on the speaker), but it's for sure that the first one is nowhere near /a/ or /ɒ/. As I've said above, the definitions of these words are also not quite correct and the formślachetcák is now obsolete, it should be listed as a historical form related to modernpl:ślachciorz.Wojt Did (talk)14:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did This is an issue with any dialectal dictionary. We use what is attested.Vininn126 (talk)14:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's true that regional dialects aren't standardised so they evolved and established new linguistic norms much quicker than the literary language, but still, these are linguistic norms. You can generally tell one or two standard ways of realising a phoneme in a given dialect. Inconsistency in things like-y or-ej endings in genitive adjectives is caused by recent influence of the standard language. Modern Łowicz dialect consistently pronuncesá as /ɔ/ andę as /iw̃/ or /ɨw̃/ depending on the consonant before it (soślachetcák andksięzák would beślachetcok /ɕlaˈxɛt.t͡sɔk/ andKsinzok /ˈkɕiw̃.zɔk/ in modern Księżak dialect, although the first one is just an obscure historical form). The wordbogolka imported from Polish wiktionary also useso for theá phoneme and I think that's how it should look for all the Księżak words, the Polish alphabet has letter for almost all the Księżak phonemes. á and ę simply aren't a thing in the dialect anymore, using these letters makes more sense for dialects like Near Masovian which covers a much bigger area and is much more diverse in realisations of these sounds.Wojt Did (talk)14:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

One reason not to use these forms is 1) Even Łopaciński, who you mentioned, tended to be phonetic 2) The Wikipedia articles exist, so people can apply those sound changes 3) Applying them despite not being attested is not that far from conlanging.Vininn126 (talk)14:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Then why make up your own phonetic transcription based on standard Polish and list it as a contemporary Łowicz dialect word when it's not? + the word Księżak is a standard word in modern Polish and and the wordpl:ślachciorz is well documented in at least three sources I know of. Entries based on such sources should be treated as historical formsWojt Did (talk)15:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did I didn't? I stuck to the sources. As to letters like ô, etc., theə are in common use. I also mentioned that I don't mind creating alternative forms. I just stick to what's attested. For things likeślachciorz, seems legit to me. I just haven't gotten around to it yet, which I also mentioned.Vininn126 (talk)15:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I've said Łopaciński used standard Polish orthography (at least for these few entries) so the source clearly doesn't specify the pronunciation. Assuming it's /ɒ/ just because of the letter á isn't correct in this case. According to Łopaciński,ślachetcák means apeasant from a noble village, not anoblesperson from Łowicz as the entry says. Would you mind at least marking them as historical forms? (especially if you ever make entries for the modern forms from Świderska's or Marciniak's works, which are more reiliable and up-to-date). In my first comment I've also explained why I think the Category:Łowicz_Polish page needs some corrections and I'd like you to acknowledge that as well.Wojt Did (talk)15:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did He uses a balance, as so should we. As to historic terms, there are probably quite a few that need marking, such asgeometra, which I updated today, as it's marked asdated by WSJP, but it's more likely historic. I've been conservative with this so far. Also, I feel this has taken an accusatory/confrontational tone and I'm not sure why. Have I wronged you?Vininn126 (talk)15:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, but I think our conceptions of the dialect dictionary vary a lot. I believe the Łowicz dialect is to well-documented in the 20th and 21st centuries to have it's dictionary rely on 19th century sources. I especially don't like the entryksięzák because it's based on Łopaciński who sort of fails to acknowledge the Księżak ethnicity and treats it as common noun. If you ever find yourself making an entry for words likeKsiężak (standard Polish) orKsinzok (Łowicz dialect, I think you'll find it in Świderska's book) please remember to listksięzák as a variant of it from the 19th century, that would make it much clearer and much more accurate.Wojt Did (talk)16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did Well, here's a question: When did those phonetic changes occur? Are you able to tell me?Vininn126 (talk)16:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to tell. By the time the nasal vowel shifted towards u and y there wasn't much research on the dialect's phonetics. According to Świderska, in the interwar period ą and ę was already generally pronunced as nasal u and y (Świderska, p. 29), although she noted that the nasals were still separate phonemes that could be realised differently depending on many factors. That includes the location and contact with the city. People from some villages pronunced ę as a nasal /ɛ/ or /e/, others pronunced them mostly as nasal /e/ or y. ę realized as a nasal /i/ after soft consonants was still rare; the realization of ę was always the same as the vowel in theeN group (Świderska, p. 31). Later, the forms with nasal /i/ or /y/ depending on the consonant before started to become more common, Karaś only notes that kind od pronunciation (łowickie jako gwary pograniczne)Wojt Did (talk)17:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

the Old Polish á was generally pronunced as the standard Polish o phoneme at that time, older people in some parts of the region still pronunced it as /ɔw/ (Świderska, p. 8). The Old Polish o phoneme sounded like /wɔ/, but the labialization was progressively becoming weaker in medial and final positions. (Świderska, p. 22) According to Marciniak's research from 2008 (I don't have the book right now, I might provide more data soon when i return home), the phoneme is no longer pronunced as /wɔ/ in medial and final positions, and initial /wɔ/ decomposed into separate /w/ and /ɔ/ phonemes. It's worth noting that Karaś also found /wɔ/ only at starts of words.

I don't think there is a way to tell when /ɒ/ became /ɔw/ or even if /ɔw/ was ever universal for the whole region. Maybe there's some old research I'm missing, but I think the only hint might be surnames in parish registers. Forms with-onka instead of-anka appeared as early as 1715, but some surnames stopped appearing in their forms with a as late as 1880. So i'd assume the /ɒ/>/ɔw/ or /ɒ/>/ɔ/ shift happened at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries.Wojt Did (talk)17:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The word Księżak sounded like:Kśy̨zok (the nasal vowel here is written as any with the ogonek and ande diactritic above, so it's almost completely shifted toy, Świderska, p. 54),Kśy̨zokamy (instrumental plural-amy ending, ę is just nasal y, Świderska p. 155), Kśy̨zoki (Nominative plural, Nitsch,Wybór polskich tekstów gwarowych, p. 131). Today it's widely recognised in the form Ksinzok (see:w:pl:Zespół_Śpiewaczy_„Ksinzoki”)Wojt Did (talk)17:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I might get more info about the modern nasal /i/ from Marciniak's book when i return homeWojt Did (talk)17:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did Well, much of that is after Łopaciński, is it not? All the more reason to stick to attested forms? Please understand I'm all for using the two sources I mentioned above, but I'm just not for taking earlier sources and applying later sound changes.Vininn126 (talk)17:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I've said, the sound /ɒ/ was never attested in the Łowicz dialect. In the 19th century it was /ɔw/. I completely understand that you want to cite your sources percisely and what I've just said doesn't match them, but please acknowledge the fact that these two entries shouldn't be listed as modern Łowicz dialect terms. The definition ofślachetcák doesn't even match how Łopaciński defined it.Wojt Did (talk)19:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did ó has been around a long time, whether before nasal consonants is another issue. Many times the description of the dialect and its corresponding dictionary don't line up. This is on one hand because dialects are inconsistent. On the other hand, because etymological forms also aren't consistent. Were I to document more Łowicz forms now I'd stick to the two sources I mentioned above, as well as earlier forms, since phonetic changes like that are hard to change.Vininn126 (talk)19:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm just asking you to somehow tag the older forms as last attested in the 19th century, as they are obsolete by now. All the newer sources confirm that you won't find sounds like /ɒ/ or /ew̃/ in the dialect anymore. The two other books you haven't referenced yet are great sources for words that are still used today.Wojt Did (talk)19:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did As for marking some forms obsolete, it's really, really hard for me to say. Plenty of dialectal words and forms are obsolete, but it's hard for me to mark them as such without data. It's still safe to mark some forms as belonging to a particular dialect despite all that, if that makes sense.Vininn126 (talk)19:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a way to leave it in the dialect's category and mark it as obsolete, right? All phonetic variants of words in Łowicz dialect that contain the archaic sounds i mentioned earlier should be marked as such. It's a rural dialect and it's obviously not always consistent, but there are sounds that simply don't occur anymore due to more recent sound changes. Anyway, I believe it will get better when at some point in future you'll start importing words from the more recent dictionaries, I'll probably be trying to improve it as well by referencing more accurate sources.Wojt Did (talk)20:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did There is a way to mark is as belonging to a dialect, as obsolete, but not as "obsolete for that dialect".Vininn126 (talk)20:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did Hi, I've tried to show you what I mean by sticking to sources and such. Please take a look. Let's try to find something we can both agree on.Vininn126 (talk)08:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I absolutely agree with you on sticking to sources. I just wanted to let you know that entries imported from sources like Łopaciński don't even resemble modern Łowicz dialect and should be listed as historical forms, I'd also discourage transcription based on the way he wrote them orthographically. It's really good that you made a page forcingim, Marciniak's dictionary is far more up-to-date and it actually provides information about the pronunciation, that just how the dialect is spoken in the Duchy today. Sorry for being a bit irritating, but I just really want the Wiktionary page for our dialect to be accurate.Wojt Did (talk)19:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wojt Did I appreciate that, and I do too. One issue is again, we can't always be sure when sound changes took place. Hopefully users will be able to determine the current state by checking which source is given.Vininn126 (talk)19:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why was this removed fromBerdyczów?

This phrase is attested as an idiom in Polish. May I know if there anything that makes this phrase invalid or dubious?

• source 1, Polish wiktionary
• source 2, Historykon.pl
• source 3, KyivIndependent
• source 4, Kresy24.pl

PulauKakatua19 (talk)13:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@PulauKakatua19 Mainly formatting. I will restore it.Vininn126 (talk)13:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining!PulauKakatua19 (talk)13:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining the essence of the tables, template of which supposedly are created by you: imoressive. Can I reuse them for Ukrainian terms? Thank you.📍D'Lisye (talk)15:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@D'Lisye I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? I did not create{{cog}}. However I tend not to use the template when there's a parent page. I prefer using it when there is similar internal morphology.Vininn126 (talk)15:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I meant those nice tables at the top of nany Polish entries, especially for suffixes.📍D'Lisye (talk)15:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@D'Lisye Do you mean{{etymon}}? In short, there needs to be consensus within a language editing community to display trees, so ask the Ukrainian editors if they are okay with trees. Otherwise, click the link to the template in this message to read how to use it.Vininn126 (talk)15:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, trees. Thank you. Useful.📍D'Lisye (talk)15:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned about your abundant adding of quotations. Are they original in their compilation? ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk)18:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ktom They are a compilation of many sources, from{{R:zlw-opl:SSP1953}} which is already fairly "copied" in most other sources, and supplemented with others - usually those on the page end up being all that exist within the Old Polish corpus. Copyright should not be an issue.Vininn126 (talk)18:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ktom Also, we supplement entries with plenty of other information. I appreciate the concern.Vininn126 (talk)19:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello again Vinnin126. Would Gardna Wielka Slovincian: gǜ·ršï from Lorentz be gùrszy in the new orthography used here on Wiktionary? Thanks again for all of your help.ElkandAcquerne (talk)21:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, ü is an allophone.Vininn126 (talk)11:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thanks so much again for your help!ElkandAcquerne (talk)13:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I also included this on the Wiktionary:Proto-Slavic entry guidelines page. I wanted everyone's guidance and opinions for the Proto-Slavic pages. I have been putting the languages in order as they are listed in the Wiktionary:Proto-Slavic entry guidelines. I have noticed that for Eastern Slavic, Belarusian, Carpathian Rusyn and Ukrainian group together under Old Ruthenian. For Eastern Slavic, if Belarusian, Ukranian and Russian are all three listed only, doesn't Old Ruthenian always needed to be included? Because how the relationship works is Old Ruthenian and Russian are the two primary nodes. If the three languages are just listed alphabetcally in the order: Belarusian, Russian, then Ukrainian, that is not the actual relationship. I have been editing the pages to match what is on the guidance here. Thank again for your help.ElkandAcquerne (talk)13:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

See my comments in the thread you started recently. Sometimes Old Ruthenian might be unattested, but if it is, it should be included.Vininn126 (talk)14:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why have you done that?NoychoH (talk)12:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The derived/related terms in general need a major cleanup. I reduced it to a clear derived term for now.Vininn126 (talk)12:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the Slovincian entry for Slovincian:kry, I am curious why this would not be krë. Lorentz has this word written as as: krȧ̃ and not *krï. Thanks so much again.ElkandAcquerne (talk)14:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It should indeed be krë, moved, thanks.Vininn126 (talk)14:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, would you like to see our discussion for *pelunъ here:Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/pelunъ. I can't figure out where Varbot is getting his Slovincian term. I assumed that the Pomoranisches Worterbuch is mostly on Kashubian? So you think that Slovincian term is in error? Thanks.ElkandAcquerne (talk)14:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your one-step etymology has established itself. I don't challenge that and of course I do see the advantage of avoiding conflicting info all over the place. Thatis a big advantage; wiktionary is full of this problem. But as you admit, the etymology must never be cut down further than to the last step that has actually been created. So don't remove the Proto-Slavic form before you have created the actual Old Polish entry. About that I do feel strongly, although of course I apologize for stating a bit too emotionally; I often do.90.186.83.1003:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I don't think I ever actually have done that, or if I have, it's been very rare. That was mostly Shumkichi. Who has done some other questionable things...Vininn126 (talk)06:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's just the Wiki-syntax on the article forżłób on the Geektionary, for crying out loud. Moooooo!

Is it necessary to send threats in the form ofthis stubborn edit warring will lead to bad consequences for you.?

I've spent more time than I should digging through sources to find the word's journey, more time than it would take fixing the little template. I will conclude by telling you that it's not very gratifying to be thanked in that manner, and I hope you will review your manner of communicating with fellow Wiktionarians (how are we called?)

Take care.囑囔囔 (talk)17:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to take a second to ask you to calm down. Yes, we disagree on that, but I was telling you as it seems you were unaware of the consequences of edit warring. So yes, it was necessary.

That being said, did I remove your sources? You added some quotes, but actual sources claiming what you're claiming would be appreciated. I have no idea why you mentioned the amount of time you pored over them when this dispute has nothing to do with them.

The issue of senseid's printing odd numbers sometimes is a well-known issue, but your solution only avoids it, doesn't actually solve the issue at hand. I would change it myself but I do not have the coding skills necessary and the programmers who do have a long list of things to go through, so in the meantime I will stick to the formatting that leads to better computer readability. In the worst case scenario, the reader can click the blue link to see which sense it is. But constant undoing and whining about how much time you spent on sources is unnecessary, do not take it personally.Vininn126 (talk)17:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for the sources, everything is on the Yiddish entry.囑囔囔 (talk)17:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I was not sure how to convert these three words into the Wiktionary standard orthography. I am having particular trouble with the diphthong: ẽi̯ (I believe the ẽį̯ is treated the same). vjesẽi̯nnï/vjesẽį̯nnï/vjesnḯ, I guess would be: wjesejnny/wjesejnny/wjesny. I note that ɛi̯ is ej and ėi̯ is éj here. Thanks so much for your help!ElkandAcquerne (talk)14:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne Indeed an interesting case. In theory, /jn/ is often <ń>, but <ńn> might be unwanted. We might want a headword of wjesenny etc. with the /j/ accounted for in the pronunciation module, or your transcription.Vininn126 (talk)14:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It is an interesting case. Lorentz always has something new to consider, LOL. I guess we can mull it over a bit. I was going to add Slovincian to the Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/esenьnъ page, but I will wait. You prefer wjesenny over wjeseńny currently. I wonder if any other Lorentz adjectives have his -ẽi̯nnï forms. Also, I was looking over some other Lorentz words added here I think it was regards to his unstressed syllable final -ĕ- words and they all look like they are correct with regards to the etymologies of when that vowel is stressed in other forms. Kashubian is often a help with these I find.ElkandAcquerne (talk)15:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree wjesenny is better than wjeseńny, the question is, is it better than wjesejnny? I think perhaps.

As to etymological -e-, it's a nightmare. I wish there was no need for <ê>.Vininn126 (talk)15:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

hey hey, not against your edit or anything, just amicably curious to know your methodology cuz im p new around here editing wise. I saw on some English last name entries Armenian in origin, the last names belonging to members of System of a Down were used. What made you delete not just my edit, but also the user example before my edit too? Is it just cuz of Roman Polanski's (deservedly) controversial nature?SinaSabet28 (talk)10:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SinaSabet28 I appreciate the assumption of good faith and curiosity.

It has nothing to do with the person, but I don't think we need to list notable people as usage examples or collocations. We are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. So were I more active in other languages, I'd remove them there. This kind of issue may or may not have consensus, so there might be a wider discussion to be held.Vininn126 (talk)10:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply