User talk:Наименее Полезное

Belarusian hyphenation
Hello and welcome. I noticed that you made a bunch of recent edits to add hyphenation to various Belarusian words. However there are some errors there. For example, your edit of the word уласцівасць adds an incorrect hyphenation "у‧лас‧ці‧вас‧ць". The hyphenation rules can be found here. In particular, it's incorrect to hyphenate a word in such a way, that a single letter is left out on a separate line. Could you please pause the mass editing for a while? Also it would be nice if you could go through your earlier edits to review and correct the older mistakes. Thanks. —Ssvb (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Добры дзень! Ой, я прашу прабачэння за беспарадак, мая англійская не вельмі добрая, таму мне давядзецца мець зносіны з вамі па-беларуску або па-руску. Я прагледжу свае праўкі і выпраўлю іх, дзякуй за паведамленне і яшчэ раз прашу прабачэння! Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's a strict written formal policy about this, but all communication with the other editors is normally done in English in the English Wiktionary. How good are your English skills on the CEFR scale? Maybe try the free EF Standard English Test from the Internet to get a rough estimate and put this info into your WT:Babel box? If you feel like your English skills are insufficient, then maybe consider contributing to the Russian Wiktionary instead? —Ssvb (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, my English is reasonably level 3, I just wanted to communicate in Belarusian because I thought we could Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Перанос «шкоднасны»: шкод-насны? Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References to external dictionaries for Belarusian
The modern words like падабайка or ноўтбук are NOT present in the Kandrat Krapiva's Explanatory Dictionary of the Belarusian Language (1977-1984), because they simply didn't exist back then. I think that it's undesirable and misleading to list this dictionary in the references section for these words. And any other dead links shouldn't be there either. —Ssvb (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * My current interpretation of WT:CFI is the following: we can safely assume that any word present in the Kandrat Krapiva's dictionary generally falls into the "clearly widespread" category and doesn't need any special attestation. But the other words preferably should have citations. For example, that's the reason why I added citations for падабайка and содні. And dead links to Skarnik only make it harder to see, where such citations might be necessary. —Ssvb (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted! this mistake will not be made again. Наименее Полезное (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Belarusian etymology formatting
Genuine question, why are you so obsessed with starting every entry with "From", using "der+", and having "and" with the compare cognates bit?

Using "af" instead of "prefix" or "suffix", that's fair enough — even the categories of suffixed or prefixed terms suggest using "af" — but from where did you get the idea that starting etymologies with "From" or using "and" for the cognates are necessary? I don't ever recall this being a required convention for Russian, Ukrainian or Polish. In fact, I'm not sure there is such a convention. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)