User talk:Catonif

Does *farβātos exist?
Hello, I am curious about your recent edit to the etymology of which removed the derivation from. If the Proto-Italic form existed at all, it seems it must have been the ancestor of the Latin word, since we say it is "reconstructable back to a Proto-Indo-European *". Is there some issue with the Proto-Italic reconstruction? Thanks! Urszag (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ack! You caught me red handed immediately! Oh well...
 * The thing is, here on Wiktionary Proto-Italic is currently a mess: not only our spellings are very inconsistent, and when they are consistent they are not very smart (why *β for example? it's *f! our WT:AITC should be updated), but the main problem of most of the Proto-Italic entries is the misconception of what the term even refers to.
 * Proto-Italic is “the reconstructable ancestor of the Italic languages”, that means that our entries should be reconstructions based on what we can deduce from the several attested forms in Latin and all the Italic inscriptions, a.k.a. from the bottom. What actually happens most of the time, is that PIt entries have Latin as their sole descendant, and can be reconstructed not with Italic terms, but with other Indo-European ones, a.k.a. from the top. That makes our PIt entries just pages with objectionable spelling and no valuable information, except for the link to the Latin entry, and that of the PIE one. Just useless in-betweens that offer nothing but clutter and confusion.
 * These reasons are why I'm planning to start a mega-RFD with all of the PIt entries of this kind (followed by a reasonable spelling reform), so that we can make sense and value of this. A mega-RFD takes time to put together ( no, I'm just procrastinating ), and I promised myself that until I start it I won't touch PIt entries, but here I fell into temptation: not only we have Latin as the sole descendant, but we're also reconstructing an initial *f- (which though it is most likely to have been pronounced that way by speakers of PIt) irregularly changed into *b- in Latin, thus making it impossible to reconstruct a PIt *f- just with Latin. So we have a reconstruction page that (1) has only one descendant, and (2) doesn't even reflect that.
 * Thank you for reaching out and not reverting me immediately. I'll try not to do anything more to PIt until I'll do the RFD and reach consensus. Catonif (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. And in fact, you did not touch the reconstruction page yet. I did see that the PIt form had Latin as the sole descendant and wonder about that too. I think your plan of addressing all such Proto-Italic cases at a single time is a good idea. I see though that de Vaan refers to forms like "PIt. *farfā-", despite it apparently not being directly attested in any Italic branch aside from Latin.--Urszag (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding, and yes, de Vaan likes to do that, for some reason. Probably because he's more interested about the external proof, i.e. the relationship with PIE, rather than the internal Italic one. As I defined it before, he "reconstructs from the top". About *farfā in particular though, we actually have farfecchia so I think it should be kept. Catonif (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing Template:deverbal
Hi. I have changes not-yet-pushed that convert uses of id2=deverbal into deverbal. I notice you made the opposite change in some cases. The problem with your change is that it removes the category CAT:Italian deverbals, which I think is more important than noting whether a given word is derived from the suffix -o, -a or -e (which should be self-evident from the ending of the word). Benwing2 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! If we want those entries to end up in CAT:Italian deverbals we can set CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -a (deverbal) and CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -o (deverbal) as subcategories thereof. I think that the categories should stay separate, just like CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -are and CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -ire are separate. Catonif (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not sure I see the point of this; the reason for distinguishing -are from -ire is that they have entire distinct conjugations below them, but there is nothing of the sort for -o vs. -a vs. -e deverbals, which don't seem to have semantic distinctions among them. But if you really want those categories, I would suggest we create a specialized etymology template something like abbagliare, which automatically converts to something like . The code you've been adding like   is long and redundant and is likely to lead to all sorts of inconsistently formatted etymologies if we don't clean it up. Benwing2 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, the it-deverbal idea sounds good. Catonif (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Catonif (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I made it-deverbal and tried it out on sferra, abbaio and pago and placed the two categories in CAT:Italian deverbals. Catonif (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

disabled rhymes
Hi, I see several pages where you disabled the rhyme in it-pr, e.g. trabalzone, zozzeria, zozzezza and several others. I'm removing these because I don't understand why we would want to disable the rhyme. I think it's reasonable to do so for proscribed pronunciations but not standard ones. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, those date back to when I planned to sort out the rhyme categories. You see, rhyming a word with another word with the same suffix is somewhat an impure rhyme, so if you wanted to rhyme mangiare you'd be looking for words like mare, chiare etc. but the category is currently bloated with all the other -are verbs. Same things goes for all highly productive suffixes, like -ezza, -one (augmentative), -eria, etc. I was thinking to remove such affixed terms from the category, and then placing the entire category [Term suffixed with -...] (or in -are's case, CAT:Italian verbs ending in -are) in the appropriate rhyme category. But I've practically given up on that project so you can put them back in the rhyme categories. Catonif (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. You'd definitely want to do something like that semi-automatically if you wanted it done. Benwing2 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Zuccu
If a quote uses a certain form of a word, you can't just go and modify it even if the change you want to make is grammatically and morphologically correct. It's falsifying a quote and not permitted. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh you're right, sorry, I forgot I added a quote there and from the diff I presumed they just changed a collocation. Catonif (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of Template:tr-def-suffix form
Your template Template:tr-def-suffix form is used inconsistently. The definition line for -lı does not have the number "1." before it like it should. I can't have the template emit "#" because on the -sız page the # is already there and I would get "1. # ...". Can you go through the uses and make them consistent with each other and with our entry layout guidelines?

I fixed another bug by changing a regular space to a non-breaking space. The regular space was eaten by template processing. "&amp;#32;" is not special, it is the same as typing a space. You have to write "&amp;nbsp;". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The template is supposed to only be used in definition lines (i.e. after #), misuses seem to have been introduced by . I will gladly fix them in my next slice of free time, though I'd like to make clear that I'm not responsible for this. Thanks for fixing the spaces thing, didn't realise. Catonif (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Catonif I meant to fix the head templates from suffix to suffix form on a bunch of entries but I broke other things apparently. I try to make the morpheme forms look like, , etc, not the template by itself without a # but kinda like a sub-head, and then the definition is below, numbered. This makes sense to me but I have a suspicion that the feeling isn't mutual. Orexan (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, and first of all thank you for your excellent contributions! Now, about this: it seems a wise choice to centralise most information, most importantly definitions, but also IMO etymology, only in the lemma form. This is comes in handy when, say, a user wants to edit a definition, and doesn't have to go through the hassle of copy-pasting his change on the other 3~7 entries: information that is duplicated on more entries is bound to get out of sync, and hence hard to maintain. The template's scope was exactly that of giving a practical way to provide soft redirects, as we call them. Therefore, the definitions, which would indeed appear as subsenses, are best omitted entirely from non-lemmas.
 * While we're on the subject, it should probably be also decided on where to lemmatise, if at the fronted ⟨e i⟩ or if at the back ⟨a ı⟩. Possibly worth a BP discussion. Catonif (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Catonif Possibly. Though I don't see a lot of BP discussions coming to conclusion on Turkish, and the category for Turkish morphemes is a dumpster fire that every time I look at it it gives me a headache and a sense of despair that nothing good is ever gonna happen.
 * I'll check the edits on the suffix forms I made around the time I broke . Orexan (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

'grc' language code for Dacian
Hi,

I see that you changed the Dacian translation at [[bryony]] from the language code 'xdc' (meaning Dacian) to the language code 'grc' (meaning Ancient Greek), with the comment 'on purpose'. [] Can you help me understand what this is about?

Thanks in advance!

&#x20; —Ruakh TALK 05:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi !
 * The thing is, the word is Dacian but it's attested only in a Greek text, which doesn't make our work much easy. Saying grc (= κινούβοιλα) was needed for the Ancient Greek CSS to kick in (that is, the right font and size), as xdc looked like κινούβοιλα. The technical problem with this is probably the term showing as a yellow link (which, it doesn't on my end, even though it should. Does it show as yellow to you?) for which the solution would be grc (= grc).
 * This was the technical side of it, but if you question was more "why are we lemmatising this term under Dacian then", the answer is, well, there's no established way of dealing with these things. See for example Talk:κινούβοιλα, with much hesitation even pre-dating my change, or Talk:𐤊𐤋𐤌, where Fay Freak even normalises these attestations into a native script (while noting that it couldn't be done with Dacian and Thracian). A Greek grammarian saying "the Dacians say κινούβοιλα" doesn't mean that the word was ever actually "borrowed into Greek", nor that it was ever a "Greek term", so saying ==Ancient Greek== ===Etymology=== {{bor+|grc|xdc... is IMO misleading.
 * Admittedly, κινούβοιλα and sinupyla were my first Paleo-Balkan contributions, which is why lemmatising them under the donor language seemed most appropriate, Note however that continuing editing for Paleo-Balkan, I eventually settled at keeping them under their attestation language, such as {{m|grc|Δευάδαι}}, {{m|grc|βάρυκα}}, etc. because this double-nature of the terms is hard to maintain. So yes, I would make κινούβοιλα ==Ancient Greek== if I were to do it now. :) Catonif (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining!
 * If there are Dacian words known only from mentions in Ancient Greek sources, and we want to use those spellings (which sounds reasonable to me), then I think we should configure to Dacian to be a language that we use multiple scripts for, rather than marking those words as "Ancient Greek" when we've no reason to think they were ever used in Ancient Greek.
 * No?
 * —Ruakh TALK 01:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my original thought as well and definitely the most straightforward solution for neat cases like κινούβοιλα~sinupyla, but the distinction between the Trümmersprache and Graeco-Latin isn't always so neatly defined. Should sabaia be made into ==Illyrian== ? haliurunna into ==Gothic== ? βρά is reportedly Elean Greek, but Latte reads Ἰλλυρίων instead of Ἠλείων (cod. Ιλειων). There are many different cases with different problems, some more appropriate to have the native L2, others best kept under Graeco-Latin. There's no established policy, and if there were it wouldn't be very practical, as the situation is full with edge-cases, one solution can benefit in one case and backfire in another. {{ping|Mnemosientje}} rightly calls this an "awkward tension", and may have some comments on this. I'd even support having a big box template (in appearence along the lines of {{tl|reconstructed}}) to place under the Graeco-Latin L2 to warn "this is a gloss, not a loan". Catonif (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While a satisfactory one-size-fits-all solution for words like these is difficult to find and there ought to be room for evaluation on a per-case basis, my preference is generally to add them as words in the language of the text in which they are mentioned. I agree that it is a good idea to place some sort of disclaimer, usage note, or other clear indication that explains the difficulty and that the word is not to be viewed as a loanword proper. But again this is probably not optimal in every case and there are many cases in which I am just completely unsure what to do (e.g. basically the entirety of Category:Vandalic lemmas).
 * An example of why I am reluctant to add them under the presumed "real" language header is that a big concern with words like these in my experience is that the language they are ascribed to by the author of the text in which they are mentioned may simply not be quite accurate, or their definitions may be different from ours. Greek and Roman authors, for example, are notoriously inclined to miscategorizing aspects of 'barbarian' culture and language. What one author calls Gothic or Dacian or Persian may in fact refer to a dialect or language that is quite different from the languages we associate with these words.
 * To use an example mentioned by Catonif: when Jordanes calls haliurunnas a Gothic word, does he refer to the same language as Ulfilan Gothic, or does he simply share a bunch of related East Germanic dialects and languages under one and the same umbrella term that differs significantly from our idea of Ulfilan Gothic? (Compare the case of Procopius, according to whom Goths, Visigoths [mentioned separately from "Goths"], Gepids and Vandals all spoke the same language called "Gothic" - but we consider Vandalic at least to be a separate language on Wiktionary! And consider the tendency of Greeks and Romans to dismiss everyone on the Eurasian steppe as "Scythian", even up to Byzantine times - "Gothic" in some contexts may similarly have been a catch-all term imposed out of convenience or intellectual laziness/disinterest by outsiders on a heterogeneous group speaking heterogeneous languages and dialects, including but far from limited to what we consider to be "Gothic".)
 * I therefore usually prefer to err on the side of caution and, following the example of many modern Latin and Greek dictionaries, generally put them under a Latin or Ancient Greek language header, unless the case is clear-cut. But I am not sure if that is the right approach, and am open to a well-reasoned general solution if one can be found. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mnemosientje}} I wholeheartedly agree. We could try to formalise some of our points into guidelines/suggestion in the WT: namespace (no strong policy of course, given the great wobble).
 * About the particular example of the Vandalic lemmas, aside from the eils / scapia matzia ia drincan and some reconstructions, they seem to be mostly given names, which I'm assuming appear as Latinised in otherwise fully Latin text, like Liburnian Vescleves- is (if on the other hand they appear isolated then ignore the following). These seem to me not only lemmatisable under ==Latin==, but even treatable as proper loans. My rationale is modern given names from actually attested languages work the same way, so Nguyen and Rossi have an ==English== as well. Hyperbolically speaking, I could even claim that someone possessing a name of Vandalic origin must not be assumed to even speak Vandalic.
 * As for eils / scapia matzia ia drincan on the other hand, I'd definitely be bummed if it appears as ==Latin==, as it's good proper Vandalic running text, not glosses. It's a shame the source just calls them Gothi... If the corpus however more or less amounts to this we could even make Vandalic (maybe together with other East Germanic lects) an etym-only language code of Gothic, and the words could be placed under ==Gothic== with a label (most likely Vandalic) vel sim., which would of course categorise accordingly so the Vandalic lemma category wouldn't be lost. Catonif (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European *leyd-
Buongiorno. You recently created a page 🇨🇬, and I copied the information into Bunadas (my network database of cognate words, with the emphasis on Celtic). What this threw up, though, as seen in this tree generated by Bunadas, is that the Old Irish words laíd/laídid are indicated by other Wiktionary pages (🇨🇬, 🇨🇬) as being from “From Proto-Indo-European *lēwt-, *lēwdʰ- (“song, sound”), from Proto-Indo-European *lēw- (“to sound, resound, sing out”)”. Any thoughts on this? I am not a historical linguistics expert myself, and so am unable to voice an opinion. --Caoimhin (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hòigh ! I as well don't have the knowledge to voice my own opinion on the etymology of the Irish word, but I can report what I can find on the sources I have access to. The connection with Gmc. *leuþą is favoured here, but it seems that all of the notable later sources,  although with some uncertainty, connect the word with L. ludo rather than laus (for which I rewrote the etymology). Connection with laus is explicitely rejected here, and is left unmention in all of the following works I checked. In any case, those trees (I played around with the site a bit) are very interesting. Catonif (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I cleaned up, and I also agree, the Celtic doesn't look to belong there. I also don't think the Albanian is related either, which, if so, would make this a Balto-Slavic-only root. -- 05:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the sources which you kept on the entry go against your edit. A separate root for "to play" seems to go back to Pokorny, and I imagine that Mallory, to which I don't have access, endorses it as well, but are you single-handedly dismissing the more recent Rix and all of the Leiden linguists? I'm ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing. Catonif (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Most recent ≠ most right. Also note that Rix marks all of his reconstructions on his entry as uncertain. It's a theory he published, not fact. -- 17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's comparative linguistics: everything is a theory, nothing is a fact. That said, there are four cites on the entry, none of which are minor or outdated sources, all explicitely agreeing on a single root "to let; to let go". You are free to doubt whatever you will, yet, in your words, "deleting sourced reconstructions is unprecedented and counterproductive to the project". Again, I am ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing , while by far all you've provided is "doesn't look like it belongs here", "I don't think", "doesn't make much sense" and "I really doubt". Whenever you'll feel like elaborating on your doubts, feel free to do so in WT:ES or on the entry's talk page. Catonif (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Catonif if you think that should be merged, you need to start a WT:RFM or WT:RFD the second meaning. Please do not start  and wheelwarring simply because you disagree. . --  16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again,.
 * You, endorsing a Pokorny theory, removed a root which, although you keep claiming is only supported by Rix, is widely supported by modern sources. And now you accuse me of deleting sourced content. What was the content that you deleted unsourced?
 * I remerged the roots, again, per sources, while being careful at keeping all of the work you did on the entry I deemed appropriate. You, on the other hand, compulsively reverted my edits without even looking at them (besides other things, the most blatant example is you removing dial. Alb. le and the missing asterisks you reinstated). And you accuse me of wheelwarring.
 * I asked you to provide proper reasoning and sourcing, and you've yet to do it.
 * Please address each of these points. Catonif (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Distinzione tra primo e tardo proto-italico
Salve, collega sia di Wikipedia che di nazionalità, sono Cicognac e sono utente autoverificato su Wiki.it, lavoro ultimamente nel Wikizionario. Sono stato bloccato per una questione banale da un admin ma, in mezzo a questo blocco (dovrebbe avermi sbloccato), mi ha segnalato te e un tale @Nicodene, collega italiano pure lui, per sbrogliare una questioncina in proto-italico (premetto che sono laureato in Lingue e ho un background mio in simili proto-lingue pur non essendo PhD o docente di linguistica storica).

Qui nel Wikizionario erano già presenti ricostruzioni in primo proto-italico, cioè quando *f < *θ fricativa interdentale sorda < PIE *dʰ e quando h < *x < *gʰ (sia con che senza labializzazione) se si postula tale cambiamento come avvenuto già in tardo proto-italico. Dal background che ho, avevo riconosciuto tali ricostruzioni (mi risultano). PUC mi ha detto che 'sono poco convincenti', eppure da *fakjo ho ricosciuto *θakjo quando l'ho visto la prima volta (basta vedere la radice in PIE). Stavo estendo tali cambiamenti compilando le 'early version' dei vocaboli in proto-italico contenenti tale mutazione meccanica ma PUC mi ha detto di parlarne con voi. Si tratta solo di applicare un paio di mutamenti fonetici meccanici.

Possiamo discutere qui sia di questo problema (a me non sembra tale, ma ne discuto lo stesso e volentieri), sia di come lavorare al proto-italico che mi interessa tantissimo e di come eventualmente gestire la trascrizione (e.g. 'f' oppure 'ɸ'? Io sto usando sempre e solo la prima ma è perlopiù una preferenza mia). Il mio sogno in futuro è di travasarci tutto il dizionario etimologico di De Vaan, di cui ho una copia virtuale, poi non so se c'è altro di simile per il proto-italico. Intanto, ti saluto insieme a Nicodene. Se ci sono altri esperti di proto-italico, puoi chiamarli qui. Cicognac (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ti aggiorno immediatamente dicendoti che forse rimuovo le forme del primo proto-italico senza le fonti, pure se la forma non tarda distingue *θ e *x labializzato prima che convergessero in *f in una fase più tarda (siccome il cambiamento è meccanico, ho pensato di inserirlo manualmente ma in effetti tali forme non sono corredate da fonti); pure se la convergenza è confermata, per tagliare la testa al toro si può optare per accettare qui solo forme di primo PIt fontate da fare contrastare con il tardo PIt. Aspetto solo un assenso finale. Questo modus operandi può essere elevato a standard nella sezione di PIt qui sul Wikizionario, ne stavo parlando proprio con @Nicodene. Cicognac (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ciao,, carissimo compatriota. Mi dispiace per il blocco (ingiustificato, poiché non stavi andando contro a nessun avvertimento), ma mi fa piacere che si sia già giunti ad un compromesso. Il motivo per cui il genere di contributi quali i tuoi siano controversi in realtà si inserisce in un discorso che va avanti da tempo e che avevo abbandonato per lo stress che mi provocava, ma riconosco che avendo lasciato le cose al caso la situazione protoitalica ora è forse ancora più precaria e arrangiata di quanto non lo fosse prima. Perciò mi è ripresa la briga di aggiornare le linee guida del protoitalico. Continuo dunque in inglese sulla pagina di discussione della norma per il protoitalico. Ti informo comunque che Nicodene, sebbene possegga un'ottima comprensione dell'italiano, è un georgiano purosangue. :) E un'ultima curiosità, in che lingue ti sei laureato? Catonif (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cinese moderno standard (quindi non dialetti come il cantonese) e inglese; in più, da autodidatta (e usando le teorie di Krashen per cui usi una didattica improntata all'acquisizione linguistica invece che all'apprendimento, cioè usi pochissimo i libri), soprattutto man mano che mi libero mi studio il portoghese brasiliano, ucraino, spagnolo e francese, ho poi gettato le basi di greco moderno, albanese, rumeno e latino (quest'ultimo mi serve più per esami universitari e come ponte per il proto-italico) più quelle del pidgin nigeriano. Per 'gettare le basi' intendo ricostruire un ordine di acquisizione plausibile in base a quello di lingue imparentate, degli studi che conosco e dell'esperienza mia, da lì ti costruisci il materiale andando in ordine. Sono un wanna-be iperpoliglotta, insomma.
 * Dimmi dove trovo la pagina di cui parli, così insieme a @Nicodene riesco a seguirti: è per caso About Proto-Italic, sezione 'discussione'? In teoria, potrei mettere anche io da solo uno standard e da lì aggiustare/correggere le pagine per poi espandere la sezione di proto-italico con opere di De Vaan e Schrijver (sono i due studiosi più citati), ma non mi va di fissare degli standard da solo.
 * Se conosci altri studiosi di cui posso attingere dai loro lavori, dimmi pure. Posso pure chiedere alla mia tutor di latino, che aveva fatto una tesi su filologia (quindi penso che conosca il proto-italico e/o abbia un network di studiosi che lo conoscono). Cicognac (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:syn lb inline modifier
Hi, I notice you've been using the tag param and/or inline modifier in syn and ant. These are changing to be lb and now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the lb template. (Same thing with the desc template.) Benwing2 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the notice! Catonif (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Technical problems
Hi, Catonif ː) How you are you doing?

I have a technical question and I was hoping you could help me. Per farla breve, quando digito la combinazione di tasti che nella tastiera italiana restituisce la parentesi graffa, quello che ottengo è questo carattere ̪. Perché? E non riguarda solo la parantesi graffa, ma tutta una serie di caratteri che richiedono una combinazione di tasti. Spero di non essere l'unico. ː( FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ehilà! :) Scusa per il ritardo, hai ancora questo problema? Di certo è abbastanza bizzarro, hai attiva una qualche impostazione particolare per la tastiera? Catonif (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sì, ma ormai è da una vita. Ho pensato solo ora di chiedertelo e vedere se succedesse anche ad altri. A questo punto però, mi sa che è un problema solo mio. Ora controllo bene se ho cambiato qualche impostazione. Deve essere un problema dell'account, perché se non faccio il login non mi dà problemi... FierakuiVërtet (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Vabbè, sono scemo io, ho appena fatto "Restore all default references (in all sections)" e il problema si è risolto. Scusa per averti scomodato per questa s*ronzata XD FierakuiVërtet (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha vabbè, mos u shqetëso, mi fa piacere che si sia risolto. :) Catonif (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello. Are you interested in becoming an admin? PUC – 09:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thank you for your recognition. Tempting proposition. I'm not sure the community really wants nor needs any new admins (the last ones accepted were in 2022), but we can give this a shot, why not? Catonif (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)