User talk:DingoRoo01

Don't add "English cognate equivalent would be"; those are useless and pointless. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 08:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edits
There are several issues with your edits, in addition to what Surjection already mentioned: —Rua (mew) 21:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC) And I'm well aware of what a cognate is. Hence why sometimes I put "Compare" or "Related to". But I'd like to have a place my students can go online to look up words and see how they relate to the English language to help them out. There's no other site online that let's you do this. I'm working toward my doctorate essentially in comparative linguistics. One year left. Big fan of Chromsky and "Universal Grammar" theory. I've read all his stuff. :)
 * A cognate is a word that originates from the same ancestral word as another. For German and English words to be cognates, they have to have existed in Proto-Germanic and then inherited later. Words that were merely formed the same way are not cognates, they are parallel formations. Words that weren't even formed the same way, but merely share an element such as a root or affix, are definitely not cognates.
 * Cognates should not be listed in the etymology, especially not if there are potentially dozens of them across all languages. Cognates should instead be listed in the descendants section of the word they originate from.
 * Don't repeat what is already said elsewhere. This ties in with the point immediately above, but goes further: for compound or affixed words, don't give the origins of the affixes or parts of the compound on every word they appear in. Only give the origin of the affix on its own entry.
 * Descendants sections, like on, are only for actual descendants, not for terms derived from descendants. If we were to put the entire tree of derived terms for every language in the descendants section, it would become a huge unreadable mess.
 * Some of your etymologies were just plain wrong.
 * I'm actually a German teacher. You can ask me which ones you are referring to. That being said, I've only taught at college level for three years. If the more controversial sources that standard linguists disagree with or are deemed "debatable", that's fine.
 * I've had to revert more of your edits, mostly because you failed to follow the tips that Rua gave you. You also seem to have gotten a German Low German entry confused with the German one. By the way, I've never met a linguist who couldn't spell "Chomsky" correctly. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind the spelling- after that last paragraph, I think we can assume that pretty much everything this person has said about their background is a bald-faced lie. No one who knows anything about historical linguistics would ever say that and expect to be taken seriously. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * any chance that this is the same person as User:Maddog03? —Rua (mew) 17:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is. User:DontMessWithMeBro is the same person as well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , why did you block the accounts? I wasn't aware of any of them having been blocked before, and sockpuppets are permitted as long as they are not abused. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Maddog03 wasn't on my radar, but it was obvious DingoRoo01 and DontMessWithMeBro were the same person. The only reason I didn't do anything was because there was no overlap between the two, though I was getting ready to read them the riot act about doing the same shoddy edits after they switched accounts. Maddog03 changes everything, because that means they were using two different accounts at the same time without telling anybody. I've now blocked all 4 of their accounts (they created a new one just today), and the proverbial horse they rode in on... I could be wrong, but I think that should stop them for a while. They don't seem all that bright, and they certainly weren't good at covering their tracks- so I don't see them getting around this any time soon (or at least, not without getting caught again right away). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As for why I blocked them, they had already lied to us pretty blatantly, then tried to evade notice by getting their account renamed and blanking their talk page. When that didn't work, they created a new account and started doing the same kinds of things they had been asked repeatedly not to do. I haven't checked the timing, but I find it suspicious that they created yet another account (SilentMuffin) on the same day that this discussion was taking place. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I have checked: they created their new account 29 minutes after Meta confirmed here that the three accounts were the same person, and 4 minutes after the last time they tried to blank this page. QED. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not have personally blocked them for this, but I will respect your judgement. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty firm about their needing some kind of a block, but I'm not going to be stubborn about the length of the block if others disagree. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)