User talk:LarryOfficial**

afterblismed
Where did you find this word? Was it used after 1500 (which is our cutoff for English)? Ioaxxere (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's definitely Middle English, found in a single 13th-century translation of Psalm 77:70 (modern translations have it as 78:70). There seems to be a verb which refers to the mating of rams with ewes, and this is a form of the past participle. This entry is not quite bad enough to delete,  but it needs to be converted into a proper Middle English entry with the right part of speech.
 * @LarryOfficial**: I'm going to include our standard welcome template so you can learn how Wiktionary entries should be done. Most of your entries are rare Middle English terms that will require attention from people who know Middle English. See WT:AENM for more information. Also, verb forms like participles and noun forms like plurals should use the head template with "verb form" or "noun form" as the part of speech. Every single one of those you created will have to be fixed.

Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have heard your message loud and clear. I hope I have succeeded in making my page for "afterblismed" better. Let me know if I missed anything. Also, I found this word in a video about English words we don’t use anymore. It didn’t have a page on Wiktionary, so I went onto an online dictionary of really old English words and I found the definition. LarryOfficial** (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (Moved from my talk page to keep everything together:) Thanks for fixing it. If you add more words from that dictionary, I created a reference template that you can use:  Ioaxxere (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been blocked :(
I have been blocked from editing and stuff. Apparently for adding fake words, but I don’t know what I made that was fake. I can’t make or edit pages until July 30th. :( :( :( :( somebody make Clawß for me it’s an alternative form of the name Klaus. LarryOfficial** (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to be more careful before adding words to make sure they are actually used and meet our criteria for inclusion. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that this user has actually been blocked? Ioaxxere (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * : the IP address they're editing from was blocked a few days days ago. Surjection just changed the block settings to disallow logged-in editing from that address, which has the same effect as blocking this account as long as the user is using that IP address to access it. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I question why this was necessary since clearly none of User:LarryOfficial**'s edits warrant a block. Ioaxxere (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: has zero uses online. Do not create words that cannot be attested. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 22:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You see, “zoology” is on Wiktionary, and so is “zoologically.” “biology” is also on Wiktionary, and so is “biologically.” “malacostracology” exists on Wiktionary, but “malacostracologically” WASN’T, so I made it. For words like this, you need -ology,
 * -ologist, -ologists, -ological, and -ologically. It happened to be -ologically did NOT exist for “malacostracology.” LarryOfficial** (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may make sense morphologically, but there's no evidence that any one has ever actually written that word in a sentence. "Malacostracology" is a pretty obscure term to start with and the new form you made up is pretty awkward, so I would question whether anyone really "needs" such a word. Even if someone did, someday, they don't need a dictionary entry to tell them how to create it. Please read our Criteria for inclusion. Anything that doesn't meet its requirements WILL be deleted, and anyone who persists in wasting our time by creating entries for words that don't exist will end up permanently blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be rude here, and I apologize if I am, but if someone doesn’t need an entry on how to create it, then why does “zoologically” and “biologically” even exist? LarryOfficial** (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the admins have opted for this kind of overt hostility. On Wiktionary, the fundamental requirement is "three durably cited quotations". "Durably cited" refers to being published in print (generally journals, books, and newspapers are a safe bet) or being posted on Usenet. Also, quotations have to be "uses" rather than "mentions", which refer to something like "X has five letters" which doesn't actually use the word in its meaning. Unintuitively, you should note that the word existing in other dictionaries doesn't actually count for anything (see Appendix:Dictionary-only terms). Like you pointed out, this policy can lead to some seemingly arbitrary results, such as having an entry while  is rejected. However, the three-quotations rule has in practice been an extremely practical way of judging a word's existence.
 * Although you don't need to add quotations (as long as they exist), I strongly recommend you that you do so—see my recent creation for an example. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Templates
Hi. Remember the or whatever. Just putting the header with the equals signs is not enough. The software won't recognise the entry as a noun (or as anything at all). If you can't remember, then find a nice good entry and copy and edit that every time until it sticks in your head. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 23:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is with form-of entries: for the plural of an English noun, for instance, that would be en ("en" is the language code for English). Note that entries for alternative forms and abbreviations aren't form-of entries: they use the same part of speech headers and templates as the main forms.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I have used the "accelerator" thing for verb forms and plurals, for more years than I can remember: WT:ACCEL. So check that out. Nobody wants to manually enter a plural. Life's too frickin' short (and you won't hear me say that very often, I hate life). Equinox ◑ 01:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this was for the word “bannal”, I have an explanation. I didn’t know if “bannal” was uncountable or countable, so I just removed the ‘en-noun’ and hoped someone would edit it or something like that. I know, it’s a dumb reason. LarryOfficial** (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Second block
Just checking in to say that I had to block this guy a second time, as he is not adding the en-noun template etc and seems to be here to troll us. Three strikes and you're out. Equinox ◑ 14:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, I’m not here to troll you, I’m just not that good at making pages. LarryOfficial** (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does that make it any less disruptive? Please show some initiative and learn what words can be added and what cannot. I have the impression you still haven't read WT:CFI. You should also check out WT:EL. Vininn126 (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Officer, I wasn't trying to run people over, I just don't know how to drive." Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok now I see it. I didn’t think of it that way. LarryOfficial** (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)