User talk:Taric25

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverts at platypus
The reasons your edits have been reverted is that you have changed a neutral, descriptive wording to a more opinionated, prescriptive wording. Wiktionary aims to be a descriptive dictionary that describes actual use, so a form isn't preferred simply on the basis of etymology. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, you could claim that "your" is a form of "you're", which it is not. Etymology is the basis for definitions, not to be thrown out of hand simply because of mass malapropism usage.
 * The litmus test for what we publish on Wikimedia projects, such as Wiktionary, is based on what we can verify, based on reliable sources.
 * According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the common plural form is platypuses, and the rare form is platypodes. The entry at https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/14545 is where you can see it. The etymology is Hellenistic Greek πλατύπους flat-footed from ancient Greek πλατυ- platy- comb. form + πούς foot, owing to -pod combined form.
 * In 1799, George Shaw proposed the scientific Latin genus name in the first recorded usage of the word on page 386 in Vivarium Naturæ, or Naturalist’s Miscellany "The Platypus is a native of Australia or New Holland, and is at present in the possession of Mr. Dobson, so much distinguished by his exquisite manner of preparing specimens of vegetable anatomy."
 * The plural form platypi is conjecture formed by analogy with Latin nouns of the second declension ending in -us, but the plural form platypodes is after Hellenistic Greek πλατύποδες, plural of πλατύπους, which is the etymological origin of the word. The plural form octopodes reflects the Greek plural. The plural octopi is a conjecture that arises from apprehension of the final -us of the word as the grammatical ending of Latin second declension nouns.Taric25 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We do have criteria that help us decide what alternative forms to include and what not to include. For instance, your is seldom consistently used as an alternative form for you're in edited prose. However, an error made often enough will eventually become an alternative form. Your "litmus test" is very Wikipedia-centric and it has no currency here. Dictionaries are supposed to be secondary sources, not tertiary sources like encyclopaedias. It is important to work with the aims and culture of a Wikimedia project, not to prescribe from one's individual experience how it should be. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is a descriptive dictionary. Our source for everything except etymologies is usage rather than authoritative references. See Appendix:Dictionary-only terms for a long list of cases where we disagree with dictionaries.
 * More to the point here: being truer to the etymology does not make a form more correct. Would you say that is the "correct form" of ? or that  is the "correct plural"? How about "a " instead of "an " or "an  instead of "a "? Or how about "a norange" instead of "an "?  Do you go to the nursery and ask if they have "petuniae" or "begoniae"?
 * Language changes- otherwise everyone in the world would be speaking the same language. Part of change is reanalyzing grammatical paradigms and substituting inflected forms that are more consistent with inflected forms of similar words.
 * There was a period that grammarians tried to make English as much like Latin as possible, since they felt that classical languages were the ancient foundation of our culture and other languages were corrupt vernaculars. That attitude is inherent in the term itself, which comes partly from . That attitude also permeated lexicography, but has mostly been superseded among lexicographers themselves.
 * is only wrong as English if English speakers think it's wrong as English. It's also etymologically wrong, but that's beside the point. I would argue that it's more wrong than "platypodes" because it only exists as an attempt at being etymologically more correct but it's based on an incorrect etymology- though twice wrong is the same as wrong as far as a dictionary is concerned.
 * It looks to me like most of the insistence on forms like and  as the "correct" plurals is a reaction to the etymological nonsense inherent in  and . Chuck Entz (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Listen, both of you are coming from the train of thought that something in English "is only wrong as English if English speakers think it's wrong as English", which is complete nonsense totally not supported by any verifiable, reliable sources, which is tantamount to supporting any logical discourse or inference at all and is akin to spreading misinformation to support your own agenda that there is no correct usage of the English language, when in fact there are myriad malapropisms that are pervasive in usage and are objectively wrong and proven wrong with such verifiable, reliable sources.Taric25 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between logical discourses / inferences and terms in a language. A = not A is objectively wrong, and pigs can't fly, regardless of what anyone thinks. Language follows different rules, however. The fact that dragons and unicorns don't exist is irrelevant to the fact that and  do.
 * Listen, both of you are coming from the train of thought that something in English "is only wrong as English if English speakers think it's wrong as English", which is complete nonsense totally not supported by any verifiable, reliable sources, which is tantamount to supporting any logical discourse or inference at all and is akin to spreading misinformation to support your own agenda that there is no correct usage of the English language, when in fact there are myriad malapropisms that are pervasive in usage and are objectively wrong and proven wrong with such verifiable, reliable sources.Taric25 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between logical discourses / inferences and terms in a language. A = not A is objectively wrong, and pigs can't fly, regardless of what anyone thinks. Language follows different rules, however. The fact that dragons and unicorns don't exist is irrelevant to the fact that and  do.


 * There's no need for the template, since you're only blocked from editing a handful of entries. Feel free to bring the issue with the content at the Tearoom, or make a complaint about my actions at the Beer parlour. I would point out, however, that your basic premise is in direct opposition to a fundamental principle underlying our Criteria for inclusion. This is not Wikipedia, and trying to make Wiktionary follow Wikipedia's rules generally doesn't go over well here. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely need for the template. Your actions for blocking someone because you disagree with him for being bold and engaging in discourse is wholly unreasonable and tantamount to malfeasance. Taric25 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly asserting that your preferences are objectively true, correct or what not does not make it so. It also shows that you are not familiar with the way modern linguistics works: see for an accessible summary. You should not be demanding drastic changes in policy without an understanding of the existing practices.
 * Requesting that a bureaucrat and checkuser lose his blocking rights certainly aims for the stars, but wouldn't you say that it is also unrealistic and just a little silly? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  08:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it shakes the conscience that one would resort to such malfeasance. Taric25 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing what's at the heart of the matter, namely that your edits did not confirm with longstanding policy at Wiktionary. For this reason your requests are unlikely to be granted, because Chuck Entz acted to prevent further edits that are in conflict with policy. Besides the ban is extremely narrow, so the administrative measure is very unintrusive and could only with great difficulty be seen as malfeasance. Anyway, only posting on your talk page does nothing to advance your case for getting unblocked. Besides that I strongly urge you to drop the complaint about malfeasance and the request for heavy sanctions against a bureaucrat.
 * Here is a question: if you were unblocked, would you stop making the same edits to platypus? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  16:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was banned for after providing discussion and a source on the talk page! Your totally unethical bias is showing. Taric25 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]
 * Anyway, I'm done trying to get you to acknowledge Wiktionary's policies as it is obvious you are intransigently opposed to linguistic description. Do refrain from editing platypus from the same mindset when your block is over. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  16:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you leave my talk page, and don't contact me again! Taric25 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)