User talk:102.115.140.229

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

102.115.140.229 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

I want to appeal the one-month ban on my IP addresses. I have been editing in nothing but good faith on Wiktionary, and I do admit I did commit some mistakes during my edits, and whenever I did notice them I corrected them and I reverted them myself or allowed them to be corrected.

Good faith is fine. The issue seems to be that you are editing rapidly and carelessly, and leaving a mess behind for other editors to sift through and fix. It seems you tend to misunderstand what the sources you add are saying. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Except for the 𐎿𐎣 entry where I definitely misunderstood my source for once (although it was by accident) and another editor corrected it, my edits consisted of copying the information from academic sources to those pages and were consistent with the already existing format of those pages. I'll do my best to be less careless and commit less mistakes if I my ban is lifted. 102.115.140.229 10:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There's slso 𐎱𐎼𐎰𐎺 (p-r-θ-v), 𐎱𐎢𐎫𐎠𐎹𐎠 (p-u-t-a-y-a)... Copying information verbatim also leads to problems, since Wiktionary may use different conventions for some languages (such as reconstructed protolanguages and Egyptian). Carelessness is on its own a reason to block, especially since based on your contributions you seem to value quantity over quality. A month seems to be an adequate duration so that the existing contributions can be sifted through. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I did make some mistakes out of ignorance, but I don't agree with them being called careless, especially since I did correct my mistakes whenever I learnt of them. I did newbie errors since I've barely ever edited anything on Wiktionary before this editing spree, but I wasn't actively careless. I can't see the issue with 𐎱𐎼𐎰𐎺 (p-r-θ-v), though I definitely welcome being informed of my mistakes for this entry. But, yes, I didn't know Wiktionary transliterates differently and reverted a correction to my edit there, but didn't revert it again when told that Wiktionary transliterates it differently.

Alright, I can wait a month until I can edit again, and I'll definitely do my best to not repeat my past editing mistakes. I definitely suggest that my Elamite and Akkadian/Late Babylonian cuneiform additions be examined further, since I had to copy some of the signs from some other already existing Wiktionary entries including cuneiform which I now suspect might themselves have been faulty. And a sign list of multilingual uneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphic signs for editors is badly needed on Wiktionary. I had to rely on the sign lists on Wikipedia's cuneiform and Elamite cuneiform, but they didn't have signs like, for example, Elamite tur, har kaš, etc, and Akkadian tar, kát, gan, par, etc, and for multi-syllabic signs either. 102.115.140.229 13:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You say you don't want your mistakes to be called as having occurred due to carelessness, but you still chose to, for example, add Elamite/Babylonian cuneiforms by cross-referencing tables. That is a recipe for disaster, especially since there are often multiple different possible signs for specific sounds. In this case, it would've simply been better to leave them out and only include a transliteration, and much of the same approach would've also saved other edits of yours. It's generally better to leave out some details than to insert something that could very easily be wrong. Based on what I've heard, your edits on Descendants sections have generally been better than edits to etymologies (which I'm told are riddled with misunderstandings of the cited sources). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Old Persian entries

Mauritius IP, I really have to take issue with your Old Persian etymologies. For one, {{der|peo|OIr.}} should never be done. Old Persian does not descend from Old Iranian -- Old Iranian is a time period, not a language. In fact, the language code OIr. should never be used anymore. You're copy pasting Tavernier OP etymologies without an understanding of how to reconstruct OP, let alone Proto-Iranian. If you want to rapid-fire add OP entries from Tavernier and don't want to take the time to properly reconstruct them, I recommend you add {{rfe|peo|Tavernier: nom. pl. of tigra-xauda-, “wearing the pointed cap”}}.

If you're going to continue on en.Wikt, I suggest you create an account. You'll find that people will be far more lenient with you and revert you off-hand far less. --{{victar|talk}} 20:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit shows that you lack the ability to understand the material you're working with. The -f- in *R̥tafarnā does indeed originate from Median, but the whole word was borrowed into OP as *farnah, and it is from that borrowed word that the term was compounded with. If you're going to go around reverting my edits to your mistakes, you're on your way to another block. You also made said reversion without replying to my comments above. --{{victar|talk}} 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, my bad. I'll be more careful when editing in the future and I apologise for my mistakes. 102.115.138.195 12:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@102.116.0.0/16, *akināka- is not is not a proper Iranian reconstruction *-k- can't even exist before a front vowel in Iranian. --{{victar|talk}} 21:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OP reconstructions should be in Latin script. --{{victar|talk}} 01:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting errors

Mauritius IP, you're making a lot of careless formatting errors with your Old Persian entries. I recommend you familiarize yourself with WT:EL. --{{victar|talk}} 07:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You just made the same mistake again here. Derived terms is a level 4 header. Please read WT:EL and take note of other entries. --{{victar|talk}} 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop going around replacing superscript characters with <sub></sub>. --{{victar|talk}} 04:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Same goes for cuneiform. --{{victar|talk}} 08:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I won't repeat these mistakes. However, @Victar why was my edit to Δαδάκης reverted? That one seemed to be alright? And what should I add in the etymology when a source says a certain word is derived from an Old Iranian language but doesn't specify which Old Iranian language it is? 102.116.100.240 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done a restoration of your edit with corrections. 1. Your sentence made little sense. 2. *Dātakaʰ wasn't reconstructed in nom.sg. 3. 𐎭𐎠𐎫𐎶 (d-a-t-m /⁠dātam⁠/) was marked as a reconstruction even though it's atestted, as is the common suffix -𐎣 (-k /⁠-kaʰ⁠/). Presume it's from OP unless there is a reason to think otherwise. --{{victar|talk}} 17:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)