User talk:Hergilei

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Babel

I see you do a lot of good work here. Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. Or you could enter anything into your user page so that it no longer appears as a redlink. Happy contributing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

cs-IPA and ti

Greetings, heads up: {{cs-IPA}} is not fully automatic and it does not properly handle "ti" in words of foreign origin, e.g. anti- and antika. One has to provide a manual markup in these kinds of situations, like "anty-" and "antyka". Thank you for all your cs-IPA contributions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Heads up, Bonifác is bonyfác and Benedikt is benedykt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

More heads up: surrealismus is sirealizmus. When in doubt, one can check in IJP, which in this case is linked from surrealismus in Akademický slovník cizích slov, 1995, at prirucka.ujc.cas.cz and says "výslovnost: [sirealizmus]". IJP usually does no state pronunciation ("výslovnost"), only when it is not straightforward. Of course, how would one know that for surrealismus there is a gotcha? I don't have an answer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cenia

Please don't create entries for words that are unattested. The name "Kenya" has only been recorded since the 19th century, so there cannot possibly have been an Old English term for it. Read WT:ATTEST for more information; I've deleted the entry now. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of non-lemmas

Non-lemma forms should not be split by etymology. It's already clear from the definition which term they belong to. Instead, they should be grouped under a single etymology section which contains {{nonlemma}}. Can you remove all non-lemmas from Category:Polish terms with multiple etymologies and change the entries accordingly? —Rua (mew) 15:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WT:ACCEL

I noticed you're creating all the Polish inflections by hand. Would it help if I enabled the automatic creation of entries with WT:ACCEL? You only need to click the link to the form then and it automatically fills in the wikitext, you only have to check it and save. —Rua (mew) 19:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Have to say, it seems a bit intimidating but yes, I'd like to give it a try. Thanks! Hergilei (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at how to add it to Module:pl-noun, but it's been written in a very strange way that makes it hard to do. I may have to change some things and it will take a while. —Rua (mew) 19:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding categories under the wrong section

I noticed that on deblo, both the Serbo-Croatian and the Slovene categories are placed in the Slovene section. The categories for each language should go in their own language section. —Rua (mew) 10:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:R:pl:WSJP

This template does not handle multiple-word entries well (see Gorzów Wielkopolski). Could you fix it? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 00:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps much..

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Gorz%C3%B3w_Wielkopolski&diff=prev&oldid=53829646 I don't know how to fix the template itself, sorry! Hergilei (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hergilei That was very helpful—it made it much less confusing to look at. I just attempted to reformat the template however and I think that I fixed it. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Thank you for fixing it! I couldn't figure it out myself; my knowledge is fairly limited. Hergilei (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Polish vulgarities

Hello, thank you for your work, but I have a question: why are you cancelling reflexive forms of the Polish verbs, like in word jebać? First, you leaved doubled words, second I don't see a clear motive of doing that if f.ex. in Russian derived terms word ебать there are also reflexive formss, without problems, like съебаться. Third: reflexive forms are important because the word can change meaning thanks to that - f.ex. word zjebać się can have meaning "to fart" but zjebać without się hasn't it.

Asank neo (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The general practice of Wiktionary is to not include reflexive forms of verbs if they are the same as the base form plus some other word. Since reflexive verbs are a single word in Russian, they are included, but not in Polish, where there are two separate words. —Rua (mew) 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Asank neo I believe I transferred all of the meanings but if I missed anything, please let me know. Hergilei (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Virile vs. męskoosobowy

Virile (the grammatical gender) and męskoosobowy (the Polish equivalent) are not the same thing. Virile is strictly plural and used to describe a group with at least one man, whereas męskoosobowy is either singular or plural (the singular's equivalent in English is masculine personal). Your recent edits to entries such as ciążowego are therefore technically incorrect. This is however not an urgent issue as the affected entries are still understandable. I would also leave it to a bot to make the relevant corrections since you edited well over a hundred entries in this manner (impressive commitment by the way). I can reach out to a bot for you if you want me to do so. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 23:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistakes. If you're able to contact a bot, please do so. Thanks! Hergilei (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Help:Language inflection bot

Hey there. As you are making lots of entries for Czech verb forms, perhaps you'd like to user a speedier process (using a bot). --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested but I'm not sure how. Hergilei (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it needs a bit of time investment in the beginning. Reading this help page is a good start. A few years ago I was running a similar bot, and I have no knowledge of any computer languages. --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a try. Hergilei (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Hergilei,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Hergilei,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Hergilei,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding empty declension sections

Greetings, I for one do not appreciate empty declension sections containing requests for declension such as the one added in diff. Others will disagree. Surely, if we wanted to have such sections, these could be created by bots. On a related note, vote Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing failed unanimously. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

Heads up: sometimes the word is not in SSJC or PSJC, hence my diff. One has to check. Great to see you adding PSJC and SSJC to FR to Czech entries in volume. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: PSJC template links not only PSJC but also Kartotéka. As a result, one has to check whether the link really shows PSJC entry. For example, this link[1] shows the cards that show usage of the word, but it shows no PSJC entry. For showing the cards only, there is {{R:KNLA}}. (Keep up the good job.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: {{R:ASCS}} is tricky: it points to prirucka.ujc.cas.cz, which then often but not always has Akademický slovník cizích slov; in fact, only words of foreign origin are expected to be in that dictionary. Hence my diff. They way to check is to search for "ASCS" on the target page; it is found e.g. in entry pelargonie; when you click on "ASCS" there, the content of ASCS appears. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now expanded Template:R:ASCS/documentation to the above effect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:ru:Male people

Hi,

You have to be a bit more careful when adding terms to explicit categories. There is nothing in the word бузотёр (buzotjór) to refer to men. It may also be a woman, e.g. you can say "Она такой бузотёр!" even if feminine forms may also exist: бузотёрша, бузотёрка. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop categorizing grammatically masculine names of professions as male without evidence (e.g. without advice from native speakers or without searching through a corpus). For most professions, while the feminine noun is indeed only used for women, the masculine noun is unmarked (used for both women and men). I think a bot will be required to revert all the mistaken changes. Tetromino (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

Greetings, what makes you think that Czech snadný is from snad + -ný? It seems pretty unobvious to me. Rejzek 2001 has entry "snad přísl. snadný, [...]", thereby linking the two words, but that does not seem to indicate that snadný is necessarily from snad + -ný. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I brought that etymology over from French Wiktionary [2]. Hergilei (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This etymology was entered into fr wikt in diff from 2012; the diff seems to add Rejzek as the source by adding "R:DÉT", but I have just quoted Rejzek and it does not seem to me that what Rejzek indicates derivation rather than being related. In general, other Wiktionaries are not reliable, and we usually advise editors not to rely on them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gołach

Hi. i saw your contributions to the surname Gołach, i was wondering if you knew anything about it, as I know its extremely rare and id love to find the origin of it. Paris889 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an expert but if I had to guess, I'd say it's likely a nickname for a bald or poor person, from the adjective goły. This adjective is probably also the root of the surname Gołaś. There were 1489 people with the surname Gołaś, and 81 with the surname Gołach, living in Poland in the early 1990s:

http://web.archive.org/web/20160823042258/http://www.futrega.org/etc/nazwiska.html

-ś is one of several different suffixes which may be used to create nicknames (see for example Jaś, a nickname formed from Jan.)

-ch is also sometimes used, though it's not as common in modern Polish. You can find more info about this suffix in the following book, pages 259 to 263

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZJudCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA260

Hergilei (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Czech compounds with -o-

As for diff: Jan Kameníček started to use -o- and I think it is a good practice. It seems much better to use -o- than to provide trivial combining forms for many words. Any noun or adjective used as the first item in compounding would need a combining form, where the combining form arises fairly trivially by attaching -o-; thus kočka --> kočko-, jih --> jiho-, volný --> volno-, černý --> černo, etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

-ení rather than -ění

Czech proudění is proudit + -ení rather than proudit + -ění. The thing is, proudit is prouďit pronunciation-wise, resulting in prouďení, which is then spelled as proudění. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

-ařka

diff seems implausible to me and is not supported by Slovnik afixu[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the support from the source, the principle that, say, houbařka = houba + -ařka rather than houbař + -ka would lead to increase of other compound suffixes, e.g. -telka instead of -tel + -ka, -ložka instead of -log + -ka, -anka instead of -an + -ka, -ička instead of -ik + -ka or -ič + -ka, and -istka instead of -ista + -ka, as a quick glance at Category:Czech words suffixed with -ka suggests. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Czech zero suffix

As for diff, I believe elektřina|-o-|měřit for elektroměr is correct and elektřina|-o-|-měr is incorrect, or at least introduces a plethora of combining forms (not only -měr) that are better explained as zero suffix attached to měřit. Do we have a source for "-měr" being a suffix? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I am not sure, but your creation of, say, Thesaurus:pyj without indicating the source, which is the mainspace entry pyj, could be a copyright violation. Wiktionary entries, including their content, are copyrighted under CC-BY-SA. What could prevent it from being a copyright violation would the position that synonym lists are not subject to copyright. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Template l in definition lines

As for diff in which you changed "[[exponential]]" to "{{l|en|exponential}}" on a definition line, there was a vote against that and I think I saw bots changing it to the opposite. Let me see if I can find the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries. The relevant portion: 'All translations on the definition lines of non-English entries use {{l}} to link to English terms.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving derived terms to usage examples

diff: I see you moving derived terms to usage examples, contrary to WT:EL and common practice. Please start a Beer parlour discussion and gain consensus if you want to continue. That is to say, I oppose this. I have no idea what principle could possibly guide such a practice; we surely cannot do the same for all derived term sections since they sometimes contain tens of items, and it cannot be a good thing to separate sense definitions with large list of items that can be comfortably hosted in derived terms section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

mlz‎

Entries like these may not necessarily pass WT:ATTEST. ISO language codes are not included by default; they must meet our attestation requirements like anything else. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

hnout phrases

Hi. The phrase ani mě nehne is linked on the page as a "phrase". Can you explain what it means? Also, it doesn't seem to belong on the page, as I can't see how "ani mě nehne" can be connected to hnout. Pious Eterino (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to go back further in the page's history and ask whoever added this phrase. I only added the "Further reading" section in my recent edit.

ani mě nehne is mentioned in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého: http://ssjc.ujc.cas.cz/search.php?heslo=hnouti&hsubstr=no

nehne is probably a negative form of "hne" (third-person singular form) but I don't know what the phrase means. Hergilei (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation section

Hey, so you've been adding the rhymes incorrectly on many pages, which means I have to go through and clean them up. Polish rhymes start from the second to last vowel (or last vowel if monosyllabic) and go to the end. This means some words have really few exact rhymes, such as otwór. Vininn126 (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

PS the IPA module is a bit different than what we're doing for rhymes and we're probably going to update it. Palatalized consonants such as in sierpień are going to include the palatal marker and the /j/ after it, giving /ɕɛrpʲjɛɲ/. Vininn126 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

deletion

Quick note: if you come across empty rhymes categories (or similar), tag them with {{d}}, not {{rfd}}. Ultimateria (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

syllables

Hey. You've been adding rhymes correctly, thanks! Also syllables. But one more thing - we also add the syllable template to even one-syllable words. It's just the entire word. It seems silly, but hey. Vininn126 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Kobylnik

Where did you get kobylnik from? I can't find anything on the internet about it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

http://spxvi.edu.pl/indeks/haslo/58153 also bruckner lists it, so it's a thing. Vininn126 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

See also [[4]] which references K. Modzelewski, Kobylnicy, Encyklopedia historii gospodarczej Polski do 1945 roku, t. 1, red. M. Kamler, Warszawa 1981, s. 311. Hergilei (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

non-lemma forms

Hey! Just so you know I've added acceleration to verbs. Ofc we should be careful and not add anything dubious, like passive participles for intransitive verbs, or personal forms for impersonal verbs, but you don't have to manually do it, just turn on acceleration in your gadgets and you'll get green links in the verb tables. Vininn126 (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I've enabled acceleration but I still don't see any green links. I'm not very technically savvy. Hergilei (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What verb did you check? If they've already been made they'll be blue, not green. Otherwise, I'm not sure. Perhaps the settings change wasn't saved? Vininn126 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They're green today, seems I just had to wait a day for the change to take effect! Yesterday, links were either black or blue. Thanks for the tip, this will a real timesaver! Hergilei (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Also section

So the general concensus is to not include other scripts, so no Cyrillic on Latin pages, or vice versa, and instead only use it for diacritics. Vininn126 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

zabieg

Where did you find the "landing of a stairway" meaning of zabieg? None of the dictionaries linked on that page list it, and the Polish Wikipedia and Doroszewski's dictionary give podest as the equivalent term in Polish. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember, sorry. I'll remove it. Hergilei (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Adjective declensions

Lacking adjective declensions are not incorrect but merely incomplete; by contrast, a reference to PSJC when PSJC does not have the term is incorrect. That is why I notified you of this. Incomplete is fine, incorrect is not. Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple to include adjective declensions, so why don't you? Hergilei (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is added effort and I see it as of low value. I generally hardly ever do inflection: I consider it to be lexicographical trivia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very little effort at all. Quit nitpicking others if you refuse to do something this simple. Hergilei (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not zero effort; it does involve additional typing and verification. Editors are responsible for not entering incorrect items into Wiktionary; incompleteness is fine. I only notified you of the PSJC thing via edit summary so that you know that this problem occurred since I remember you were making exactly the same kind of mistake again and again years ago. You did not like the notification, I figure. If I don't notify you, Wiktionary will contain incorrect items; that's the dilemma. Talk page is probably even worse than notification. In any case, you are doing a lot of great work as you know yourself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Continuing to argue about something so minor but the declensions (mostly just copy-and-paste) are too much "effort"... sure. I have adjusted my editing in response to your complaints in the past but since you can't be bothered to listen to others, I won't be doing so in the future. Hergilei (talk) Hergilei (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The question is quite simple: do you agree that incorrect is much worse than incomplete? I do listen to what you say but you have not made a convincing argument. Since I did enter some inflection tables some time ago, I do have a direct knowledge of how much additional typing and attention it involves. You seem to be focused very differently from myself: e.g. I consider inflected form entries a waste of time. We have to accept that people have different priorities that they cannot impose on each other; I cannot tell you to stop creating inflected form entries and focus on lemmas, and I don't believe anyone has the right to make inflection part of my priorities. The one thing that we can require, I believe, is that people avoid entering incorrect items. It is just a link, I admit, not "information", but it is still incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Czech morphology

In štěpnost, you entered štěpit + -nost as the morphology. Do you have a source for that? To me, this is obviously štěpný + -ost. http://www.slovnikafixu.cz does not have -nost, but maybe you have another source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Podzamcze i Zamek

Why did you undo your edit on zamek? Vininn126 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong location (supposed to be under Etymology 2). Hergilei (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

łódkodziób

Does this actually only refer the members of one genus or does it include the bushbirds in the other genus, too? DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it refers to both. I've updated the entry. Hergilei (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Where were you getting these animals?

You should know, Wikipedia doesn't count towards WT:CFI. Vininn126 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Old Polish

You may or may not know, but I just want to make sure, since this was a practice for a while: M. Arta's Old Polish dictionary shouldn't be used alone for the base of Old Polish entries, it's more like a dictionary of archaic words. You haven't done that, seeing as the Słownik pojęciowy języka staropolskiego links go somewhere, I just want to make sure. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

incorrect pronunciations

Hi. I've come across a number of cases where you seem to have blindly added {{cs-IPA}} to a Czech term without checking whether it needed respelling. Latest example: idiotský. In general, any Czech word made from a foreign word that has the sequences ni, ti or di needs respelling ny/ty/dy. Benwing2 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This information has already been pointed out to me and I've been checking since.

My edit to idiotsky was four years ago.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=idiotsk%C3%BD&diff=51190873&oldid=44985223

Hergilei (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI I have found cases of this dating as late as April 2022. Benwing2 (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

So? I have also made countless respelling edits. Hergilei (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

God damn you are obnoxious and defensive. If you're not willing to make your edits correct, don't make them at all. Benwing2 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)