Talk:जोइ
@Kutchkutch I'm not on agreement with Inqilābī's statement “Whatsoever Turner says is enough”. I feel other information like other senses "joined; connected; used" and that it's the feminine inflection of an adjective is relevant and useful. If it's really so much about sources and referencing we could place a {{R:sa:MW}} or {{R:sa:Apte}} beside that. Svartava2 (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- The only issue about the additional info is that it’s been added by you, and your edits are not always trustworthy. More experienced users like Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, etc. are welcome to add to the existing info, if they wish (and that even includes reverting my edit). It’s always better to be on the safe side; and as the creator of the entry (and as someone who’s been here longer than you), I have the natural right to revert your edit; and any attempt at wheelwarring should get you blocked. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī: I have no intention of edit warring (not wheel warring) that's why I brought it to talk. The senses I added are there in Apte and Monier-Williams. (P.S. you don't even know what wheel warring is, it's warring over an admin action like blocking & unblocking). And stop threatening me about blocks. Svartava2 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- A word may have multiple senses, and in this case an extended sense may have been used.[1]
- @Inqilābī: I have no intention of edit warring (not wheel warring) that's why I brought it to talk. The senses I added are there in Apte and Monier-Williams. (P.S. you don't even know what wheel warring is, it's warring over an admin action like blocking & unblocking). And stop threatening me about blocks. Svartava2 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I did not really threat you with a block, but yes, given the way you are damaging this project with your controversial edits (editwarring, creation of controversial templets and tons of resulting categories), you should actually have been blocked much earlier. Anyways, just focus on your useful edits (such as creation of Sanskrit, Hindi, etc. entries); never jump into any controversies or else you risk getting blocked. Lastly, stop pinging me unnecessarily. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Very good strategy indeed — topic diversion. You didn't justify the removal of those relevant senses and information that it's the feminine of योजित. Svartava2 (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are a controversial & unreliable editor, sorry. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't quite understand what you meant. So the information sourced by MW and Apte is controversial & unreliable? Svartava2 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are ever controversial & unreliable, but now the entry really looks good. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't quite understand what you meant. So the information sourced by MW and Apte is controversial & unreliable? Svartava2 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are a controversial & unreliable editor, sorry. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Very good strategy indeed — topic diversion. You didn't justify the removal of those relevant senses and information that it's the feminine of योजित. Svartava2 (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I did not really threat you with a block, but yes, given the way you are damaging this project with your controversial edits (editwarring, creation of controversial templets and tons of resulting categories), you should actually have been blocked much earlier. Anyways, just focus on your useful edits (such as creation of Sanskrit, Hindi, etc. entries); never jump into any controversies or else you risk getting blocked. Lastly, stop pinging me unnecessarily. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Svartava2, Inqilābī This term is listed at {{R:CDIAL|yuvatí|10504}} युवति (yuvatí) without any indication of doubt such as perh. in {{R:ne:Turner}}. Turner's Nepali dictionary is from 1931, while Turner's CDIAL is from 1962-1985. Perhaps {{R:CDIAL}}'s etymology is an update to the earlier etymology in {{R:ne:Turner}}. The u in Sanskrit/Prakrit appears to have changed to o in most of the cognates provided except Romani and (Buddruss) zūī in the Category:Wotapuri-Katarqalai language. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Kutchkutch Thanks for intervening. We both were edit warring, that too for a wrong etymology! It does make sense, even mcgregor supports that. I'm changing it. Svartava2 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)